It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Bout Time
Why is the US trade deficit INCREASING under Bush after steady decline under Clinton? Why has foreign investment flocked out of US markets under Bush?
Originally posted by mad scientist
Originally posted by Bout Time
Why is the US trade deficit INCREASING under Bush after steady decline under Clinton? Why has foreign investment flocked out of US markets under Bush?
Maybe it's because Bush has cracked down on the selling of classified technology to the Chinese.
Originally posted by mad scientist
The President has almost zero control over hte economy, he can't control world economic trends. Let's face it globalisation is going to take jobs from ( relaively overpaid ) Americans as labour is cheaper elsewhere. To blame Bush for the economy shows a lack of world economic understanding.
As for Bush's war on terrorism, he has already been a thousand % more effective than Clinton would have been.
Don't anyone forget Al-Qaeda is Clintons legacy to the American people. Afterall he was the one who allowed Al-Qaeda to grow into the orginisation that it is.
Originally posted by High_Lord_Warrior
Secondly, China was(and still is) a communist country, but Clinton was willing to allow them to get up-to-date with the rest of the world by giving them the damn comps, and he also ended up making them one of our few allies in the Far East(besides Japan and S. Korea).
Originally posted by High_Lord_Warrior
Originally posted by mad scientist
The President has almost zero control over hte economy, he can't control world economic trends. Let's face it globalisation is going to take jobs from ( relaively overpaid ) Americans as labour is cheaper elsewhere. To blame Bush for the economy shows a lack of world economic understanding.
As for Bush's war on terrorism, he has already been a thousand % more effective than Clinton would have been.
Don't anyone forget Al-Qaeda is Clintons legacy to the American people. Afterall he was the one who allowed Al-Qaeda to grow into the orginisation that it is.
Why is it that Cinton is to blame for all the contry's problems on this board?
After Nixon and Johnson(no, not LBJ, the one after Lincoln) screwed themselves over, what do you think happened? They were to blame for everything going wrong in the U.S. for absolutely no reason. Just like Clinton is. The poor bastard didn't see the future when the let OBL escape, so just get off his frickin back about that. Secondly, China was(and still is) a communist country, but Clinton was willing to allow them to get up-to-date with the rest of the world by giving them the damn comps, and he also ended up making them one of our few allies in the Far East(besides Japan and S. Korea). He also was not threatening war constantly(for those of you too ignorant to realize it, that is how Bush is tearing the economy apart) and he wanted to promote peae rather than nuke his father's old adversaries. Jedi, he isn't using democracy in N.Korea, really, becuase he's just sitting around doing nothing. S. Korea is the one being diplomatic. Does Bush really care about N.K. and Iran(how the hell did they get on the "axis of evil?" lol)? No, not in the least.
m.s., how would you know how Clinton would have handled the war on terrorism? Personally, he would not have been as super-agressive as Bush(which may, I admit, have been bad in the long run), but he would have eventually gotten it done.
Oh, and Bush has no sense of humor at all, and he doesn't understand normal people(Bush himself is abnormal). At least Clinton had a hobby (saxophone) and he paid attention to what the American people want. Bush has even looked at PA's malpractice insurance problem.
So, I stick by my idea: Bush sucks cattle prods?.
[Edited on 2/1/03 by High_Lord_Warrior]