(04-25-2016 05:40 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(04-24-2016 06:38 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-24-2016 10:43 AM)bullet Wrote:  Say what you will about his ability as president, I'm just amazed by these people who vilify the Bush's personally.

well people tend to do that when you start a war (on false pretenses no less) then partake in economic concepts that favor the rich over the poor and give no respect to the consequences of throwing our budget out of whack.

The last time I checked...The planes on 9/11were not flow by W. He may have fcked up..but..Congress approved the actions as did most Americans. I was more upset by his piss poor handling of Katrina than the war.

In other words, pass the buck, ignore his own actions, then live in a false sense of reality that 9/11 was somehow legitimate justification for Iraq.

terrific

(04-25-2016 07:43 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-25-2016 05:40 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(04-24-2016 06:38 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-24-2016 10:43 AM)bullet Wrote:  Say what you will about his ability as president, I'm just amazed by these people who vilify the Bush's personally.

well people tend to do that when you start a war (on false pretenses no less) then partake in economic concepts that favor the rich over the poor and give no respect to the consequences of throwing our budget out of whack.

The last time I checked...The planes on 9/11were not flow by W. He may have fcked up..but..Congress approved the actions as did most Americans. I was more upset by his piss poor handling of Katrina than the war.

In other words, pass the buck, ignore his own actions, then live in a false sense of reality that 9/11 was somehow legitimate justification for Iraq.

terrific

This game has been played. Are we going to go back to Clinton not getting Osama or how about arming the Afghans against the Soviets? Probably can go back further than that to assign blame.

(04-25-2016 07:45 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(04-25-2016 07:43 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-25-2016 05:40 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(04-24-2016 06:38 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-24-2016 10:43 AM)bullet Wrote:  Say what you will about his ability as president, I'm just amazed by these people who vilify the Bush's personally.

well people tend to do that when you start a war (on false pretenses no less) then partake in economic concepts that favor the rich over the poor and give no respect to the consequences of throwing our budget out of whack.

The last time I checked...The planes on 9/11were not flow by W. He may have fcked up..but..Congress approved the actions as did most Americans. I was more upset by his piss poor handling of Katrina than the war.

In other words, pass the buck, ignore his own actions, then live in a false sense of reality that 9/11 was somehow legitimate justification for Iraq.

terrific

This game has been played. Are we going to go back to Clinton not getting Osama or how about arming the Afghans against the Soviets? Probably can go back further than that to assign blame.

what the hell are you talking about? nowhere in this thread am I blaming bush for causing 9/11. what I am blaming him for is making three stupid fiscal decisions in a row (part D, tax cuts, iraq war) with an emphasis on the last one as it was started under false pretenses and had some severe ramifications (all of those decisions did, but a war kicks things up a notch). so for him to make said decisions with zero disregard for the consequences of them does in fact negatively reflect on the nature of ones moral character.

Quote:Lucas said from that he learned that a measure of someone’s character is how they treat people who can do nothing for them.

This here pretty much says it. Compare this to Hillary Clinton who is notoriously rude to secret service agents and white house staff.

(04-25-2016 07:27 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I'm no fan of W. He screwed the pooch. Obama has been no better.


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


This is categorically wrong. I can show you metric after metric where you are wrong. You can come back with excuses and opinions but at the end opinion aren't facts and at the brass tacks of it you need facts. That's truly the only way to argue it. You don't want to, because if you truly believe that Obama was no better, your argument holds no water.

Using FACTS:

Give me one metric that hasn't improved under Obama's stewardship. That would be easier. I can literally give you a dozen economic indicators that show improvement in trajectory and scope. It's not a contest.

2011: "Obama's hands are completely tied to do anything meaningful because of an obstructionist GOP congress that cares more about making Obama a one-term president than fixing things!"

2016: "Hail Obama! One of the greatest presidents ever! He had everything to do with the recovery!"

(04-25-2016 07:39 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-24-2016 08:21 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-24-2016 06:38 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-24-2016 10:43 AM)bullet Wrote:  Say what you will about his ability as president, I'm just amazed by these people who vilify the Bush's personally.

well people tend to do that when you start a war (on false pretenses no less) then partake in economic concepts that favor the rich over the poor and give no respect to the consequences of throwing our budget out of whack.

In other words, partisan hacks with limited thinking ability dislike anyone who disagrees with them.

like I said. if you want to vilify Bush II personally, doing so is totally justified based on the above reasons. Bush I is a different story.

If you buy Bush lied, people died, yes you are acting like a mindless partisan hack. Everybody believed Sadaam had chemical weapons since he wanted everyone to believe that and he had used them before. The information was flimsy, but the circumstantial evidence was very big, so Bush believed incorrect information.

Bush did push for tax cuts to try to jump start the economy after 9/11 and create more jobs. Wealthy got more in absolute terms. That's a fact. Its also a fact that millions of lower income people got completely out of paying income tax and that in percentage terms, lower income people got bigger tax cuts. Bush setup the medicare drug benefit which helped middle income and poor people get drugs that saved lives. He created No Child Left Behind, which forced schools to quit ignoring lower income and special needs kids as they got evaluated on how they did with all groups. If that's your definition of favoring rich over poor and that Bush is evil for those things, yes, partisan hack.

Obama has lead an economy that forces middle income people to struggle so much that we have Sanders and Trump and a massive spike in suicides. If that represents an excellent job, you have pretty low standards.

Bush had keeping the nation safe as his priority. He did spend more than he had and didn't rein in the Senate enough. But he had short term priorities that he viewed as more important. You can criticize his priorities, but if you think that's evil, yes, partisan hack.

W. made it hard for a white man to become president.

W. severely underestimated how much it would take to "win the peace" in Iraq.
W. severely underestimated how unstable the real estate bubble was and allowed a big recession.
W. severely underestimated how institutionalized the Republicans in Congress were. He gave Congress wide leeway as he did the legislature in Texas and the Republicans spent and earmarked like a bunch of drunken Democrats.

Those are all legitimate criticisms that I think he would agree with himself. Those are decision making issues, not character.

(04-25-2016 08:10 AM)bullet Wrote:  W. severely underestimated how much it would take to "win the peace" in Iraq.
W. severely underestimated how unstable the real estate bubble was and allowed a big recession.
W. severely underestimated how institutionalized the Republicans in Congress were. He gave Congress wide leeway as he did the legislature in Texas and the Republicans spent and earmarked like a bunch of drunken Democrats.

Those are all legitimate criticisms that I think he would agree with himself. Those are decision making issues, not character.

Yep, plus hindsight is always 20/20.

The problem with this discussion is that the Bush supporters are left pretty much with nothing but to complain about how bad Obama was and is, and the Obama supporters are left pretty much with nothing but to complain about how bad Bush was. Both sides can do nothing but complain how bad the other is.

Yes, the economic numbers are better today than 2008. We were in a recession in 2008. The numbers should be a lot better today, no matter who was president or what he did. The economy is not fundamentally sounder, it's just at a different place in the cycle.

Yes, we were probably safer in 2006 than we are today. The world is a more dangerous place for reasons unrelated to who is in the white house. Neither Bush nor Obama dealt effectively with the real safety and security threats.

Bernie and Trump are evidence of nothing so much as extreme dissatisfaction with the poor quality of leadership from both Bush and Obama. That's what you get when you have ideologues instead of statesmen in charge.

(04-25-2016 07:53 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-25-2016 07:45 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(04-25-2016 07:43 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-25-2016 05:40 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(04-24-2016 06:38 PM)john01992 Wrote:  well people tend to do that when you start a war (on false pretenses no less) then partake in economic concepts that favor the rich over the poor and give no respect to the consequences of throwing our budget out of whack.

The last time I checked...The planes on 9/11were not flow by W. He may have fcked up..but..Congress approved the actions as did most Americans. I was more upset by his piss poor handling of Katrina than the war.

In other words, pass the buck, ignore his own actions, then live in a false sense of reality that 9/11 was somehow legitimate justification for Iraq.

terrific

This game has been played. Are we going to go back to Clinton not getting Osama or how about arming the Afghans against the Soviets? Probably can go back further than that to assign blame.

what the hell are you talking about? nowhere in this thread am I blaming bush for causing 9/11. what I am blaming him for is making three stupid fiscal decisions in a row (part D, tax cuts, iraq war) with an emphasis on the last one as it was started under false pretenses and had some severe ramifications (all of those decisions did, but a war kicks things up a notch). so for him to make said decisions with zero disregard for the consequences of them does in fact negatively reflect on the nature of ones moral character.

As for part D, if you end up middle class with limited assets like the majority of Americans when you are old, and those 4 prescriptions only require a small co-pay instead of $250 apiece, you can thank George W. Bush that you don't have to decide which of your medicines you will take that month. Remember that. You won't have to play Russian roulette with your health. It wasn't Bill Clinton or Barack Obama. And W. didn't do everything he wanted-they left the donut hole because they simply couldn't fund it all.

(04-25-2016 08:05 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  W. made it hard for a white man to become president.

He made it hard for a republican to become president.

(04-25-2016 08:16 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The problem with this discussion is that the Bush supporters are left pretty much with nothing but to complain about how bad Obama was and is, and the Obama supporters are left pretty much with nothing but to complain about how bad Bush was. Both sides can do nothing but complain how bad the other is.

Yes, the economic numbers are better today than 2008. We were in a recession in 2008. The numbers should be a lot better today, no matter who was president or what he did. The economy is not fundamentally sounder, it's just at a different place in the cycle.

Yes, we were probably safer in 2006 than we are today. The world is a more dangerous place for reasons unrelated to who is in the white house. Neither Bush nor Obama dealt effectively with the real safety and security threats.

Bernie and Trump are evidence of nothing so much as extreme dissatisfaction with the poor quality of leadership from both Bush and Obama. That's what you get when you have ideologues instead of statesmen in charge.

Finally a voice of reason.

(04-25-2016 08:17 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-25-2016 08:05 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  W. made it hard for a white man to become president.

He made it hard for a republican to become president.

He made it hard for a Republican in 2008 or for his brother ever.

W changed tremendously between Austin and Washington, and not for the better. Remember, when he ran for re-election as governor, he was endorsed by, among others, democrat LtGov Bob Bullock (Texas allows split tickets).

I think the change was Cheney, but don't know that for a fact. I'm told by mutual friends that Barbara Bush believes that, but again that's second-hand information.

Bush was a good governor. That being said, I remember that my first reaction to the news that he was the leading republican contender for the 2000 nomination was surprise. I thought he was great in Austin, but not ready for the big stage. And when he picked Cheney as running mate, I decided that I could not support him, no matter how bad I thought Al Gore would be. I was disappointed that events proved me right, although I still think he was better than Gore would have been.

I remember an article by Paul Burka, I think in Texas Monthly, entitled, "Who are you, and what have you done with my governor?" Burka is a liberal democrat who supported Bush against Gore because of his respect for the job Bush had done in Austin, but was then badly disappointed by the Washington Bush. It really was like two different people.

(04-25-2016 08:01 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-25-2016 07:39 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-24-2016 08:21 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-24-2016 06:38 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-24-2016 10:43 AM)bullet Wrote:  Say what you will about his ability as president, I'm just amazed by these people who vilify the Bush's personally.

well people tend to do that when you start a war (on false pretenses no less) then partake in economic concepts that favor the rich over the poor and give no respect to the consequences of throwing our budget out of whack.

In other words, partisan hacks with limited thinking ability dislike anyone who disagrees with them.

like I said. if you want to vilify Bush II personally, doing so is totally justified based on the above reasons. Bush I is a different story.

If you buy Bush lied, people died, yes you are acting like a mindless partisan hack. Everybody believed Sadaam had chemical weapons since he wanted everyone to believe that and he had used them before. The information was flimsy, but the circumstantial evidence was very big, so Bush believed incorrect information.

Bush did push for tax cuts to try to jump start the economy after 9/11 and create more jobs. Wealthy got more in absolute terms. That's a fact. Its also a fact that millions of lower income people got completely out of paying income tax and that in percentage terms, lower income people got bigger tax cuts. Bush setup the medicare drug benefit which helped middle income and poor people get drugs that saved lives. He created No Child Left Behind, which forced schools to quit ignoring lower income and special needs kids as they got evaluated on how they did with all groups. If that's your definition of favoring rich over poor and that Bush is evil for those things, yes, partisan hack.

Obama has lead an economy that forces middle income people to struggle so much that we have Sanders and Trump and a massive spike in suicides. If that represents an excellent job, you have pretty low standards.

Bush had keeping the nation safe as his priority. He did spend more than he had and didn't rein in the Senate enough. But he had short term priorities that he viewed as more important. You can criticize his priorities, but if you think that's evil, yes, partisan hack.

1. Everyone believed there were chemical weapons because of the Bush Administration pushing that lie.

2. You keep pushing this 9/11 recession myth omitting that the tax cuts were proposed and already passed prior to 9/11. now that's a fact. whether the recession was the cause of 9/11, whether the tax cuts would have been enacted with or without a recession, with or without 9/11, the true motives of the tax cuts, and whether the recession was bound to happen with or without a major terrorist attack is all the subject to speculation on our part on what we *think* the truth is. often what we *think.* like I said, you omit facts such as the tax cuts predating 9/11 and this ashine notion that "lower income people got bigger tax cuts."

3. We have gone over Part D too many times in one week, you refuse to acknowledge the reality on this because IMO, there is very little Bush can do wrong in your eyes. With NCLB Bush had his heart in the right place, however that act is considered a failure that did more harm than good. IIRC wasn't one of the complaints about it being that NCLB tried to encourage schools to have better scores by penalizing low performing schools and rewarding high performing ones with more funding. sounds good on paper until you realize low performing schools are usually in poor areas and high performing ones are in rich areas which is pretty much the opposite of what you are trying to argue.

(04-25-2016 08:16 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-25-2016 07:53 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-25-2016 07:45 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(04-25-2016 07:43 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-25-2016 05:40 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  The last time I checked...The planes on 9/11were not flow by W. He may have fcked up..but..Congress approved the actions as did most Americans. I was more upset by his piss poor handling of Katrina than the war.

In other words, pass the buck, ignore his own actions, then live in a false sense of reality that 9/11 was somehow legitimate justification for Iraq.

terrific

This game has been played. Are we going to go back to Clinton not getting Osama or how about arming the Afghans against the Soviets? Probably can go back further than that to assign blame.

what the hell are you talking about? nowhere in this thread am I blaming bush for causing 9/11. what I am blaming him for is making three stupid fiscal decisions in a row (part D, tax cuts, iraq war) with an emphasis on the last one as it was started under false pretenses and had some severe ramifications (all of those decisions did, but a war kicks things up a notch). so for him to make said decisions with zero disregard for the consequences of them does in fact negatively reflect on the nature of ones moral character.

As for part D, if you end up middle class with limited assets like the majority of Americans when you are old, and those 4 prescriptions only require a small co-pay instead of $250 apiece, you can thank George W. Bush that you don't have to decide which of your medicines you will take that month. Remember that. You won't have to play Russian roulette with your health. It wasn't Bill Clinton or Barack Obama. And W. didn't do everything he wanted-they left the donut hole because they simply couldn't fund it all.

as I have pointed out before. When Bernie Sanders and the Democrats are strongly opposed to a massive entitlement spending bill...something doesn't add up.

(04-25-2016 08:16 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The problem with this discussion is that the Bush supporters are left pretty much with nothing but to complain about how bad Obama was and is, and the Obama supporters are left pretty much with nothing but to complain about how bad Bush was. Both sides can do nothing but complain how bad the other is.

Yes, the economic numbers are better today than 2008. We were in a recession in 2008. The numbers should be a lot better today, no matter who was president or what he did. The economy is not fundamentally sounder, it's just at a different place in the cycle.

Yes, we were probably safer in 2006 than we are today. The world is a more dangerous place for reasons unrelated to who is in the white house. Neither Bush nor Obama dealt effectively with the real safety and security threats.

Bernie and Trump are evidence of nothing so much as extreme dissatisfaction with the poor quality of leadership from both Bush and Obama. That's what you get when you have ideologues instead of statesmen in charge.

this is where I fail to understand where you are coming from. sure you started out on the right tracks but any reasonable person would say that Bush was a failure. We got into a costly middle east conflict that is only continues to backfire on us thanks to ISIS and the worst economic issue since the Great Depression. I really don't see how you can say he was equally as bad to Obama. Obama kept us out of major military interventions and his economic track record is at worst not bad/not good, a best decent.

then you say "bernie and trump are the product of bush and obama" but omit that if not for term limits, Obama would have a reasonable chance of beating Clinton in the primary and trump in the general. so is it really Obama's leadership causing it?

(04-25-2016 08:17 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-25-2016 08:05 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  W. made it hard for a white man to become president.

He made it hard for a republican to become president.

Same thing.

(04-25-2016 08:42 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-25-2016 08:01 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-25-2016 07:39 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-24-2016 08:21 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-24-2016 06:38 PM)john01992 Wrote:  well people tend to do that when you start a war (on false pretenses no less) then partake in economic concepts that favor the rich over the poor and give no respect to the consequences of throwing our budget out of whack.

In other words, partisan hacks with limited thinking ability dislike anyone who disagrees with them.

like I said. if you want to vilify Bush II personally, doing so is totally justified based on the above reasons. Bush I is a different story.

If you buy Bush lied, people died, yes you are acting like a mindless partisan hack. Everybody believed Sadaam had chemical weapons since he wanted everyone to believe that and he had used them before. The information was flimsy, but the circumstantial evidence was very big, so Bush believed incorrect information.

Bush did push for tax cuts to try to jump start the economy after 9/11 and create more jobs. Wealthy got more in absolute terms. That's a fact. Its also a fact that millions of lower income people got completely out of paying income tax and that in percentage terms, lower income people got bigger tax cuts. Bush setup the medicare drug benefit which helped middle income and poor people get drugs that saved lives. He created No Child Left Behind, which forced schools to quit ignoring lower income and special needs kids as they got evaluated on how they did with all groups. If that's your definition of favoring rich over poor and that Bush is evil for those things, yes, partisan hack.

Obama has lead an economy that forces middle income people to struggle so much that we have Sanders and Trump and a massive spike in suicides. If that represents an excellent job, you have pretty low standards.

Bush had keeping the nation safe as his priority. He did spend more than he had and didn't rein in the Senate enough. But he had short term priorities that he viewed as more important. You can criticize his priorities, but if you think that's evil, yes, partisan hack.

1. Everyone believed there were chemical weapons because of the Bush Administration pushing that lie.

2. You keep pushing this 9/11 recession myth omitting that the tax cuts were proposed and already passed prior to 9/11. now that's a fact. whether the recession was the cause of 9/11, whether the tax cuts would have been enacted with or without a recession, with or without 9/11, the true motives of the tax cuts, and whether the recession was bound to happen with or without a major terrorist attack is all the subject to speculation on our part on what we *think* the truth is. often what we *think.* like I said, you omit facts such as the tax cuts predating 9/11 and this ashine notion that "lower income people got bigger tax cuts."

3. We have gone over Part D too many times in one week, you refuse to acknowledge the reality on this because IMO, there is very little Bush can do wrong in your eyes. With NCLB Bush had his heart in the right place, however that act is considered a failure that did more harm than good. IIRC wasn't one of the complaints about it being that NCLB tried to encourage schools to have better scores by penalizing low performing schools and rewarding high performing ones with more funding. sounds good on paper until you realize low performing schools are usually in poor areas and high performing ones are in rich areas which is pretty much the opposite of what you are trying to argue.

That was never a lie...

Quote:From 2004 to 2011, American and American-trained Iraqi troops repeatedly encountered, and on at least six occasions were wounded by, chemical weapons remaining from years earlier in Saddam Hussein’s rule.

In all, American troops secretly reported finding roughly 5,000 chemical warheads, shells or aviation bombs, according to interviews with dozens of participants, Iraqi and American officials, and heavily redacted intelligence documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.

Quote:The New York Times found 17 American service members and seven Iraqi police officers who were exposed to nerve or mustard agents after 2003. American officials said that the actual tally of exposed troops was slightly higher, but that the government’s official count was classified.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/....html?_r=0

(04-25-2016 08:42 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-25-2016 08:01 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-25-2016 07:39 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-24-2016 08:21 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-24-2016 06:38 PM)john01992 Wrote:  well people tend to do that when you start a war (on false pretenses no less) then partake in economic concepts that favor the rich over the poor and give no respect to the consequences of throwing our budget out of whack.

In other words, partisan hacks with limited thinking ability dislike anyone who disagrees with them.

like I said. if you want to vilify Bush II personally, doing so is totally justified based on the above reasons. Bush I is a different story.

If you buy Bush lied, people died, yes you are acting like a mindless partisan hack. Everybody believed Sadaam had chemical weapons since he wanted everyone to believe that and he had used them before. The information was flimsy, but the circumstantial evidence was very big, so Bush believed incorrect information.

Bush did push for tax cuts to try to jump start the economy after 9/11 and create more jobs. Wealthy got more in absolute terms. That's a fact. Its also a fact that millions of lower income people got completely out of paying income tax and that in percentage terms, lower income people got bigger tax cuts. Bush setup the medicare drug benefit which helped middle income and poor people get drugs that saved lives. He created No Child Left Behind, which forced schools to quit ignoring lower income and special needs kids as they got evaluated on how they did with all groups. If that's your definition of favoring rich over poor and that Bush is evil for those things, yes, partisan hack.

Obama has lead an economy that forces middle income people to struggle so much that we have Sanders and Trump and a massive spike in suicides. If that represents an excellent job, you have pretty low standards.

Bush had keeping the nation safe as his priority. He did spend more than he had and didn't rein in the Senate enough. But he had short term priorities that he viewed as more important. You can criticize his priorities, but if you think that's evil, yes, partisan hack.

1. Everyone believed there were chemical weapons because of the Bush Administration pushing that lie.

Sadaam had them. He used them, killing thousands of Kurds. He refused to let people inspect. The only lie it the claim that Bush lied.

2. You keep pushing this 9/11 recession myth omitting that the tax cuts were proposed and already passed prior to 9/11. now that's a fact. whether the recession was the cause of 9/11, whether the tax cuts would have been enacted with or without a recession, with or without 9/11, the true motives of the tax cuts, and whether the recession was bound to happen with or without a major terrorist attack is all the subject to speculation on our part on what we *think* the truth is. often what we *think.* like I said, you omit facts such as the tax cuts predating 9/11 and this ashine notion that "lower income people got bigger tax cuts."

I see you don't let facts get in the way of your opinions. Yes there were tax cuts passed shortly before 9/11, but they were accelerated after the recession caused by 9/11. 9/11 shut down economic activity. It shut down travel. It had an enormous impact. Only a partisan hack can deny that. Now if you are of the opinion that it would have happened anyway, just slower, then that supports the idea that tax cuts should have happened before it to stimulate economic activity.

3. We have gone over Part D too many times in one week, you refuse to acknowledge the reality on this because IMO, there is very little Bush can do wrong in your eyes. With NCLB Bush had his heart in the right place, however that act is considered a failure that did more harm than good. IIRC wasn't one of the complaints about it being that NCLB tried to encourage schools to have better scores by penalizing low performing schools and rewarding high performing ones with more funding. sounds good on paper until you realize low performing schools are usually in poor areas and high performing ones are in rich areas which is pretty much the opposite of what you are trying to argue.

You refuse to acknowledge the reality on Part D because you are a partisan hack with regards to W. who can do no right in your mind.

As for NCLB being a failure, that is the teacher's unions narrative. They hate being held accountable. It needed to be changed. But it was enormously successful is doing what it set out to. No child left behind. Schools just warehoused those kids and did leave them behind. Now they have to try and they collect the data to know how they are doing. What you don't seem to understand is that schools get graded on how they do with each subgroup. If you do well with well to do kids but fail with poor kids in your school, you fail. It forced a totally different mind set, especially in high performing areas.