George Bush's CV.. This man is a fucking fool.

[Cycleon]

Hillary could be the front runner runner tommorrow but does she want to go up against Bush? noooo sireeee - because she would get clobbered and she knows it - that is why she is waiting till Bush is out to run - in the meantime Dean will win the Dem nomination (you europeans would like him) but he will get slaughtered in the Gen election - because the US has gotten pretty conservative lately - thats what happens when you find out people are trying to kill you

and I wonder what it will be like when I hear the screams of agony as the bombs go off in France, Germany and other parts of EU, who has a growing islamic fundamentalist contingent? - and they think you even more decadent and perverted than they do the US - as I remember the last time terrorists were in France (frequent in 70s), they took whatever measures were needed, torture, etc. to find and stamp it out.

[BOUNCER]

as I remember the last time terrorists were in France (frequent in 70s), they took whatever measures were needed, torture, etc. to find and stamp it out.

Ah, but we don't electrocute, gas, shoot and kill by lethal injection the poorest and most disadvantaged members of our societies while we let our rich celebs walk free.

[asymmetrical1]

Ah, but we don't electrocute, gas, shoot and kill by lethal injection the poorest and most disadvantaged members of our societies while we let our rich celebs walk free.

true true

[asymmetrical1]

Guys...

Can't we just let this thread die?

I think everyone who had something to say on the issue has expressed themselves quite clearly and nobody's going to make converts here. I think we can all agree to disagree and move on.

Besides this is starting to look like a tennis match with 2 tireing players going back and forth forever... and we're not even taking about the Williams sisters here (oy! how can one tire of them!?), it's more like 2 bitter old men argueing over the price of Depends at the Legion hall!

Someone get the shovel and give this thread a dignified burrial.

Red

Why let this thread die......it's semi-intelligent debate on all sides and is clearly more interesting than all the other rubbish in the lounge....jacko's mug shot....peam's picture .....what some jackass wears to the gym

[Cycleon]

Ah, but we don't electrocute, gas, shoot and kill by lethal injection the poorest and most disadvantaged members of our societies while we let our rich celebs walk free.

True enough - if it were up to me I would fry them all, rich or poor - makes me sick that just because you can get Johnny Cocksucker as your lawyer you can sometimes get off but lets face it, its not like they are all innocent there

[50%Natural]

It was truly amazing reading all these posts. Everyone who is against bush wants to credit clinton it seems. Basically, with the economy which no one mentioned, is historically, our economy follows a business cycle. People want to give all this credit to clinton for all these figures but he was just lucky to have caught the economy in an upswing. Look at all the historical data. If you have taken the most basic of economic classes you will understand what a business cycle is and what it looks like. Common indicators of how the economy is performing include employment, gdp, and stock prices. All the charts I saw earlier were a text book business cycle example. I don't know where the thread went from the first two pages but I had to say that. Also, what anyone failed to mention, unless they did latter in the thread is that Clinton ransaked the military. That a big part of why we had such good budget returns back then and why we have a huge deficit now. Bush has to spend the money to protect ourselves that clinton saved during his presidency. I feel bad for people who don't have a college education (not refering to any members) because unless they know factors of the economy and what all those numbers really mean and where they come from then they can not fully make an educated decsion on whether bush has done a good job or not. Personally, with all he has had to deal with and the fact that he caught the economy on a downward swing anyway, I think he has done well. I am not debating that he may have been a little quick on the trigger for political gain with Iraq but seeing how happy all those people were when the statue went down was justification enough. Now, he just needs to get the boys out.
BTW, sorry if someone did mention all this stuff, but I just didn't want to read the whole thread.
my.02

[bermich]

Good post by 50 'CENT. Clintons surplus did have a lot to do with the fact that he SPENT LITTLE to NOTHING on military. Closed a SHIT LOAD OF BASES down and canceled a shit load of contracts for military. Thats why he didnt go after Saddam or Bin Ladan. Cuase he would have had to spend money on the military.

I could go on but I dont want to.

[tryingtogetbig]

good post 50 cent!

[50%Natural]

Here's more good news:

The graphs matty posted are what I am going with when I speak of the business cycle. Now the ignorant person would look at that and say "Clinton was a g, and Bush was terrible" but this is exactly how our economy functions and the president is basically powerless against it. I was surprised that dabull being a stock trader wouldn't have mentioned this aspect of the discussion because I would have thought he would have been familiar with it. Also, when 9/11 occured it drove stock prices down and the deman for long term investments also went down. People were scared and immediately withdrew from the market of long term investments. This theory is called the market segmentation theory. Basically when any event scares people about the stock market people invest in short term bonds. People are very risk averse. The reason for the crash is because of intrest rate risk. Basically this boils down to bonds and stocks. There is a required rate of return for a person to invest in a bond or stock. Basically, the required rate of return for any investment is equal to the required rate plus intrest rate risk premium. When the future is in question, no one wants to invest long term because they could end up paying higher intrest rates therefore losing money in their investment. Everyone failed to mention this when they spoke of Bush being responsible for it but investors controll the stock market and not the president. I think the general consensus drawn on GWB is wrong and people failed to mention normal economic and financial conditions which hurt the economy. He personally could not help this and if you think Al Gore could have handled it any better then well, I'll just leave it at that.

[Tock]

It was truly amazing reading all these posts. Everyone who is against bush wants to credit clinton it seems. Basically, with the economy which no one mentioned, is historically, our economy follows a business cycle. People want to give all this credit to clinton for all these figures but he was just lucky to have caught the economy in an upswing.

===========

Well, Clinton might have caught the economy in an upswing, BUT . . .
As I recall, Pres Carter inherited a rotten economy from Pres Ford in 1976, got things rolling along, then got hit with an Arab Oil Embargo which all by itself was responsible for skyrocketing inflation due to skyrocking energy costs (of course, the oil companies made gobs and gobs of $$$, were the place to have your retirement invested). Ronald Reagan campaigned against Carter largely on the ravages of 22% inflation, said everything was all Carter's fault, Reagan wouldn't make the sort of mistakes that would lead to 22% inflation, etc. The American people being what they are, bought the arguement, voted Carter out, Reagan in.

Anyway, the point of this is just to illustrate that regardless of who was actually responsible for economic bad times, the fault has traditionally been laid at the feet of the president who was on watch at the time. So, ok, Reagan said Carter should be blamed for the Arabs jacking up the price of oil, and the American people bought it. Fine. Congressional Republicans rode that horse for years.
Now that the foot is on the other shoe, I see no reason why Clinton should not get the credit for the good times during his watch. And Bush should get the blame for the bad times on his watch. It may or may not be fair, but hey, the precedent was established back in the 1980 election, and if the method of reasoning was good for "publicans then, it ought to be good for 'em now.

If Bush wasnts to grumble and bring up the extenuating circumstances excusing his troubles, I see no reason why the same couldn't be done for Carter. BUT--that's not the way the game was played back then, and IMHO, they shouldn't change the rules now, at least not without a good reason.

[Tock]

Good post by 50 'CENT. Clintons surplus did have a lot to do with the fact that he SPENT LITTLE to NOTHING on military. Closed a SHIT LOAD OF BASES down and canceled a shit load of contracts for military. Thats why he didnt go after Saddam or Bin Ladan. Cuase he would have had to spend money on the military.

I could go on but I dont want to.

============================



Um . . . Clinton closed a SHIT load of bases down, did he?
Check this out--from The Dallas Morning News, Jan 31, 1999:
http://www.lakehurst.navy.mil/nlweb/...ac-299-14a.htm
-------

Specifically, lawmakers fear a repeat of 1995, when President Clinton essentially ignored the wishes of an independent base-closure commission. Although he tried to save military jobs in California and Texas, his efforts were criticized as a ploy to help vote-rich states.
-------


The guy who was behind the base-closing commission was a Republican Congressman from the Dallas suburbs named Dick Armey, who, incidentally, used his position as House Majority Whip (#2 position in the Congress right after the House Speaker) to push his plans to shut down unnecessary military bases. I happen to be aware of this because Dick Armey was my congressman for 18 years, and he made a point to trumpet his efforts in this base closings business in all of his campaign literature. So, if you're looking for someone to blame for shutting down unnecessary military bases, the guy you're wanting is Dick Armey, a Republican Congressman (recently retired, btw).

The above excerpt from the Dallas Morning News mentions that Armey's base closing commission tried to shut down bases in California and Texas, and Clinton resisted the efforts. Republicans criticised Clinton for what he did . . . so, from the tone of your original post, I'm sure you have a new-found appreciation for Mr Clinton . . .


Clinton managed to balance the US budget (the first time since the Vietnam War) and got a pretty good start on reducing the National Debt, which was a pretty good trick after Reagan and Bush the First managed to raise both to record levels. If you were around during the 1992 presidential election, the #1 campaign issue was the economy . . . perhaps you recall Perot's snappy little charts and graphs he used to show what a desperate situation the US Treasury was in, how Social Security funds were being ravaged to pay current debt, and exposed how the federal books were being juggled so voters wouldn't discover what the government had been up to. Well, since 1992, Clinton's administration managed to fix a lot of the problems, and when Clinton left office, the country had a budget surplus (lots of extra money) and it looked like the National Debt would be paid off completely in just a few years.
Well, in the 3 years since Bush the Second took office, the budget surplus is gone, the National Debt is higher than it ever was, Social Security money is still being ransacked, and things don't look good for the forseeable future.
Yes, Defense Spending is up, but look what we got for the extra hundreds of billions of $$-- over 325,000 soldiers are in around 80 countries all over the planet, we're stuck in a "tar baby" of a mess in the middle east, people all over the world think the US is a big problem, taking unilateral action against countries it doesn't like, and screw what the United Nations or anyone else thinks. And then on top of this, while giving the finger to the UN, Bush the Second has the gall to ask 'em for help in Iraq.
----------- getting off my soap box, ending this rant ------------





Anyway, here's the full text of the newspaper article, which should releive you of you delusion that Clinton and the Democrats were behind the military base closings. Do some digging on the net, and you'll turn up some of Dick Armey's work to get the base closing commission started and under way. If you want to blame someone for this, he's your guy.



--------------
Base Closure Politics, Finances Causing Lawmakers To Balk

Dallas Morning News January 31, 1999
By Catalina Camia, The Dallas Morning News

WASHINGTON - Texas lawmakers are having trouble with the idea of more military base closures under the Clinton administration.

Some of the wariness has to do with money. But some of the skepticism is also about politics.

Specifically, lawmakers fear a repeat of 1995, when President Clinton essentially ignored the wishes of an independent base-closure commission. Although he tried to save military jobs in California and Texas, his efforts were criticized as a ploy to help vote-rich states.

"This Congress will not trust this administration for another round," said Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Clarendon, who sits on the House Armed Services and Budget committees.

Defense Secretary William Cohen, the only Republican in the Clinton Cabinet, would like Congress to approve two new rounds of base closings starting in 2001. But he has been rebuffed twice in the last two years.

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, a member of the defense appropriations panel, said base closings do not make economic sense right now.

"We have downsized the military too much," she said. "We need to do a much better strategy on whether we need fewer people overseas. ... We're not quite ready to make final decisions on what our base structure should be."

Reps. Ciro Rodriguez, D-San Antonio, and Solomon Ortiz, D-Corpus Christi, whose districts include or surround several bases, are also adamantly opposed.

"I can't support it now," Mr. Rodriguez said. "As much as the administration is looking at logic, in the end the vote [in 1995] was political. It wasn't about any basic rationale."

The Joint Chiefs of Staff estimate that another round of base closures would save $15 billion over five years. The previous four rounds of shutdowns have saved almost $3 billion through last year, a figure expected to grow to from $5.6 billion to $7 billion a year by 2001.

Ms. Hutchison and Mr. Ortiz are not convinced about potential savings.

The Clinton administration has not said how it would avoid some of the problems caused in 1995, when there was an uproar over mothballing Kelly Air Force Base in San Antonio and McClellan Air Force Base in California.

Mr. Clinton had delayed the base closings for five years. He vowed to help find some private subcontracting work for Kelly and McClellan, sparking complaints from states that lost bases.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., introduced a bill last week designed to avoid the politics of base closures. His measure would authorize two rounds of base closings, but he would stall appointments to an independent commission until after the 2000 elections.

The McCain bill also would forbid any privatization unless it is mandated by the independent panel.

Spokesmen for Sen. Phil Gramm, R-Texas, and House Majority Leader Dick Armey, R-Irving, said the lawmakers are keeping an open mind about Mr. Cohen's latest request.

"We have to make sure we protect the integrity of the process," said Jim Wilkinson, press secretary to Mr. Armey, who devised the current base-closing rules.

Larry Neal, Mr. Gramm's press secretary, said a recent tour of Texas military facilities with Ms. Hutchison convinced Mr. Gramm that the Lone Star bases are in good shape.

"Senator Gramm is convinced we have bases that will survive the closure process because they do real work that is important to national security," Mr. Neal said. "We don't have any pork bases in Texas."

Staff writer Catalina Camia covers Congress for The Dallas Morning News.

[bermich]

I read it. It doesnt have the after math of what happened. It also indicates ALL THE OTHER BASE CLOSURES BEFORE 95. Who was president a few years before 95?? Why were there a shit load of base closures in those years?? You basically proved my point with that article. Thanks

[Tock]

I read it. It doesnt have the after math of what happened. It also indicates ALL THE OTHER BASE CLOSURES BEFORE 95. Who was president a few years before 95?? Why were there a shit load of base closures in those years?? You basically proved my point with that article. Thanks

===============


Ya, well, one of the only things that Dick Armey did that I agreed with was the base closings legislation. Problem is that there are lots of bases where activities can and should be combined . . . like accounting for AAFEES in San Antonio, if there's other sites with similar stuff going on, there's no reason why it can't/shouldn't be centralized, except the folks losing their jobs would bitch at their congressman, and he'd vote against the cost-saving measures to get their votes next re-election. Not good. Another deal we've had here in D-FW was a while back Congress put big $$$ for production for some sort of combination helicopter/airplane. Turns out the plane was a dud, crashed a lot. The Army didn't want it, the Navy didn't want it, the USAF didn't want it, but somewhere along the line someone badgered the Marines into taking some, but they really didn't want to screw with it either. But the locals got several local congressmen to pull strings and get it in the defense budget. Got big bucks for a local aircraft builder and a couple local military bases. Heh. Gov't $$$ so locals could build crappy shit for the military, and so the locals would re-elect the congressmen who saved their jobs. This, to me and my libertarian sensibilities, is crazy.

Anyway, Armey's legislation was supposed to take most of the politics out of the process, and ultimately send a list of bases to close to congress, and then the whole list would be voted on--all of 'em closed or all of 'em saved. Some lists got saved, some got closed. After congress voted on the list, yah, it went to the president for his approval. So really, the whole process was more of a collaborative effort, and IMHO, a helluva good idea, saving taxpayers billions of $$$.
Of course, we've got Bush the Second to undo all that stuff, so, all we can do is wait for Hillary to come along and undo everything that GB II screwed up . . .
(Just yanking your chain here, lol)

Whew . . . enough of that crap . . . somehow all this has put me in the mood for a dirty joke . . .

[bermich]

Its all about being re elected and secret bribes.

I dont even wanna know how much bullshit Arnold is gonna have to deal with when he starts shaking cages.
He is gonna lay off A LOT of people with government jobs for CA. Like 3,000 unnecassary jobs. People wont be too happy with that especailly if they were one of the 3,000.

[50%Natural]

Okay tock, so Clinton wasn't behind the military base closings. This was exactly my point when talking about how the president gets blamed for things that happen while he was in office. I comes out looking like Clinton doesn't support the military. So even if someone is behind the military closures it falls back on Clinton. I don't care whether he closed bases all I was posting was a different side of the issue that nobody had mentioned. I don't care who closed what but the fact that there was economic prosperity when Clinton was in office doesn't necessarilly mean he created. That is all I was going against. Financial and economic conditions outside of the president's control determine where for a majority the economy goes. My .02 of course. But hey, anyone and everyone can bash a president and I don't give a shit but before people do they need to have a simple understanding of economics and finance before I will take them seriously.

[JohnDoe1234]

============================



Um . . . Clinton closed a SHIT load of bases down, did he?
Check this out--from The Dallas Morning News, Jan 31, 1999:
http://www.lakehurst.navy.mil/nlweb/...ac-299-14a.htm
-------

Specifically, lawmakers fear a repeat of 1995, when President Clinton essentially ignored the wishes of an independent base-closure commission. Although he tried to save military jobs in California and Texas, his efforts were criticized as a ploy to help vote-rich states.
-------


The guy who was behind the base-closing commission was a Republican Congressman from the Dallas suburbs named Dick Armey, who, incidentally, used his position as House Majority Whip (#2 position in the Congress right after the House Speaker) to push his plans to shut down unnecessary military bases. I happen to be aware of this because Dick Armey was my congressman for 18 years, and he made a point to trumpet his efforts in this base closings business in all of his campaign literature. So, if you're looking for someone to blame for shutting down unnecessary military bases, the guy you're wanting is Dick Armey, a Republican Congressman (recently retired, btw).

The above excerpt from the Dallas Morning News mentions that Armey's base closing commission tried to shut down bases in California and Texas, and Clinton resisted the efforts. Republicans criticised Clinton for what he did . . . so, from the tone of your original post, I'm sure you have a new-found appreciation for Mr Clinton . . .


Clinton managed to balance the US budget (the first time since the Vietnam War) and got a pretty good start on reducing the National Debt, which was a pretty good trick after Reagan and Bush the First managed to raise both to record levels. If you were around during the 1992 presidential election, the #1 campaign issue was the economy . . . perhaps you recall Perot's snappy little charts and graphs he used to show what a desperate situation the US Treasury was in, how Social Security funds were being ravaged to pay current debt, and exposed how the federal books were being juggled so voters wouldn't discover what the government had been up to. Well, since 1992, Clinton's administration managed to fix a lot of the problems, and when Clinton left office, the country had a budget surplus (lots of extra money) and it looked like the National Debt would be paid off completely in just a few years.
Well, in the 3 years since Bush the Second took office, the budget surplus is gone, the National Debt is higher than it ever was, Social Security money is still being ransacked, and things don't look good for the forseeable future.
Yes, Defense Spending is up, but look what we got for the extra hundreds of billions of $$-- over 325,000 soldiers are in around 80 countries all over the planet, we're stuck in a "tar baby" of a mess in the middle east, people all over the world think the US is a big problem, taking unilateral action against countries it doesn't like, and screw what the United Nations or anyone else thinks. And then on top of this, while giving the finger to the UN, Bush the Second has the gall to ask 'em for help in Iraq.
----------- getting off my soap box, ending this rant ------------





Anyway, here's the full text of the newspaper article, which should releive you of you delusion that Clinton and the Democrats were behind the military base closings. Do some digging on the net, and you'll turn up some of Dick Armey's work to get the base closing commission started and under way. If you want to blame someone for this, he's your guy.



--------------
Base Closure Politics, Finances Causing Lawmakers To Balk

Dallas Morning News January 31, 1999
By Catalina Camia, The Dallas Morning News

WASHINGTON - Texas lawmakers are having trouble with the idea of more military base closures under the Clinton administration.

Some of the wariness has to do with money. But some of the skepticism is also about politics.

Specifically, lawmakers fear a repeat of 1995, when President Clinton essentially ignored the wishes of an independent base-closure commission. Although he tried to save military jobs in California and Texas, his efforts were criticized as a ploy to help vote-rich states.

"This Congress will not trust this administration for another round," said Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Clarendon, who sits on the House Armed Services and Budget committees.

Defense Secretary William Cohen, the only Republican in the Clinton Cabinet, would like Congress to approve two new rounds of base closings starting in 2001. But he has been rebuffed twice in the last two years.

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, a member of the defense appropriations panel, said base closings do not make economic sense right now.

"We have downsized the military too much," she said. "We need to do a much better strategy on whether we need fewer people overseas. ... We're not quite ready to make final decisions on what our base structure should be."

Reps. Ciro Rodriguez, D-San Antonio, and Solomon Ortiz, D-Corpus Christi, whose districts include or surround several bases, are also adamantly opposed.

"I can't support it now," Mr. Rodriguez said. "As much as the administration is looking at logic, in the end the vote [in 1995] was political. It wasn't about any basic rationale."

The Joint Chiefs of Staff estimate that another round of base closures would save $15 billion over five years. The previous four rounds of shutdowns have saved almost $3 billion through last year, a figure expected to grow to from $5.6 billion to $7 billion a year by 2001.

Ms. Hutchison and Mr. Ortiz are not convinced about potential savings.

The Clinton administration has not said how it would avoid some of the problems caused in 1995, when there was an uproar over mothballing Kelly Air Force Base in San Antonio and McClellan Air Force Base in California.

Mr. Clinton had delayed the base closings for five years. He vowed to help find some private subcontracting work for Kelly and McClellan, sparking complaints from states that lost bases.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., introduced a bill last week designed to avoid the politics of base closures. His measure would authorize two rounds of base closings, but he would stall appointments to an independent commission until after the 2000 elections.

The McCain bill also would forbid any privatization unless it is mandated by the independent panel.

Spokesmen for Sen. Phil Gramm, R-Texas, and House Majority Leader Dick Armey, R-Irving, said the lawmakers are keeping an open mind about Mr. Cohen's latest request.

"We have to make sure we protect the integrity of the process," said Jim Wilkinson, press secretary to Mr. Armey, who devised the current base-closing rules.

Larry Neal, Mr. Gramm's press secretary, said a recent tour of Texas military facilities with Ms. Hutchison convinced Mr. Gramm that the Lone Star bases are in good shape.

"Senator Gramm is convinced we have bases that will survive the closure process because they do real work that is important to national security," Mr. Neal said. "We don't have any pork bases in Texas."

Staff writer Catalina Camia covers Congress for The Dallas Morning News.

Subject: Social Security

Q: Which party took Social Security from an independent fund and put it in
the general fund so that Congress could spend it?

A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the Democratic-controlled House and Senate.

Q: Which party put a tax on Social Security?
A: The Democratic party.

Q: Which party increased the tax on Social Security?
A: The Democratic Party with Al Gore casting the deciding vote.

Q: Which party decided to give money to illegal immigrants?
A: That's right, all immigrants, illegal or otherwise who move into this
country at 65 and over got SSI and Social Security. The Democratic Party gave
that to them although they never have or will pay a dime into it. It is a
pretty good deal. The illegals pay no taxes and Mom and Dad (over 65) live
here for free with life time housing and health care benefits. {Is there any
wonder illegal aliens flock to polls to vote Democratic with phony ID's they
pick up in the parking lot.}

Then, after doing all this, the Democrats turn around and tell you that the
Republicans want to take your Social Security. The VERY WORST part is; so
many believe it!!

[tryingtogetbig]

I read it. It doesnt have the after math of what happened. It also indicates ALL THE OTHER BASE CLOSURES BEFORE 95. Who was president a few years before 95?? Why were there a shit load of base closures in those years?? You basically proved my point with that article. Thanks

I read the same thing bermich...it talks about Clinton closing bases and how he tried to put it off for 5 years (of course he knew he wouldn't be pres then) and what that was going to do to the smaller communities when the bases were closed. Yeah Clintont!! NOT.

Thanks Tock for looking up what most of us already realized.

One more thing.....the stock market is doing GREAT right now. Wake up and look around. The economy is recovering, unemployment is dropping. What are the dem's going to be fighting about in 6 more months. Oh yeah...no weapons of mass destruction. Saddam lovers.

If your party depends on the votes of minorities, then somethings wrong. That means they will say or do whatever to get the votes of minorities and then never really help them out. At the same time, the majority of people get screwed.

Also, why do people try to make the oil companies sound bad for making big money. Are they jealous? That's what we are all trying to do. Make $$. Geeze...

peace,

ttgb

[50%Natural]

I read the same thing bermich...it talks about Clinton closing bases and how he tried to put it off for 5 years (of course he knew he wouldn't be pres then) and what that was going to do to the smaller communities when the bases were closed. Yeah Clintont!! NOT.

Thanks Tock for looking up what most of us already realized.

One more thing.....the stock market is doing GREAT right now. Wake up and look around. The economy is recovering, unemployment is dropping. What are the dem's going to be fighting about in 6 more months. Oh yeah...no weapons of mass destruction. Saddam lovers.

If your party depends on the votes of minorities, then somethings wrong. That means they will say or do whatever to get the votes of minorities and then never really help them out. At the same time, the majority of people get screwed.

Also, why do people try to make the oil companies sound bad for making big money. Are they jealous? That's what we are all trying to do. Make $$. Geeze...

peace,

ttgb

Counldn't agree more on how the democratic party depends on the votes from minorities. That whole paragraph sums up the entire political realm and state of our government. I don't think they never help out though. That is why we have affirmative action and all the other non sense.
The economy is doing well because the condition of the country is improving. It only took 2 years for investors to feel comfortable again the begin investing in risky ventures such as long term bonds and small company stocks. Just wait, in 4 or 5 years or so the nation will go into a slump again and then we will be bashing that president for his political moves.

[Cycleon]

Counldn't agree more on how the democratic party depends on the votes from minorities. That whole paragraph sums up the entire political realm and state of our government. I don't think they never help out though. That is why we have affirmative action and all the other non sense.
The economy is doing well because the condition of the country is improving. It only took 2 years for investors to feel comfortable again the begin investing in risky ventures such as long term bonds and small company stocks. Just wait, in 4 or 5 years or so the nation will go into a slump again and then we will be bashing that president for his political moves.

Watch hillary get in for 2008, the economy crashes 6 months later - and republicans can run around saying "Hillary killed the economy"!!!!

of course, that is a worse case scenario - ie, that billary is elected but surely America has not gotten that stupid yet

[50%Natural]

bump for markas

It was truly amazing reading all these posts. Everyone who is against bush wants to credit clinton it seems. Basically, with the economy which no one mentioned, is historically, our economy follows a business cycle. People want to give all this credit to clinton for all these figures but he was just lucky to have caught the economy in an upswing. Look at all the historical data. If you have taken the most basic of economic classes you will understand what a business cycle is and what it looks like. Common indicators of how the economy is performing include employment, gdp, and stock prices. All the charts I saw earlier were a text book business cycle example. I don't know where the thread went from the first two pages but I had to say that. Also, what anyone failed to mention, unless they did latter in the thread is that Clinton ransaked the military. That a big part of why we had such good budget returns back then and why we have a huge deficit now. Bush has to spend the money to protect ourselves that clinton saved during his presidency. I feel bad for people who don't have a college education (not refering to any members) because unless they know factors of the economy and what all those numbers really mean and where they come from then they can not fully make an educated decsion on whether bush has done a good job or not. Personally, with all he has had to deal with and the fact that he caught the economy on a downward swing anyway, I think he has done well. I am not debating that he may have been a little quick on the trigger for political gain with Iraq but seeing how happy all those people were when the statue went down was justification enough. Now, he just needs to get the boys out.
BTW, sorry if someone did mention all this stuff, but I just didn't want to read the whole thread.
my.02

[50%Natural]

bump for markas

The graphs matty posted are what I am going with when I speak of the business cycle. Now the ignorant person would look at that and say "Clinton was a g, and Bush was terrible" but this is exactly how our economy functions and the president is basically powerless against it. I was surprised that dabull being a stock trader wouldn't have mentioned this aspect of the discussion because I would have thought he would have been familiar with it. Also, when 9/11 occured it drove stock prices down and the deman for long term investments also went down. People were scared and immediately withdrew from the market of long term investments. This theory is called the market segmentation theory. Basically when any event scares people about the stock market people invest in short term bonds. People are very risk averse. The reason for the crash is because of intrest rate risk. Basically this boils down to bonds and stocks. There is a required rate of return for a person to invest in a bond or stock. Basically, the required rate of return for any investment is equal to the required rate plus intrest rate risk premium. When the future is in question, no one wants to invest long term because they could end up paying higher intrest rates therefore losing money in their investment. Everyone failed to mention this when they spoke of Bush being responsible for it but investors controll the stock market and not the president. I think the general consensus drawn on GWB is wrong and people failed to mention normal economic and financial conditions which hurt the economy. He personally could not help this and if you think Al Gore could have handled it any better then well, I'll just leave it at that.

[tryingtogetbig]

bump for markas

bump for markas

[Cycleon]

actually 2 things hammered the market - it was already going rapidly going down in the end 2000 and then the close election caused it to really start to sink - it started to stabilize a little in the spring and summer as the market got to see Bush in action - then it got hit with 911

[Tock]

actually 2 things hammered the market - it was already going rapidly going down in the end 2000 and then the close election caused it to really start to sink - it started to stabilize a little in the spring and summer as the market got to see Bush in action - then it got hit with 911

----------

Sure, but Bush was there when it sank. It's the rule that Reagan used on Carter (blamed him for the raging inflation that was caused by Arab oil embargos), and the public bought it then, and they're gonna buy it now. It shouldn't be that way, but hey, the average voter is only average. Half the voters are below average. If that don't scare ya, you must be drunk.
Bush was there when it sank. That is what's going to count.
--Tock

[Phillyboy1]

im not getting into this, but ill agree with the first post in this on page one about the polls, i think the same thing about bush, except for the illiterate part, i mean he's gotta be able to read

[Cycleon]

true enough - but it will be back a bit by Nov - and that is also what will count

----------

Sure, but Bush was there when it sank. It's the rule that Reagan used on Carter (blamed him for the raging inflation that was caused by Arab oil embargos), and the public bought it then, and they're gonna buy it now. It shouldn't be that way, but hey, the average voter is only average. Half the voters are below average. If that don't scare ya, you must be drunk.
Bush was there when it sank. That is what's going to count.
--Tock

[hoss827]

When will people understand that the United States is not run by the president.......

[bermich]

Oh. I remember this thread now. I actually posted in it. Who the hell brought this out of the ashes? Its not even October yet. All you demos are gonna be so sad when BUsh is elected again and there wont be any recount to complain about either. LOL. LOL.

[Equiguns]

Someone said he went to harvard and his dad had to do with it? GWBush WAS a grad of an ivy league school. He graduated with just over a 2.0 GPA. The minimum to actually get a degree. He failed almost half of his classes. And his dad was not president when he was in college. He somehow made it in on his own although I wouldn't be surprised if his millionaire dad gave a big "gift" to the university before GWB got admitted. Presidents are almost always well to do before they even become presidents. With the exception of Bill Clinton who came from a poor broken home and made something out of himself and became a self made millionaire lawyer from being a homeless teen.