Bush..now then

I'm happy to tout the accomplishments of "my Boy". Considering 9/11 plus the price of oil currently, I think the relatively healthy nature of our economy is remarkable. Further I think the President has done a very solid job in this respect. I'm not sure what a President could or should do to keep people from signing mortgages for more house than they can afford. Sometimes you cannot protect people from there own poor decisions. You think a "no principle" mortgage is a good idea?
 
I honestly can't believe there are still people out there who defend this guy. He does not stand for conservative ideals, his administration goes to great lengths to circumvent the restraints the constitution placed on the executive branch, he lied to us in order to preemptively attack another nation, etc., etc., etc.

IMO he is the worst president we have had in my lifetime (born in '82), and I don't think 2nd place is even close.
 
The country was going to hell in a handbag before 9/11.
The entire country was buzzing about how quickly it took Bush to screw up the largest economic expansion in history to a quagmire in a few shorts month. (when he wasn't on vacation)
9/11 was the best thing to happen for those guys.
The republican's were quick to claim credit for Clinton's spectaular improvement & record growth in all areas because of the majority in both houses & when they landed their own guy at the helm they failed miserably in short order.
Anyone who is happy to have voted for an admin. that has us heading for a full blown depression should not be able to vote any longer.
It'll take this country 12+ years to dig out of the mess this admin has caused, if not more.
 
The blind partisanship is disgusting on this board.

If you: 1) agree that the numbers are accurate and 2) you agree that the numbers all indicate going from a positive to a negative value and 3) you think our federal government is responsible for these numbers and should be held accountable:

How do you not access blame to the Bush Administration and the Congress?!!!! That can be your only conclusion.

However, If you:

1) do not think these numbers are accurate. refute them.

2) think the numbers show positive changes, explain them.

3) think that Federal Goverment is not responsible for any of this, then you more than likely don't care who is in Congress or who is our President, because they don't/can't make a difference in any of the numbers cited.
 
Man, it's friday!!!! and now i'm all depressed...
frown.gif
 
Two things are interesting about this thread.

First, that the numbers are so stark.

Second, that our group of Bush supporters can't discuss the reality of Bush's time in office beyond cursory statements...

Though I guess that says volumes.
 
What I can't believe is that Eurohorn honestly believes that Hillary will outspend Bush. Raise taxes, perhaps, perhaps not. But there's no way in hell she'll even approach Bush's spending rampage. Bush spends like Paris Hilton at the mall.
 
I think he means soar like a submarine.
Never heard the word soar not being associated w/ anything but higher.
 
Jeez, Euro.. weak.

However, it is conceivable that Hillary could spend more than Bush. I just think/hope that if she did, she would be more responsible about it (ie: tax raise or spending cuts to pay for the spending.. in leiu of Bush who just put it on the country's credit card)
 
Maybe I should have said "spending would continue to soar" while taxes would increase. Does that mean she is spending more than Bush? No, that means it would be the same, yet my taxes would go up.

Like I said before, I don't think spending would decrease it would at least continue at the same rate.

And there are two sides to paying for spending. One is through increasing taxes to cover it. The other is through reducing taxes which allows more money to flow into the economy to grow it and then your tax receipts increase because earnings have increased. Ever hear of the Laffer Curve?
 
I don't think she's guaranteed to raise taxes. That's just a Republican talking point. I also know that the last 30 years of history shows us that Republicans talk a lot about spending less, but usually spend more. Perhaps it is really about the programs where the money is being spent. I prefer less money to be spent on defense and more on social programs. Most Republicans gripe that Bill Clinton decreased military spending, so it seems most don't have a general problem with spending, but with where its being spent.

Nationalized health insurance can be had for a fraction of what Iraq costs us. It will not be premium free. It will be subsidized and gov't controlled. After all, I still have to pay for a stamp when I send mail.

The money to pay for Iraq is going to eventually need to come from somewhere, so somebody's gonna have to grow the balls to raise taxes eventually. Honestly, I don't even understand how the Republican party can come out and claim to be fiscally conservative after Reagan and W Bush and have people still buy it, but people still do.
 
soar /sɔr, soʊr/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sawr, sohr] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used without object) 1. to fly upward, as a bird.
2. to fly at a great height, without visible movements of the pinions, as a bird.
3. to glide along at a height, as an airplane.
4. to rise or ascend to a height, as a mountain.
5. to rise or aspire to a higher or more exalted level: His hopes soared.
–noun 6. an act or instance of soaring.
7. the height attained in soaring.
 
Thanks for the definition. And so I can end the useless nitpicking, I will go ahead and restate my position.

I think Hillary will spend at least as much as Bush. It won't be less. At the same time, she will raise taxes by rolling back the current tax cuts.

Ok, now let's move on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top