Bush is just such a buffoon

#302
#302
Uh huh....

Unfortunately for us, the measures Lincoln established to win the Civil War are consequences we are paying for today.
 
#307
#307
OrangeEmpire said:
Yeah, good thing Clinton engineered the internet boom!

Just imagine what Hillary will do for us!
Click to expand...

Well, he did engineer a balanced budget, and supposedly the economy has been pretty strong according to many on here, so why shouldn't the budget be balanced after 7 years of the Bush administration?
 
#308
#308
TennNC said:
Well, he did engineer a balanced budget, and supposedly the economy has been pretty strong according to many on here, so why shouldn't the budget be balanced after 7 years of the Bush administration?
Click to expand...

Bush decided he was going to open the floodgate and throw money at every thing he could find!
 
#312
#312
OrangeEmpire said:
No doubt about that......... I have no problem with Afghan.
Click to expand...

I think most people feel the same way. Though very few of us civilians/citizens knew this at the time - we trusted our leaders to make the right decisions, and that didn't turn out so good.
 
#313
#313
Afghan is a good start at ridding the world of terrorist.

We had to get a foothold some where.

I have no idea why Bush went into Iraq...........
 
#314
#314
TennNC said:
Why do Republicans, who are so in favor of getting the government out of their lives, fight so vigorously for government control over a woman's reproductive decisions?
Click to expand...

Republicans like Democrats have internally conflicting values.

Both have claims of getting government "out" of things but then adovocate government getting "into" things.
 
#315
#315
OrangeEmpire said:
Afghan is a good start at ridding the world of terrorist.

We had to get a foothold some where.

I have no idea why Bush went into Iraq...........
Click to expand...

OE, when we strip away the labels, I think you and I agree more than we disagree.
 
#316
#316
TennNC said:
Well, he did engineer a balanced budget, and supposedly the economy has been pretty strong according to many on here, so why shouldn't the budget be balanced after 7 years of the Bush administration?
Click to expand...


The economy has been strong - the rapid expansion (and unsustainable) of the economy allowed the surplus - revenues grew to quickly for Clinton and Congress to spend them.

Even without Bush's free spending ways, the recession of 2000-2001 and general increases in spending would have made those surpluses go poof.

Finally, calling the economic growth of 1998 and 1999 a sign of a strong economy is debatable. Too much or too little growth causes later cycles. Other than that though, we've really had it pretty good historically speaking under both Clinton and Bush
 
#317
#317
volinbham said:
Republicans like Democrats have internally conflicting values.

Both have claims of getting government "out" of things but then adovocate government getting "into" things.
Click to expand...

I know it's a complicated issue, and I can't imagine a scenario in which my wife and I would ever contemplate abortion.

But I'm also not a pregnant, 14-year-old poor, inner-city girl being raised by a single parent, for example. And I'm not quite so sure bringing that baby in the world is something the government should ever mandate, no matter how horrible the act of abortion is.
 
#319
#319
TennNC said:
I know it's a complicated issue, and I can't imagine a scenario in which my wife and I would ever contemplate abortion.

But I'm also not a pregnant, 14-year-old poor, inner-city girl being raised by a single parent, for example. And I'm not quite so sure bringing that baby in the world is something the government should ever mandate, no matter how horrible the act of abortion is.
Click to expand...

It's very complicated and I share your view on it. Somewhere though I can't shake the thought that it's not a telling what to do issue - it's a protection of one life against the desires of another life issue.

I'm really on the fence on this issue and it's not a policy matter that I use to evaluate candidates.
 
#320
#320
TennNC said:
Minor clarifying point, but I was referring to the past few years of the Bush admin., not the last two of Clinton's.
Click to expand...


I hear you. Just pointing out that what is considered a strong economy is a floating definition.

By most accounts though Clinton and Bush will end up with about 6 out of 8 being historically good years economy-wise.

I'm also of the opinion that the POTUS doesn't have as much impact on the economy as most give credit for or blame for.
 
#321
#321
volinbham said:
It's very complicated and I share your view on it. Somewhere though I can't shake the thought that it's not a telling what to do issue - it's a protection of one life against the desires of another life issue.

I'm really on the fence on this issue and it's not a policy matter that I use to evaluate candidates.
Click to expand...

I'm the same way.

It's one of the emotional issues where I sympathize with both sides and try not to hold it against anyone who feels strongly either way. Most people's intentions are sincere and compassionate on this issue.
 
#323
#323
TennNC said:
Agreed.

But they do have more power over government spending.
Click to expand...

Which brings us back to the surpluses. I'm not discounting the importance of having surpluses nor Clinton's role.

However, if you look at how he "achieved them" it wasn't by cutting spending or even accurately predicting revenue growth. He had spending somewhat in line with revenue then "poof" the economy went nuts and it's surplus city.

It's the "projected surpluses" that are tossed around as evidence of how bad Bush's economic policy is/was that drive me nuts. Those projected surpluses were based on assumptions that were flawed. 4 more years of Clinton, Gore or whoever would not have changed that. The surpluses were gone regardless.
 
#324
#324
TennNC said:
Any democrat? Like that god-awful Clinton presidency that resulted in budget surpluses?
Click to expand...

just to clarify that there were only surpluses created by using the fubar accounting of the WH. Reg accounting rules would have still shown a deficit. Not a huge one but it still was more of a mythical surplus.
 
#325
#325
utvolpj said:
just to clarify that there were only surpluses created by using the fubar accounting of the WH. Reg accounting rules would have still shown a deficit. Not a huge one but it still was more of a mythical surplus.
Click to expand...


One cannot with straight face defend what the Bush Administration has done (or if you prefer, allowed) in terms of the budget. To spend hundreds of billions on the war while at the same time authoring tax cuts and tax incentives for the folks he did is beyond irresponsible. He has doomed the middle class of this country to decades of paying off the debt that, regardless of whether there would have been some, was made infinitely worse by the Bush Administration.

True conservatives are even more appalled than Democrats. Only die-hard administration apologists even meekly try to defend it.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top