Boy, this ticks me off. George Bush has purchased a $2+ million dollar home in an exclusive suburb of Dallas. Meanwhile, we poor peons are trying to dig ourselves out of the mess he created, not to mention the poor slobs grinding it out overseas and being shot at.
This guy and his cronies deserve, along with their industrial cronies in the oil and banking industries, to be in a maximum-security, ten-by-six-foot cell, serving time for their crimes and mistakes. What's wrong with America is that the top dogs never have to answer to their errors and misdemeanors.
"The Bushes purchased a home in the Preston Hollow area, where some of the state's wealthiest residents live in some of its most expensive houses... an 8,500-square-foot house with a market value of $2.1 million on a cul-de-sac with about a half-dozen homes. The president is buying his post-White House home at a time of falling real estate prices and lowered mortgage interest rates."
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/B/BUSHS_NEW_HOME?SITE=AP&SECTION=HO...
It's his money. Who are you to complain about the way he spends it?
Should we all live in the same type of home until Pete gets his?
Let him live where he wants to. Geez!
I have a hunch that some of it may be OUR money. Ever notice how many politicians go into retirement as multimillionaires? There's a lot of money to be made in politics... and it's not all made through salaries. A lot of very wealthy people are indebted to GWB for enriching them.
Better check how much money he had before he went to the White House before you judge, Dude!
Ever notice how many politicians go into retirement as multimillionaires? There's a lot of money to be made in politics... and it's not all made through salaries.
YES, this is THE problem with our government. I was thinking about this, and it seems that once someone is elected they get institutionalized into the lobbying world. They can't help themselves---they do it for their OWN future. After all, once they leave office (and unless you are Robert Byrd, everyone eventually leaves), they need jobs. Were do they go? Into lobbying! Just waiting for the next election while indoctrinating the very politicians that beat them. The lobbyists get laws written that enrich them, and politicians play ball, because Hell, they'll need jobs someday. It's a vicious cycle
Pink Slip
...mayor. We might appreciate Carty then.
We all created this mess and has been going on for many years and many presidents. Take your class warfare elsewhere.
I'm not talking about "class warfare". I'm talking about being held accountable.
The lets talk about all of congress too..starting with Barney Frank. That guy should be in jail.
I'm not discounting the Democrats in this. ALL these guys are making millions on the system, Democrats and Republicans. The entire political system is dirty. But what I was zeroing in on was Bush, who leaves office and goes to his new comfortable home, while we are left to deal with his miscalculations and crimes. I'm still angry about his overseas policies that we will spend years paying for and his domestic moves that have impoverished us. The Dems are not blameless, either. The entire system is corrupt!
How are you "left to deal with his miscalculations and crimes?"
Do you have children in uniform in Iraq, lost money in the market meltdown, worried about losing your job, avoid talking on the telephone about intimate or sensitive matters, think that we are in danger of losing our civil liberties, pay more for gas, know someone who defaulted on his mortgage, pissed off about government requests for IDs to enter Goverment Center to pay your taxes, etc,.etc.? We are all paying for his "miscalculations and crimes". The final bill hasn't even hit us yet. Our children will be paying for this for a long time. It's not all W's doing. The Dems went along with the program.
Pete - no disrespect...honest...you didn't answer the question.
Maybe the problem is your not understanding what I mean by "deal with". "Deal with" means to suffer negative consequences, either monetarily, loss of liberties, or in some other objectionable manner.
And Bill Clinton how he profited off the presidency....
Let's see, $2m home. How many workers were emplyed in building it? how much are the real estate taxes, utilties, water, landscaping etc etc. I have a feeling Pete never put to work as many people in his life as GWB did with this one house. And if Pete could afford a house like this is he saying he wouldn't buy it and instead give his money to the underserved?
Here's to the crazy ones, the rebels, the troublemakers, the ones who see things differently -- they're not fond of rules... You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them, but the only thing you can't do is ignore them.
You're missing the point, Fred. The question is not how many benefited from building his $2 million dollar home. The question is how right is it that he goes off into a comfortable retirement after implementing policies that discomforted and impoverished so many Americans, jeopardized our liberties and, yes, cost many their lives for a pack of lies? Our politicians get off scot free and we end up paying for it.
How many workers were emplyed [sic] in building it?
Yes, are how many of those workers were "legal"?
Pink Slip
That's not a question a liberal would ask. Everyone should be able to come to this country to pursue the american dream according to them. I just wonder if he got as good a mortgage deal as Chris Dodd.
Here's to the crazy ones, the rebels, the troublemakers, the ones who see things differently -- they're not fond of rules... You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them, but the only thing you can't do is ignore them.
LOL you guys think he took your money to buy a 2mil home.
THE GUY OWNED THE F*CKING TEXAS RANGERS!!!!!
In fact he wouldn't even be president had he won a very important election FOR BASEBALL COMMISSIONER. But instead we're stuck with Bud Selig and his All-Star Game ties.
You don't become the owner of ANY sports team in Texas unless you have some serious money to your name. If you want to bitch about the connections his dad got him ok, I'll listen. But he does have a degree from Yale. That tells me he's smarter that probably all of us on here and he probably knows how to work his finances.
MikeyA
Yes, GWB owned the Texas Rangers.
I have a stack of court documents from Arlington that portray the ''sordid and shocking tale'' of the Rangers stadium, as one lawsuit puts it. Essentially, Mr. Bush and the owners' group he led bullied and misled the city into raising taxes to build a $200 million stadium that in effect would be handed over to the Rangers. As part of the deal, the city would even confiscate land from private owners so that the Rangers owners could engage in real estate speculation.
''It was a $200 million transfer to Bush and Rangers owners,'' complains Jim Runzheimer, an anti-tax campaigner in Arlington.
William Eastland, a leading Republican in Arlington, is also outraged, and puts it this way: ''You're using public money for a private purpose.'' Mr. Eastland was a Bush delegate to the Republican National Convention in 2000 but still believes that the Bush group behaved shadily and against the public interest.
He was screwing the public long before he was appointed President by SCOTUS.
Pink Slip
A "threat to our political system"
Do you know why sports teams get so much money from public funds? Because we keep going.
Me, I'm a huge football fan. But I don't watch NFL. A large reason is because of the public money.
Now do I blame the owners? Nope, they're smart businessmen. Hell even the car companies got 25 BILLION ALREADY THIS YEAR for "retooling" from our government. And now they want another 36 Billion. Do I blame them? Nope.
But what I won't do is suggest that the president used illegal means to fund a new home. Sorry that holds no water when the guy is already a multi-millionaire. You can disagree with his policies and decisions. But people on here have suggested that he used his position to get a new home. Hell people on the other side of the aisle said the same thing about Clinton. But they are just as wrong.
MikeyA
Bush's eight-year reign will go down as one of the most disasterous in history. He will be ranked among the five or so worst presidents. He'll never be charged for war crimes, but morally he's at least partly responsible for the needless deaths of 4,209 American soliders as of this date and tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians. As he heads out into the sunset in January, the American economy is collapsing around him on all sides.
Having said all that, the Bush family has been wealthy for generations, he didn't make the money he needs for a multi-million dollar mansion by being president. I find it interesting he needs a house in Dallas while keeping the ranch out in Crawford, but that's his business. Let him sit in it and reflect on the damage he's done to our country. Somehow, though, I don' t think he's capable of reflection.
http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/15-Old-House-Ln-Chappaqua-NY-10514/330... You Dems crack me up ! This is America . Making money is a good thing.
Also, It is Congress that approves and votes for spending and budget decisions.
I can't help but wonder how much money the Bush family lost with two generations serving in the presidency. Their investments are put into a blind trust. They can't touch them or control them. I have to believe that the economic meltdown has hurt the Bush fortune.
Clinton has certainly profited off of the presidency with the huge sums he gets for speeches. Contrast that with Richard Nixon who left the White House with a negative net worth, yet never charged a dime for a post-presidential speech.
Jerry Ford made some money off of the presidency, but I think he deserved it. He didn't ask to be president and we treated him like shit when he served. More power to him.
Reagan was certainly comfortable when he left office, but he was not among the wealthy elite.
Bush the elder has not made much of a business of his post presidential position. He either raises money to help those hit by disaster or behaves like other retirees.
George H. Bush reportedly has an equity stake in the Carlye group, one of the the top 10 ten defence contractors in the world.
W's big Iraqi adventure has mad daddy plenty...
Besides the Bush family is old money, grampa Bush made all that money banking with cetain Axis countries back in the 30's.
Of course, great grampa Bush as major railroad and steel executive who became a major weapon contractor in WWI...
Needless to say the Bush family is old money...
Contrast that with Richard Nixon who left the White House with a negative net worth, yet never charged a dime for a post-presidential speech.
OK, I'm curious as to how you know Nixon left the White house with a negative net worth (he owned houses in San Clemente, Calif. and Key Biscayne, Fla.---both prime real estate properties located on the water. Not coincidently, there were disclosures of taxpayer money used to fix up said houses, but that's another story), and are you conveniently forgetting the $600,000-$1 million (depending on who's telling) he received for the David Frost 'tell-all' interviews in 1977? By the standards of 31 years ago, that's not exactly chump change. He also received a $2.5 million advance for the book RN, published in 1978.
I'm simply pointing out that he, like several other presidents of recent vintage, cashed in on his presidency after leaving office. In fact, he might be among the first to do it--I don't recall LBJ, for example, getting major dough for TV exclusives and book deals.
McCaskey,
What you say is true. However, on August 9, 1974, he owed his lawyers millions and he owed back taxes and penalties for backdating by three days the donation of his vice presidential papers to the national archives in order to receive a larger tax deduction.
He owned the home in San Clemente, but I believe the Key Biscayne property was owned by financier Bebe Rebozo. He was forced to pay back the money for the improvements (most, if not all made for the sake of security), adding to his debt load.
You also have to remember that within two months of leaving the White House, he was near death in the hospital and the congressional Democrats trying to block post-presidential benefits for him, leaving him temporarily without health insurance.
The advance for RN: The Memoirs of Richard Nixon went to his lawyers and other creditors. He ended up making money on it because it was a huge seller. The David Frost interviews provided him financial security
Say what you want about the Nixon presidency, but Nixon was a model for retired presidents. He did not enter policy debates. He did not criticize his successors. He did not charge honoraria for speeches, and represented America well on the world stage where he always commanded respect.
Remember also, Nixon had a presidential election stolen from him. Being a better American than Al Gore or John Kerry, he conceded early and saved millions in recounts, lawsuits, and delegitimizing JFK's presidency.
Nixon's actual tax situation
Suffice to say we will disagree on what constitutes a 'better American'.
I remember there was some question as to why DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe was allowed to guarantee the $1.7 Million dollar loan for Bubba and Hitlery
"The Clintons, indebted by over $5 million in legal bills from the investigations that have marked the Clinton Presidency, were able to buy the white-shingled, five-bedroom home in Chappaqua after Mr. Clinton's chief fund-raiser, Terry McAuliffe, personally secured the loan.
The White House said that Mr. McAuliffe had put up $1.35 million of his own money with Bankers Trust. Under the terms of the mortgage, Mr. McAuliffe will get the money back, with interest from the bank, once the Clintons pay back the mortgage, or, as is more likely, refinance it in five years.
The deal was announced in a three-paragraph statement issued by the temporary press office of the White House -- a room in the Holiday Inn in Auburn, about seven miles from where the Clintons are vacationing in upstate New York. It apparently concludes one of the more unusual house-hunting expeditions embarked on by any American family, complicated by the Clintons' station in life, the fact that they have not owned a home in 16 years and Mrs. Clinton's political ambitions in New York."
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9503E5D8153AF930A3575AC0A...
"The Clinton’s claimed they were pulling out of their initial deal after Judicial Watch sued and called attention to the fact that it was an illegal sweetheart deal the Clinton’s had cooked up with their good friend and chief Democratic fundraiser, Terry McAuliffe. McAuliffe is a witness in a federal case involving corrupt campaign finance activities between the Teamsters and the Democratic National Committee in the 1996 presidential campaign. "
http://www.aim.org/media-monitor/clinton-home-purchase-challenged/
Judicial Watch, Larry Clayman. I remember those names.
Hey, remember the Clintons had Vince Foster killed too. Don't forget that one.
He killed Vince Foster? I thought he was too busy running drugs to have time...
but the ability of the "assassin" was skilled enough to mask the thousands of rounds that perforated Vince's body to look "self-inflicted".
I hope Obama gets to add that "Clintonite" to his administration!
Here, you DNC stooge.
Read the Federal Election Commission complaint submitted to the Senate regarding WHY this loan by your puppet-master Terry McAuliff is possibly ILLEGAL.
http://www.senate.gov/~rpc/releases/1999/eb092799.htm
"Indeed, the FEC has taken the position that loan guarantees made after an unsuccessful election are "for the purpose of influencing" an election -- even when the candidate has promised never to run again. Federal Election Commission v. Ted Haley Congressional Committee, 852 F.2d 1111 (9th Cir. 1988) (upholding an FEC determination that loan guarantees made by friends of the unsuccessful candidate, who borrowed money to pay off his campaign debts, were subject to FECA's contribution limit of $1,000). "
you keep on posting 9 year old press releases as though they have any relevance to the here and now. Has Terry McAuliffe been charged with a crime, been prosecuted, served jail time? Nine years later?
Maybe you overlooked what I had to say early in the thread about Bush's new mansion: I don't give a shit. I don't need to know where the incompetent schmuck lives after he leaves office to know what a laughingstock he's made of himself, his party and the office he's thankfully soon departing from. Don't care where he lives, just glad he's leaving.
Keep on trying Libbers, even a broken clock is right twice a day.
with their hatred of GW. Kerry ran for president and was a multi-millionare. Barak Obama is a millionare...what's the point here. I find it interesting libs want so much detail on GW...such as was he in the national guard, homes he buys, etc. Yet, they don't bother to ask Barak Obama where is freakin' birth certificate is. I hope GW stands on his upper-deck of his new home while smoking a cigar and sneers down his nose at you loser liberals.
I also wonder if we will give GW a reimbursment check...since he had to buy new furniture for the White House after the Clinton's stole so much of it.
Um, where do you find information that the Clinton administration stole white house furniture? Or that GW had to replace any?
Published on Friday, May 18, 2001 in the Kansas City Star
No Truth in Clinton White House Vandal Scandal, GSA Reports
by David Goldstein
Democrats were also okay will Bill Clinton not even serving in the National Guard.
I find it interesting that liberals do not find National Guard service to be honorable and see it only as a dodge. That says a lot about the liberal philosophy.
The issue wasn't George Bush serving in the National Guard, it was that evidence surfaced that he had less than acceptable performance in the Guard, and had perhaps skipped fulfilling his obligations there. His service record is of course open to exploration, he was running for President after all. Questioning Bush's service record isn't an indictment or indication of anyone's feelings toward the National Guard. To say that liberal's don't value national guard service is blatantly untrue.
"The issue wasn't George Bush serving in the National Guard"
Wrong. Just a simple google search of "Bush got out of going to Vietnam" shows a ton of sites who state he did it to get out of serving in Nam.
In fact the Nat. Guard and Coast Guard had plenty of their members serve in Vietnam. Just because Bush's number didn't get called doesn't mean he chose the Guard because he didn't want to go to Vietnam.
Hell someone could say I "went back to school to avoid serving in Iraq". The truth is the opposite. The Marine Corps refused to send me to Iraq when i requested and only then did I request to then go back to school.
As for Bush skipping service obligations this has NEVER been proven. All credible documents show that he was not present at the end of his obligation but since his then CO is deceased it's unknown if he was given permission for being not present. It is not uncommon for a CO to grant such a request at the end of an obligation. Sometimes CO's don't even have a choice as what they call "terminal leave" is allowed. I personally created many waivers such as this so Marines could get out early in order to begin school, take a government job, or aid a financial hardship.
All documents that show otherwise have been PROVEN FALSE.
I'm not saying liberals don't value the Nat Guard but there is a large contingent that have devalued the service in order to make partisan attacks.
MikeyA
I know one can google and find sources that attack bush for "dodging" vietnam. I'm just arguing that it isn't "liberals", it's some liberals.
Just like I won't say "conservatives" are anti-vietnam vets because some used questionable tactics in attacking John Kerry and his service during the 2004 elections.
I'm sorry if I was not clear on the National Guard service obligations - you make a good point for sure. I'm not saying that they were true or not, hell it doesn't even matter now, just that reports had surfaced during the election and hit the airwaves. And it is natural to investigate further when accusations like that come up.
I envied the guys in the National Guard. I remember one in particular who was in a unit from New York. He was taking the teletype repair course that I was. He did not worry about failing, because he'd been told if that happened he would be given something else.
I remember a few guys from a Special Forces Reserve Group from down south. They came from Alabama, and they were required to get a "communications" MOS (military occupation specialty) under their belt. After that they could go back to jumping out of airplanes for the extra $150 a month "jump pay" they got with no worry about Viet Nam. But that was then, and the guys in the Army Reserve and National Guard units since the end of Selective Service are earning their pay, and more.
National Guard service during the Vietnam Era was no cakewalk.. Ask any of the young men from the Canfield, Ohio unit that spent days protecting independent truckers during a strike, then were asked to battle college students at Kent State.
I can't help what might (not) have happened at Kent State on May 4, 1970, had that guard unit been well rested and fresh.
I’ve grown weary of all the blame that President Bush is taking for this country’s financial state. Get to know your Constitution: A US president has very little power—on purpose. The President cannot tax anyone. He cannot spend a dime of OUR money. Who can? Congress. The Democrats-- who have had a clear majority in both houses of Congress since 2006--would not permit regulators to stop the mortgage crisis in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The Republicans fought for regulation: the Democrats blocked it. They are responsible for setting the fiscal policies in place that now are manifesting themselves as an avalanche.
This Investor’s Business Daily article sums it up nicely. http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=306370789279709
Rather than calling Bush names, remarking that he is one of the--if not the worst--president's of all time, it is more fair to say that he is one of the least effective.
As someone who prefers the ideals of the Democratic Party to those of the Republican Party, I cannot defend Clinton's efforts for "free trade". The billions that the Chinese have accumulated in the trade imbalance are a direct result of this "free trade" imbalance. I have to wonder how different the world would be if George Bush, Sr. had won a second term. I saw Kevin Phillips on C-SPAN saying that both parties are responsible for the de-regulation that (he believes) led to this mess. He believes the Republican Party is filled with hypocrites had want "free enterprise" until they actually have to face bankruptcy.
I somewhat agree with you OldSouthEndBrdy--you're an agreeable guy:
I just told someone the other day that I think the "China Syndrome " has been a big problem for us...and I do believe all parties, and those who elected people into positionsof power, are to blame. We can't ever just balme the president, no matter who he/she is...there are so many other factors at work. Chaos theory is at work--you know, a Butterfly in Madagascar flaps its wings a certain way and it upsets the American manufacturing base...Ok, an oversimplification.
Though I am not by any means a Clinton fan, I would not place all the blame on him. Trade imbalances have long been the woe of our country's manufacturing force.
In 1950 something or other, the automakers in this country had 92% market share (read this recently...can't call it up.. and I welcome corrections). In many ways, we cut our own throats by allowing trade imbalances--not just in the auto industry, of course, but in all aspects of manufacturing. But if we just look at autos, we can see that we permit so much external competition in the interest of feel-good, do-good globalization, yet the American worker is the one who pays the price. I am looking to find a book on this subject...so that I can learn more about what drove the country to start the slow erosion of its production ecomony. I am certain that it is money, and that someone here stood to benefit as much, if not more, than those abroad.
And as for the hypocrites comment made by Kevin Phillips on C-Span makes sense, doesn't it? I'm not sure it refers to only Republicans, however. There is an "It's a Small World" mentality in this country that embraces all things global, but when it comes down to it, countries fend for themselves. We haven't done that very well lately.