RafaelRGarcia (talk | contribs) |
Ice Cold Beer (talk | contribs) m Reverted edits by RafaelRGarcia (talk) to last version by Ice Cold Beer |
||
Line 161: | Line 161: | ||
That would be correct if that were the only standard economists used to measure recessions. Unfortunately they don't. [[User:RTRimmel|RTRimmel]] ([[User talk:RTRimmel|talk]]) 14:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC) |
That would be correct if that were the only standard economists used to measure recessions. Unfortunately they don't. [[User:RTRimmel|RTRimmel]] ([[User talk:RTRimmel|talk]]) 14:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC) |
||
To put it bluntly, the crisis occurred 7 years into Bush's term. It came as a shock to no one in the financial markets, though few could have properly estimated the depth of the crisis. Bush attempted to push the control of Fanny and Freddy over to congress, so they would be in control and ultimately would get the blame for their collapse. Congress said no, they were not nearly stupid enough and they well understood that it was going to hit the fan soon. The President of the US has a great number of rather large economic hammers, such as the Treasury, FDIC, controller of currency and the Federal Reserve that all can put a massive amount of control into the economy, as was each offices intent. And to be clear, Bush's people are in each office and each office reports to the PotUS. Bush is not solely responsible. But as individuals go, he is one of the most responsible because as individuals go his has a massive amount of power and as such there are a great number of faults that can be directly assigned to his person, his attitudes, and his viewpoint of economics and they deserve to go into this article. [[User:RTRimmel|RTRimmel]] ([[User talk:RTRimmel|talk]]) 07:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:47, 7 December 2008
George W. Bush has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Template:USP-Article Template:WP1.0
|
Template:FAOL Template:Maintained
Dab page
George W. is a dab page. It used to redirect here. Should it be moved to George W. (disambiguation), and the redirect reinstated? Rich Farmbrough, 03:04 23 October 2008 (UTC).
- I think it's fine as is. Makes searching for other biographies with similar name easier.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Current President
George W Bush is not the current president==
- Yes he is until January.129.67.157.174 (talk) 18:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Religion!
Please change 2 Methodist Christian (UMC) please thankyou —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.14.77 (talk) 14:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Huh? What's wrong with United Methodist? -- Zsero (talk) 14:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- United Methodist is correct. When GWBush married Laura, he switched from Presbyterian to her denomination, the United Methodist Church. - auburnpilot talk 05:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- I thought he was Episcopalian before he married Laura? Oh well, it doesn't really matter. Happyme22 (talk) 06:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- According to The Faiths of the Founding Fathers by David Lynn Holmes, Bush was raised in both the Episcopal and Presbyterian churches. He attended St. Martin's Episcopal Church in Houston before attending the First Presbyterian Church in Midland. When he met and married Laura, he then began attending the First United Methodist Church of Midland. To make things even more confusing, GWBush and Laura have been attending St. John's Episcopal Church since living in the White House. Easy enough, right? ;-) - auburnpilot talk 06:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- I thought he was Episcopalian before he married Laura? Oh well, it doesn't really matter. Happyme22 (talk) 06:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- United Methodist is correct. When GWBush married Laura, he switched from Presbyterian to her denomination, the United Methodist Church. - auburnpilot talk 05:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
too religiously biased to be honest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.179.15.3 (talk) 09:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Political positions of George W. Bush
Similar to Political positions of Hillary Rodham Clinton or Political positions of Barack Obama, i think we need a Political positions of George W. Bush article. If someone could please start that, thanks. : ].--cooljuno411 00:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- It's a good idea. I'd be willing to, eventually of course. It would be a lengthy project. Happyme22 (talk) 23:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- I created the page and put a sub-section with a "main article" link on this page, just like in Obama's and Clinton's main article. The new page is VERY stubby, I created it in hopes of getting the rock rolling.--cooljuno411 06:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Please help expand Political positions of George W. Bush.--cooljuno411 05:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Noteworthy?
- Bush pardons 14 and commutes 2 prison sentences CaribDigita (talk) 04:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- Bush has only issued about half the number of pardons as the last two two-term presidents (Reagan and Clinton), so its possibly noteworthy from that standpoint, but we'd need to wait until the end of his term before we can know the true number. - auburnpilot's sock 05:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- It's noteworthy, worth about a sentence or two. One if its just for the total number of pardons and a mention of the reduced number provided unless he does alot at the end of his term like some presidents. Another for any noteworthy pardons, like Scooter Libby and anyone else that has been in the news. RTRimmel (talk) 12:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Rumors and Facts
In the 2000 primary Bush's campaign "was controversial for the use of telephone poll questions implying that McCain had fathered an illegitimate child with an African-American woman" Bush's campaign started a rumor that Al Gore "invented the internet". Kerry was swiftboated. Its not like Bush has some sort of track record that indicates he played fair under any of his campaigns with Rove at the head and furthermore Rove is known to play dirty like this and Rove was his campaing manager during the Texas campaign. We have a cite that says what he did during his race for the Governorship of Texas and we can find multiple additional cites to back this. Exactally what is the problem? Is this any less noteworthy than the tactics he used in his other campaigns? When a rumor leads to a real election, then that rumor is noteworthy and we have rumors in both presidential races that were patently false that allowed Bush to win. Is the Governorship any different? RTRimmel (talk) 18:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
In case you are wondering:
Would [they] be more or less likely to vote for Governor Richards if [they] knew her staff is dominated by lesbians.
Which Rove denied allowed Bush to win, this Push Polling is similar to another:
Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for John McCain for president if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?
Which Rove also denied. It should be noted that the first push poll is considered by some to the halmark of Rove's style, but we aren't talking about Rove here we are talking about fortunate and well funded concidences during Bush's campaigns which allowed him to win through underhanded methods. Both polls are a matter of public record. RTRimmel (talk) 18:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- All well and good, except that the BLP is about George W. Bush, not Karl Rove or Karl Rove's campaign tactics. The Atlantic article cited, clearly centers on Karl Rove's ability to use dirty tricks to get his candidates elected. The article does not assert that Karl Rove or GWB ever called Ann Richards a lesbian, merely that it was a rumor during the campaign. Guilt by association is verbotten in BLPs, as is contentious, coatrack-type material. I might suggest that these statements (which I have attempted to NPOV-ize a bit) are better suited to a BLP on Karl Rove or an article on the 1994 Texas Gubernatorial Election. Newguy34 (talk) 18:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- And, The Magnificent Clean-keeper has helped us do just that with his recent edit. Case closed, IMO. Newguy34 (talk) 19:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- Any concerns left after this [1] ? And by the way, a rumor is not a fact but spreading a rumor can be one.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- All is happy by me. I still don't think this particular info belongs in this BLP, but I won't object any further. Newguy34 (talk) 20:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- Well, then see it as a compromise. No one (including me) is always 100% conform and happy with articles in general. Being somehow "fine" or "ok" with it is as far as it gets most of the time. Happy Holydays, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Jan 20
At what time on January 20 do we show Bush as no longer the incumbent? Exactly at noon, or otherwise?Saberwolf116 (talk) 01:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- When Obama takes the oath of office. That should be at exactly noon EST. Happyme22 (talk) 01:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- What counts as having taken the oath, in other words, precisely when should the wording of this article change? Also, there are lots of wordings in the article text that suggest he is currently president, or speak from that perspective. Is someone laboring away at a new article that will comprehensively place him in the past tense? 86.128.239.96 (talk) 22:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Bush will cease being, and Obama will become, the President at noon of January 20. The oath isn't required for the transfer to take place. Obama's taking of the oath is necessary for him to exercise the Presidential powers. SMP0328. (talk) 23:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Should we be reviewing the "past tense" article now? Just to get ready. Also because personally I can't wait. :-) ViewFromTheWest (talk) 19:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- Bush will cease being, and Obama will become, the President at noon of January 20. The oath isn't required for the transfer to take place. Obama's taking of the oath is necessary for him to exercise the Presidential powers. SMP0328. (talk) 23:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- What counts as having taken the oath, in other words, precisely when should the wording of this article change? Also, there are lots of wordings in the article text that suggest he is currently president, or speak from that perspective. Is someone laboring away at a new article that will comprehensively place him in the past tense? 86.128.239.96 (talk) 22:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Logic error?
"Bush's 2.5% margin of victory was the narrowest for a victorious incumbent President up for re-election since Woodrow Wilson's 3.1% margin of victory against Charles Evans Hughes in 1916."
How does that make any sense? This is in his 2004 term section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.85.227 (talk) 03:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- The margin by which President Bush was reelected was the smallest since President Wilson was reelected. 2.5% is smaller than 3.1%. Does that help? SMP0328. (talk) 04:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't it also mention that he received more votes then any presidential candidate in history? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.23.114.159 (talk) 22:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Don't worry, I'm sure the Obama page will be updated shortly with his 69 million votes, 7 million more than the 2nd highest vote getter ever, George W Bush. Obama's successor is likely to get even more votes than him! Just like nearly every other president in US history. My oh my, stop the presses, every 4-8 years we have an amazing first that has never happened before, right on schedule. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.88.40.89 (talk) 03:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- Considering how the country has greatly increased in population and the expansion of the franchise, saying who has received the most popular votes for President isn't noteworthy and would be deceptive. For example, how many popular votes would George Washington have received if the same number of people who voted for President in 2008 did so in 1789. SMP0328. (talk) 03:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- As has been mentioned repeatedly by everyone, the increase in population has far more to do with the most votes ever than anything else. If Obama or the President after him somehow managed to get an utterly overwhelming margin that looked like it had a snowball's chance of staying a record for more than 8 years I could see it, an 80-20 split with a candidate getting 100 million votes or something, but short of that highly unlikely circumstance I don't see the point. RTRimmel (talk) 05:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Economic News
Tightened up the Economic section somewhat and replaced the outdated info with some more current stuff. We may want to revise the Many economists over to a simple statement that this is the worst recession since the Great Depression as it qualifies easily by any metric. RTRimmel (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately saying this recession is the worst since the Great depression would be incorrect. Just 14 years ago, the unemployment rate hit todays same percentage level. And far from the levels of 20% unemployment in the 1970's. The Torchbearer (talk) 01:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
That would be correct if that were the only standard economists used to measure recessions. Unfortunately they don't. RTRimmel (talk) 14:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)