Originally posted by joehayner
Don't tell us things were peachy under Clinton. Things may not be great under Bush, but it sucked just as bad if not more under Clinton.

I don't usually go the obvious route, but that was the single most stupid statement I've had the displeasure of reading on ATS in quite some time - we are all indeed stupider for having read it.

But, BT, Dubya landed on the deck of that aircraft carrier in a flight suit! That makes him way cooler than Clinton.

Things are worse by the fact that 9/11 happened and the wars are on alone.

But Clinton wasn't all the great either.

8 yrs of prosperity but Clinton wasn't that great.

Where do you get the idea that the president has everything to do with the economy?

He does not. He has some, as does congress, real estate, stockmarket, etc.

Originally posted by Dreamz
These pep rallies actually teach alot about the candidate and what kind of crowds and policies they are trying to appease to.
More like who has some comp time to take off.
Being that WI has lost 10's of thousands of jobs since Bush took office, I can see where people would be entusiastic for change. Can you blame them?Your right, but jobs started to decline before Bush was in office after China was allowed most favored nation status. And yes I know, because I was one of those displaced workers and my father owns his own tool and die business, so I know quite well when this started and why.
Jobs sustaining a phased loss is one thing, but a mass accelerant is another. Check B of L stats on when it REALLY took off.

- If a company has over billed the government a few 100 million dollars, shouldn't that be rectified?Yes, but it is not Bushs fault and nothing has ever been proved that any illegal actions were ALLOWED by the Bush administration, if there was he wouldve been in jail and been indicted by congress. All of which has not happened.
You are kidding, right? If his administration makes up a war, then makes up the clean up plan, then hands out the contracts on who does what.......see? You do know that there have been several bills bought to floor that only lose on partisan count;meaning that Republicans don't have the moral fiber to prosecute an illegality if it's their boy? You do know that investigation are on going, right?

- If we have sustained an estimate 20 thousand casualities , shouldn't our greed of control be minimized so the injury & death "benefit" can be shared with other nations? Im not sure your point or where 20k casualties comes from, but thats a little extreme and instead of appeasing to terrorists Bush showed bold leadership by taking the war to there region.
I may have qualified this as the stupidest statement if I read it earlier!! Casualities are serious injuries, such as from getting something attached ...detached from a bomb. Look up the ATS threads on this subject & how the Pentagon is hiding the numbers......one facility handled 11,000 in 2003 by itself. Think of the 8000 that went through one German facility. 20,000 is probably a low number. Or do you think warfare is PS2 - like, and all we've had is the 489 'official' deaths? Bold Leadership? No, ideology driven cronyism void of compassion for the little man's sacrafice.

- NAFTA = a good idea when the playing ground is level, but we know Mexico doesn't give a damn about OSHA standards. Scrapping it until things are equal is a great idea, especially for the skilled blue collar workers being displaced left & right.I agree on some levels, but overall NAFTA hurts americans more than it helps them. The only people whi benefit are high salaried employees, while the blue collar workers get screwed left and right.
If it's revamped, it's a good idea

- Bush tax cuts = yes, repeal them & redistrubute along a better scale. Why? Why is it the richs job to support the lower levels of society? They, in general had many years of schooling, paid there own dues and have done the american dream and are currently living it, why is it up to them to share there wealth. Is this a Socialist or a Federalist nation?
The rich pay much less of their income towards tax than you do. Again, it's all over ATS threads. It really is a site with scads of info....I would think the youngbloods like yourself would school themselves a bit on what's out there before subscribing to the brainwash line.

You can't credit him exclusively for 8 prosperous years. But, if you look at America like the credit bureau looks at you, we went from having every credit card maxed out - every account overdrawn - every credit score abysmal, to cleaning up our credit and having a nice savings account.
The massive fed deficits, people fail to realize, tank our porsperity. Like the credit card analogy above, it makes us much more unlikely to secure the credit we need & the investments we need. It also undermines our position in the world markets.
So yes, Clinton was the best President in my life time in regard to the advanced World Status of America - building an infrastructure for the Tech revolution - and turning deficits into surpluses while getting folks working.

Gripes?

Kosovo took too long to be involved
NAFTA was hobbled
Didn't slam political opponents when he should of

....for Dim Son being such a clusterf**k of a leader:

BullSh**T !!!

Clinton, if he were president, would have had the country up & running in a couple of months.
It's served the Bush Administrations purposes to have all the ills in place that we've endured since 9/11.
Ask yourself: What has the administration done to help anything? ( ask that about the Economy, Domestic anti Terror saftey, Job Growth)

Originally posted by Bout Time

Originally posted by Dreamz
These pep rallies actually teach alot about the candidate and what kind of crowds and policies they are trying to appease to.
More like who has some comp time to take off.
Being that WI has lost 10's of thousands of jobs since Bush took office, I can see where people would be entusiastic for change. Can you blame them?Your right, but jobs started to decline before Bush was in office after China was allowed most favored nation status. And yes I know, because I was one of those displaced workers and my father owns his own tool and die business, so I know quite well when this started and why.
Jobs sustaining a phased loss is one thing, but a mass accelerant is another. Check B of L stats on when it REALLY took off.
I understand it took until March of 2001 before the economy started its full swing in a downward motion and having Sept 11th accelerated it even more. The economy before Bush took office was ready to go for a long spiral downwards because of trade agreements made during the Clinton administration. Now dont think I dont like Clinton, because he generally was a good president, but his trade policies and appeasement to China really disgusts me.



- If a company has over billed the government a few 100 million dollars, shouldn't that be rectified?Yes, but it is not Bushs fault and nothing has ever been proved that any illegal actions were ALLOWED by the Bush administration, if there was he wouldve been in jail and been indicted by congress. All of which has not happened.
You are kidding, right? If his administration makes up a war, then makes up the clean up plan, then hands out the contracts on who does what.......see? You do know that there have been several bills bought to floor that only lose on partisan count;meaning that Republicans don't have the moral fiber to prosecute an illegality if it's their boy? You do know that investigation are on going, right?
Yes I understand your sentiment and I believe if something is found he will be brought forth on whatever it is congress finds. I however dont believe republicans will stick up for a corrupt president because its there boy. If Bush was ever brought forth on anything the political careers of the men who backed him would be largely in question. I dnt believe everyone in government is bad.




- If we have sustained an estimate 20 thousand casualities , shouldn't our greed of control be minimized so the injury & death "benefit" can be shared with other nations? Im not sure your point or where 20k casualties comes from, but thats a little extreme and instead of appeasing to terrorists Bush showed bold leadership by taking the war to there region.
I may have qualified this as the stupidest statement if I read it earlier!! Casualities are serious injuries, such as from getting something attached ...detached from a bomb. Look up the ATS threads on this subject & how the Pentagon is hiding the numbers......one facility handled 11,000 in 2003 by itself. Think of the 8000 that went through one German facility. 20,000 is probably a low number. Or do you think warfare is PS2 - like, and all we've had is the 489 'official' deaths? Bold Leadership? No, ideology driven cronyism void of compassion for the little man's sacrafice.
Official deaths and casualties pertaining to injuries I do not question is at or above 20k. Casualties in terms deaths is understated in every war, this being no exception. Yes I say bold leadership because I am sure he knew of all the slack he was going to take for fighting his daddys war and going against allies to protect the national security of our nation. Granted it seemed to of been on false intelligence, but I dont blame Bush for that. Sorry I dont play PS2, but when I get the money and time I sure as hell would love to get Madden 04'.




- NAFTA = a good idea when the playing ground is level, but we know Mexico doesn't give a damn about OSHA standards. Scrapping it until things are equal is a great idea, especially for the skilled blue collar workers being displaced left & right.I agree on some levels, but overall NAFTA hurts americans more than it helps them. The only people whi benefit are high salaried employees, while the blue collar workers get screwed left and right.
If it's revamped, it's a good idea
Good enough on this.





- Bush tax cuts = yes, repeal them & redistrubute along a better scale. Why? Why is it the richs job to support the lower levels of society? They, in general had many years of schooling, paid there own dues and have done the american dream and are currently living it, why is it up to them to share there wealth. Is this a Socialist or a Federalist nation?
The rich pay much less of their income towards tax than you do. Again, it's all over ATS threads. It really is a site with scads of info....I would think the youngbloods like yourself would school themselves a bit on what's out there before subscribing to the brainwash line.
If you look at tax structures you would realize that the rich pay a higher percentage than lower income families do at a rate of 33-up to 50% for richer wage earners. Because they make more does not IMO make them responsible for the less income families. Taxes suck, sorry but they do. On the other hand they are completely needed for society. Do I think the riches tax structure should be lowered for the lower level incomes? Nope not one bit. But I dont think they should be raised either.

Well I just like the fact that that dumbass cut so much funding to the military, and made it really difficult for the FBI and CIA to share intelligence. Then look what happened. After decades of extensive spending on defense and intelligence improvement, it gets cut and we are attacked once again on our own soil.

-President Bush and Russia's Vladimir Putin signed a treaty calling for vast cuts in their nuclear arsenals. That's a good thing I think.

-Plan in 2005 for FHA loans to be 0% down. This is great as far as I am concerned.

-President Bush signed legislation (PL 107-204) strengthening public oversight of the accounting profession and reducing potential conflicts of interest that might undermine auditor independence. The bill, principally sponsored in the Senate by Sen. Paul Sarbanes (D-MD).

-President Bush signed hastily passed legislation Wednesday extending unemployment benefits for 2.5 million victims of a weak economy. I think this is a good idea, since it is only temporary.

-On January 10, 2002, President Bush signed into law the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act (the "Act"). Enacted after more than five years of debate and negotiation, the Act represents landmark environmental legislation in several respects.