-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Bush creates a Million New Jobs!!!
- Thread starter Bigdude
- Start date
i dont see the problem? you are going to have big government under republican or democrat. look at it this way. bush created new jobs so he lowered unemployment is that bad? besides all clinton did was cut the military, the washington post is so liberal it hurts
EDIT: more federal workers doesnt mean big government. The postal service is a "federal institute" whose workers count as federal employees but the postal service gets little to no funding from the government. And if bush hadn't increased defense and there was another attack an article on how bush failed to defend us would repalce the washington post article in question. The media is evil
EDIT: more federal workers doesnt mean big government. The postal service is a "federal institute" whose workers count as federal employees but the postal service gets little to no funding from the government. And if bush hadn't increased defense and there was another attack an article on how bush failed to defend us would repalce the washington post article in question. The media is evil
phillyTIM
Golden Member
From the article: " Bush in his 2000 presidential campaign ran as a champion of a minimal federal role."
I just can't wait to see everything Bush campaigned on in 2000, that has gone quite the opposite in practical application while he was President, be shoved up his A## during Election '04 debates/campaigns!
If Iraq and/or the Economy aren't the final nails in Bush's coffin, then Bush has nailed himself in quite well all by himself.
I just can't wait to see everything Bush campaigned on in 2000, that has gone quite the opposite in practical application while he was President, be shoved up his A## during Election '04 debates/campaigns!
If Iraq and/or the Economy aren't the final nails in Bush's coffin, then Bush has nailed himself in quite well all by himself.
BaliBabyDoc
Lifer
You must have been at the GOP convention where Bush said, ''you are going to have big gubment under Republican or Democrat . . . so vote for me b/c my big government will have guns.
This gem should be framed . . . by your logic why don't we have the government employ everybody . . . that way unemployment will be nonexistent?!
besides all clinton did was cut the military,
This is one of the lies that if said enough times people will start believing it. Clinton did cut down the number of outdated bases from the coldwar era. But the process started in the 1st Bush adminstration. In other words Clinton made the military more efficient. (Do I sound like Rumsfeld right about now?) You can not denied that it was Clinton's military that won the Afghan war. Hell Bush lied what he said two division of the ARMY was not READY. A Senate hearing days later confirmed that those divisions were indeed ready...from the mouth of Richard Armitage. Oh and does the fact the the economy was the most prosperous and high paying jobs were everywhere account for the fact that military officers did not want to resign for a second tour of duty???
Here is how lies about Clinton are usually spread:
Newsmax, American Spectator, (both owned by Richard Mellon Scaife), Town Hall OPINION columns reports a story backed up with shaddy facts ---:> WASH Times, NY POST, (Both owned by Rupert Murdoch...who also owns FoxNews), and WSJ happily picks it up quoting those shaddy facts ----> the main stream media (ABC, NBC, CNN, Reuters, Washington POst, NY Times etc are forced to at report them because if they don't, they would be accused of liberal bias. Eventhough the "stories" aka LIES were all in initially concocted by Rightwing extremists with a politicdal agenda. Is this what you conservatives consider "fair and balanced"?????
http://www.csbaonline.org/4Publications/Archive/H.20000831.Post-Cold_War_Defe/H.20000831.Post-Cold_War_Defe.htm
http://www.csbaonline.org/3Defense_Budget/2Tables_Graphs/1Defense_Budget_Topline/Table1.pdf
This is one of the lies that if said enough times people will start believing it. Clinton did cut down the number of outdated bases from the coldwar era. But the process started in the 1st Bush adminstration. In other words Clinton made the military more efficient. (Do I sound like Rumsfeld right about now?) You can not denied that it was Clinton's military that won the Afghan war. Hell Bush lied what he said two division of the ARMY was not READY. A Senate hearing days later confirmed that those divisions were indeed ready...from the mouth of Richard Armitage. Oh and does the fact the the economy was the most prosperous and high paying jobs were everywhere account for the fact that military officers did not want to resign for a second tour of duty???
Here is how lies about Clinton are usually spread:
Newsmax, American Spectator, (both owned by Richard Mellon Scaife), Town Hall OPINION columns reports a story backed up with shaddy facts ---:> WASH Times, NY POST, (Both owned by Rupert Murdoch...who also owns FoxNews), and WSJ happily picks it up quoting those shaddy facts ----> the main stream media (ABC, NBC, CNN, Reuters, Washington POst, NY Times etc are forced to at report them because if they don't, they would be accused of liberal bias. Eventhough the "stories" aka LIES were all in initially concocted by Rightwing extremists with a politicdal agenda. Is this what you conservatives consider "fair and balanced"?????
http://www.csbaonline.org/4Publications/Archive/H.20000831.Post-Cold_War_Defe/H.20000831.Post-Cold_War_Defe.htm
http://www.csbaonline.org/3Defense_Budget/2Tables_Graphs/1Defense_Budget_Topline/Table1.pdf
BBD there's an extensive thread where Beamer proposed just that.
Because constitutional limits on the federal government are seen, to the Ds, as preventing progressive improvement to the country, the federal government will ever grow.
Because constitutional limits on the federal government are seen, to the Rs, as preventing American from achieving foreign hemegony, the federal government will ever grow.
Because Americans are too busy watching cable television, because they are no longer taught the dangers of a large, burdensome, intrusive government, the federal government will ever grow.
Are we doomed to repeat history or is something better just on the horizon? Don't know but government growth is a certainty.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Not true and you know it😉 Care to be more "open minded" and honest about it?
CkG
That may be your stance today but deep down inside would you not prefer everyone work for the collective? Wouldn't it be great if we didn't compete for jobs but instead had jobs given to us, to roles for which we're best suited, by those would guide us from above?
I believe that would be the ultimate goal, once our country flips a notch beyond socialism. A few Queens directing the Workers to the betterment of the Colony. Interestingly, the idea has some benefits. Everyone knows their task and duty toward the greater good. No one goes hungry (or else they couldn't produce). When the whole is threatened, everyone becomes a Soldier in defense of the nation.
But we're not ants or bees. These creatures don't need independence. And you know what happens to that ant when he's no longer of any use to the colony? He's forgotten, left to die or consumed for food. Nasty outcome for a human.
I know, I know, that would never happen. We can guard against it. I wonder if the Russian people thought so as well in the early 20th century? All it takes is one bad Queen..
Red Dawn
Elite Member
So saying the surrent Republican Regime is no different that a Democratic Administration is bashing Bush? I think Democrats would take that as much if not more of an insult. This should piss of true Republican Conservatives as much if not more than anybody else. Face it, your boy isn't what he said he was!
LunarRay
Diamond Member
Earth calling XZero II, come in please... Tell Bush he needs to fund infrastructure via Debt and thus create jobs. If he creates a Project to link LA and Vegas by high speed rail and say Boston and Charleston via high speed rail.. Maglev I think its called we will have a stimuli well directed to create work and it will pay for itself over time.. just like one of them fancy CFO cost benefit things.. Now there is a good use of debt. Become oil independent via these little thingi... If you look at the interstate system in major cities and see the Porche and Mercedes creep along you'd wonder why not.. let the interstate be as it is and move transportation trust $ to massive job creation.
Zebo
Elite Member
Ya. Like anyone gonna listen to economic history from a guy who starts his posts calling the readers Idiots😉 I know it's the neo-con way to muddy the waters and attack with adhom or all the other usual logical fallacies but it's not very flattering to your viewpoint.
The great depression is a hell of a lot more complicated than you're letting on.Here's a good timeline It was a combiation of regulation, spending, loosening the money supply etc which pulled us out.
LunarRay
Diamond Member
Government spending on War is a waste.. If they spend the same $ build a park we can enjoy the park... not so the exploded bomb.
Business uses LT Debt (like our National Debt) to finance capital expenditures which put folks to work. This ought to be the only allowed increase to debt. There ought to be projects that pay back over time the debt incurred... just like business. When the debt and debt service is paid back it becomes free to the nation.. but, that won't happen..🙂
XZeroII
Lifer
You missed the point of my post... I never said that it was the spending that got us out of the depression, I just said that it was a way to get people working again. By building the Hoover Dam, many people got jobs throughout the US. We needed lots of concrete (lots of stone and mortor), lots of heavy machinery, lots of engineers, etc... Lots of people were involved and lots of people got jobs. It was an awesome solution.
sandorski
No Lifer
Yes it was(you be watching History Channel I suspect 😉 ). I agree that for Infrastructure Projects, government spending can be a very good thing as you describe. However, a Hoover Dam type project would not have quite the same impact today as it did then(though it would still provide lasting benefit). If you want a major stimuli, you need something new, something big that not only provides employment and fiscal stimuli, but something that captures the imagination and creates excitement among not only those employed, but also the general public. The Hoover Dam and the Apollo Program were both these types of projects which had an economic and a propaganda benefit.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
