I think Jeb was the smarter one but not mamas fave,,,,,

just my opinion

They own a lot more than one oil well in texas..lol
i never heard of the bushes owning any weapons factory... sounds like a web-myth...

Half of the dung that people post here is a myth. Sure, they post url's to try and back up their statement, but most of those are just laughable gobbledygook. Either that or partial truths laced thickly with favoritism to whatever party they support.

I applaud Ms Harmony for her statement about us all needing to work together and stop this bickering over right and wrong between parties. Both of the parties are working with their own agenda anyway. It's all about who can give the public the better smoke and mirrors show.

politicians dont "create" a nation, they merely represent it...I would suggest that the problem isnt really the elected officials but has more to do with the people who cast the votes in the first place.

1. I'm comparing Bush to Obama...not Bush to Clinton
2. I can debate without petty name calling.
3. here is my source

Obama's trillions dwarf Bush's 'dangerous' spending
By: Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent
February 24, 2009
President Barack Obama, accompanied by Vice President Joe Biden, are seen in the State Dining Room of the White House in Washington, Monday, Feb. 23, 2009, before they addressed the National Governors Association regarding the economic stimulus package. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)
Pelosi and Reid called Bush's budgets "dangerous" and "unpatriotic," but with Obama, they've changed their tune

Back in 2006, when Democrats were hoping to win control of the House and Senate, party leaders worked themselves into a righteous outrage over the issue of out-of-control federal spending. Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., called the Republican budget “irresponsible” and “unpatriotic” because it increased the amount of U.S. debt held by foreign countries. Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., accused Republicans of going on “an unprecedented and dangerous borrowing spree” and declared GOP leadership “the most fiscally irresponsible in the history of our country … no other president or Congress even comes close.”

You won’t find too many defenders of George W. Bush’s record on spending these days, even among Republicans. But a check of historical tables compiled by the Office of Management and Budget shows that the spending that so distressed Pelosi and Reid seems downright modest today. After beginning with a Clinton-era surplus of $128 billion in fiscal year 2001, the Bush administration racked up deficits of $158 billion in 2002, $378 billion in 2003, $413 billion in 2004, $318 billion in 2005, $248 billion in 2006, $162 billion in 2007, and $410 billion in 2008.

The current administration would kill to have such small numbers. President Barack Obama is unveiling his budget this week, and, in addition to the inherited Bush deficit, he’s adding his own spending at an astonishing pace, projecting annual deficits well beyond $1 trillion in the near future, and, in the rosiest possible scenario, a $533 billion deficit in fiscal year 2013, the last year of Obama’s first term.

And what about the national debt? It increased from $5 trillion to $10 trillion in the Bush years, leading to dramatically higher interest costs. “We pay in interest four times more than we spend on education and four times what it will cost to cover 10 million children with health insurance for five years,” Pelosi said in 2007. “That’s fiscal irresponsibility.”

Now, under Obama, the national debt — and the interest payments — will increase at a far faster rate than during the Bush years.

“We thought the Bush deficits were big at the time,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, told me this week as he prepared to attend Obama’s Fiscal Responsibility Summit. “But this is going to make the previous administration look like rank amateurs. We could be adding multiple trillions to the national debt in the first year.”

At some point last week, the sheer velocity of Obama’s spending proposals began to overwhelm even experienced Washington hands. In the span of four days, we saw the signing of the $787 billion stimulus bill, the rollout of a $275 billion housing proposal, discussion of Congress’s remaining appropriations bills (about $400 billion) and word of a vaguely-defined financial stabilization plan that could ultimately cost $2 trillion. When representatives of GM and Chrysler said they might need $21 billion more to survive, it seemed like small beer.

The numbers are so dizzying that McConnell and his fellow Republicans are trying to “connect the dots” — that is, to explain to the public how all of those discrete spending initiatives add up to a previously unthinkable total. Obama’s current spending proposals, Republicans point out, will cost more than the United States spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the general war on terror and Hurricane Katrina in the last seven years. And that’s before you throw in the $2 trillion fiscal stabilization plan.

“This is big government, man,” McConnell exclaimed, his matter-of-fact manner giving way to sheer amazement. “It makes previous attempts at big government pale in comparison — they’re going to go beyond the New Deal and the Great Society by far.”

The new spending guarantees that the problems that so disturbed Pelosi and Reid just a couple of years ago — high interest payments and an increasing number of foreign debt-holders — will get worse. Yet so far, the Democratic leaders have refrained from using words like unpatriotic, irresponsible and dangerous to describe Obama’s budget.

Of course, they would never use such phrases to attack their own team. But the most important thing to understand about Pelosi and Reid is that while their rhetoric has changed, their substance hasn’t. Back in the Bush days, when they were denouncing Republican over-spending, they were also pushing the congressional leadership to spend more, not less, on just about everything. Now, returned to power, they’re doing the same thing. Only bigger.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Obamas-trillions-dwarf-Bushs-dangerous-spending.html

That is only ONE source there are multiple other sources that say the same thing. Do some research. Oh and for the record I am neither Republican or Democrat I think both parties have gotten two big and that we need to vote in an independent to restore balance between the two instead of a giant pendelum swing drastically to one side than drastically back to the other.

Looks like someone needs to take econ 101 again.

Dems Left-Repubs Right Some Of us Americans are the brains behind our Nations Eagle

for those of you that doubt my sources http://prorev.com/bush2.htm go to that site it will show you the family tree starting with the weapons that his family started making back in the 1700s so as far as my sources and having a dung myth apparently you are mislead my friend

that isn't really proof... it's another bush bashing website... why isn't any of the information in Wikipedia?
when i looked, all wiki said is that they were in the banking business, and Rockefeller was not mentioned...I'll look again, just to make sure...

Bush graduated from the Stevens Institute of Technology at Hoboken, New Jersey in 1884, where he played on one of the earliest regular college football teams. He took an apprenticeship with the Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago and St. Louis Railroad at the Logansport, Indiana shops, later transferring to Dennison, Ohio and Columbus, Ohio, where in 1891 he became Master Mechanic, then in 1894 Superintendent of Motive Power. In 1899, he moved to Milwaukee, Wisconsin to take the position of Superintendent of Motive Power with the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railroad.

In 1901, he returned to Columbus to be General Manager of Buckeye Steel Castings Company, which manufactured railway parts. The company was run by Frank Rockefeller, the brother of oil magnate John D. Rockefeller, and among its clients were the railroads controlled by E. H. Harriman. The Bush and Harriman families would be closely associated at least until the end of World War II. In 1908, Rockefeller retired and Bush became President of Buckeye, a position he would hold until 1927, becoming one of the top industrialists of his generation.

He was the first president of the Ohio Manufacturers Association[2][3], and cofounder of Scioto Country Club and Columbus Academy. He was an avid sports enthusiast and a skilled carpenter.
[edit] Political prominence

In the spring of 1918, banker Bernard Baruch was asked to reorganize the War Industries Board as the U.S. prepared to enter World War I, and placed several prominent businessmen to key posts. Bush became chief of the Ordnance, Small Arms, and Ammunition Section, with national responsibility for government assistance to and relations with munitions companies.

Bush served on the board of the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland (as well as of the Huntington National Bank of Columbus).[2] In 1931, he was appointed to Herbert Hoover's President's Committee for Unemployment Relief, chaired by Walter S. Gifford, then-President of AT&T.[4] He was once recommended to serve on the board of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, but Hoover did not feel he was sufficiently nationally known.[2]

so his great grand father did, but what little bush?

and they still have ties and stock into weapons factories which makes them supporters as well as co owners

looks to me like none of the bushes had anything to do with guns after 1927...feel free to prove me wrong...

Actually Jeb was the favorite. President Bush Senior and Barbara Bush even asked him to hold off on running for Governor of Texas until Jeb got elected Governor of Florida.

How terrible for you this country has checks and balances huh....and it is both the Republicans and Democrats this country is fuc ked........yes blame Clinton for lowering the finance standards because he thought everyone has thr right to own a home and Bush for the war and if you really want to go back Lyndon B Johnson, Grover Cleveland, Roosevelt and so.........talk about instituting programs to sink a ship? Between tax cuts for the wealthy and program costs out of control and out of reach.....yep its politicians mismanagement leaving this country in a finacial mess.....

Really? Why docha just tell us who to vote for since you are the authority on US politics.....maybe you should try chosing between the lesser of two evils over the best man for the job bcs apparently the best man for the job doesn't seem to be throwing his/her hat in the ring? And since Independents do not get a vote in the primaries and the only way to vote in primaries is to register as a Rep or Dem......in your wisened look from outside in give us your very politcally "accurate" view......but personally I just think you make remarks of which you know nothing about....the bill on captiol hill is a source of problematic pork bellying for financial gains.....so even the stuff we want piggy backs the stuff we don't and they call it politics.....

actually, if more people VOTED for those independents , they would have a better chance

I think we do get, in large part, what we ask for

Agreed to bad people are too afraid bcs they don't think another party can win..........people should vote with their true beliefs and not a party bcs they think the one they want won't win....dam catch 22's