Anabolic Member
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.
Anabolic Member
============================Originally Posted by bermich
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.
Member
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!!
Whiney Member
good post 50 cent!
Anabolic Member
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
Anabolic Member
===============
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 . . .
Whiney Member
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
Respected Member
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.
AR-Hall of Famer / Retired
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 electedbut surely America has not gotten that stupid yet
Anabolic Member
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.
Respected Member
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.
AR-Hall of Famer / Retired
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
Anabolic Member
----------
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
AR-Hall of Famer / Retired
true enough - but it will be back a bit by Nov - and that is also what will count
Anabolic Member
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
Banned
When will people understand that the United States is not run by the president.......
Anabolic Member
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.
Associate Member
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote