How could things have gotten so bad so quickly?

[techs]

I remember how it was in 2000. Surpluses as far as the eye could see. Hope for the middle east. Oil at 35 a barrel. Russia a democracy. China under pressure to improve human rights to continue to recieve trade benefits. Terrorists thwarted at the Millenium. A realization that something needed to be done about the cost of health insurance. The US at the pinnacle of our power in the world with our awesome military and our victory in the Balkans.

Barely 6 years later we have almost doubled our debt. The middle east is in turmoil. Oil is poised to hit 80 a barrel or higher. Growth in the stock market has ceased. Russia is a tryanny. Chinese democracy has been buried. Terrorists destroyed the Trade Center and crashed a plane into the Pentagon. Health insurance is becoming a thing of the past for tens of millions of Americans. The US is the perceived enemy of even our traditional allies. We are in a quagmire in Iraq that has emboldened our enemies. We virtually lost a city due to mismanagement.

Bad luck? Mismanagement? Wrong choices?

 

[aidanjm]

george w. bush, and his cronies, I suppose. they basically don't seem to be very good at doing the day to day stuff of running a country.

 

[AAjax]

I would say its Americans inability to look past the "two party system" There are asnwers out there, but as long as we buy into the falacy of only having two choices (read as one choice) we will continue in this downward spiral. It isnt Bush's fault, it wasnt Clinton's fault, it is our fault.

Until we wake up from this delusion and see that the powers that be have none of our collective interests in mind, and that the Dems and Repubs are the same darn thing we are doomed to keep repeating the poor choices that have led us all here.

 

[CanOWorms]

Russia a tyranny? Interesting.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Not everything has gotten so bad quickly. The quality of TV shows seems to have drastically improved.

 

[Ronstang]

It took 60 years for things to get this bad. Ignoring problems because they did not seem immediate in nature. I realize the only thing possible for a liberal is to blame Bush for everything but that is so telling of just how completely clueless and naive you truly are.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Ronstang
It took 60 years for things to get this bad. Ignoring problems because they did not seem immediate in nature. I realize the only thing possible for a liberal is to blame Bush for everything but that is so telling of just how completely clueless and naive you truly are.

Yup, it's not just Bush (although he does deserve his fair share of blame), it's everyone in the past who either ignored the problems or made it worse by selling (or giving) weapons to the very terrorists we're fighting today. Reagan in particular deserves a LOT of blame for the latter, while Clinton and Carter (and Bush I to some extent) deserve blame for much of the former.

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Russia a tyranny? Interesting.

I guess you haven't been reading up on the White House's attempt to push Putin on the issue of democratic rollbacks, etc. Bush even made a statement about it at the recent G8 summit to which Putin answered..."We want to be a democracy but we must ensure that Russia is not a democracy like Iraq is a democracy." This got quite a few laughs in the pool of reporters that were covering the event.

PS For those who can't understand the true message and meaning behind that statement by Putin what I got from it was...

1.) Russia will not and does not want to have anarchy style democracy ala Iraq.

2.) Russia does not want and will not have what they consider a US puppet democracy.

3.) Russia does not want or will not let any ethnic tensions explode and go unchecked like Iraq.

4.) Putin was saying in diplomatic speak "Check yo self befoe you reck yo self."

I am sure people could pull out other hidden meanings behind that statement as well.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Russia a tyranny? Interesting.

I guess you haven't been reading up on the White House's attempt to push Putin on the issue of democratic rollbacks, etc.

I have. The US and EU are consistently throwing remarks like that towards Russia even though the same remarks could be said to the US and EU. They need to quit with it.

 

[zendari]

That's funny actually, because terrorists hit the US several times during the Clinton adminstration, including the USS Cole bombings in 2000.

 

[nergee]

Originally posted by: zendari
That's funny actually, because terrorists hit the US several times during the Clinton adminstration, including the USS Cole bombings in 200.

Well other than those two instances, a lot of other thwarting was going on........

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: techs
Topic Title: How could things have gotten so bad so quickly?
Topic Summary: It's a litany of failures.

I remember how it was in 2000. Surpluses as far as the eye could see. Hope for the middle east. Oil at 35 a barrel. Russia a democracy. China under pressure to improve human rights to continue to recieve trade benefits. Terrorists thwarted at the Millenium. A realization that something needed to be done about the cost of health insurance. The US at the pinnacle of our power in the world with our awesome military and our victory in the Balkans.

Barely 6 years later we have almost doubled our debt. The middle east is in turmoil. Oil is poised to hit 80 a barrel or higher. Growth in the stock market has ceased. Russia is a tryanny. Chinese democracy has been buried. Terrorists destroyed the Trade Center and crashed a plane into the Pentagon. Health insurance is becoming a thing of the past for tens of millions of Americans. The US is the perceived enemy of even our traditional allies. We are in a quagmire in Iraq that has emboldened our enemies. We virtually lost a city due to mismanagement.

Bad luck? Mismanagement? Wrong choices?

You must be a Democrap. Things couldn't be better if you were a Republican.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: zendari
That's funny actually, because terrorists hit the US several times during the Clinton adminstration, including the USS Cole bombings in 200.

The hitting of a U.S. Military target where it didn't belong to begin with affected Joe Blow Citizen how back then???

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: zendari
That's funny actually, because terrorists hit the US several times during the Clinton adminstration, including the USS Cole bombings in 200.

The hitting of a U.S. Military target where it didn't belong to begin with affected Joe Blow Citizen how back then???

I'd ask the victims of Timothy McVeigh.

Not surprising to see that you think the deaths of sailors is irrelevant.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: zendari
That's funny actually, because terrorists hit the US several times during the Clinton adminstration, including the USS Cole bombings in 200.

The hitting of a U.S. Military target where it didn't belong to begin with affected Joe Blow Citizen how back then???

I'd ask the victims of Timothy McVeigh.

Not surprising to see that you think the deaths of sailors is irrelevant.

Way to dodge the subject and topic with compeletly wrong and useless crap.

McVeigh was a domestic nut that had nothing to do with foreign fanaticals.

He had as much connection to the WTC planes as Mickey Mouse.

 

[Pens1566]

WTF does McVeigh have to do with any of this?? Was he in Al Qaeda too? Oh wait, it's a dodge. Sorry.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Pens1566
WTF does McVeigh have to do with any of this?? Was he in Al Qaeda too? Oh wait, it's a dodge. Sorry.

I don't understand how come he doesn't get banned or something.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Way to dodge the subject and topic with compeletly wrong and useless crap.

McVeigh was a domestic nut that had nothing to do with foreign fanaticals.

He had as much connection to the WTC planes as Mickey Mouse.

Maybe Clinton should have paid more attention to the domestic front.

Things were bad well before Bush came into office, and since then have gotten better.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: zendari
Things were bad well before Bush came into office, and since then have gotten better.

That is the post of the year in P&N. :laugh:

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Way to dodge the subject and topic with compeletly wrong and useless crap.

McVeigh was a domestic nut that had nothing to do with foreign fanaticals.

He had as much connection to the WTC planes as Mickey Mouse.

Maybe Clinton should have paid more attention to the domestic front.

Things were bad well before Bush came into office, and since then have gotten better.

Really? You cal this better?

I normally don't do drugs but whatever you're on is some pretty potent stuff I would probably resort to once it gets unbearable and feels like time for good old fashioned Japanese Hari Kari.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: zendari
That's funny actually, because terrorists hit the US several times during the Clinton adminstration, including the USS Cole bombings in 200.

The hitting of a U.S. Military target where it didn't belong to begin with affected Joe Blow Citizen how back then???

Why should it not have been there?

 

[Stunt]

I remember how it was in 2000. Surpluses as far as the eye could see. Hope for the middle east. Oil at 35 a barrel. Russia a democracy. China under pressure to improve human rights to continue to recieve trade benefits. Terrorists thwarted at the Millenium. A realization that something needed to be done about the cost of health insurance. The US at the pinnacle of our power in the world with our awesome military and our victory in the Balkans.

a) Surpluses aren't always good, they come at a price; the goal of government is not to maximize profit. see here Bush was elected on Nov.27 2000...the stock market (hugely inflated from technology companies not performing...ie. PE valuations in the 1000's...totally unheard of in market history) started to crash at the beginning of 2000. The Dow has now recovered to the same values seen in 2000 but without the massively inflated valuations of the tech stocks (ie. in 2000 Dow shouldn't have been at those levels).

b) "Hope for the middle east. China under pressure to improve human rights to continue to recieve trade benefits. A realization that something needed to be done about the cost of health insurance." This is all warm and fuzzy talk. Fact of the matter is, nothing was done...talk and no action is no better than no talk and no action. You can plan all day, but in the end; no solution was created, nothing was done and you cannot consider these as being benifits or good things produced in 2000. You guys like all this warm and fuzzy talk about taking a hardline on issues, then when Republicans do them you freak out and condemn them. It's quite hilarious actually.

c) Oil from $35 to $70 in 6 years. Well go back 6 years on 2000...you get oil prices at $16. Oil doubled 1994-2000 as well. Why was doubling once somehow "good" and doubling again somehow "bad". Oh right because Clinton was evil and was helping oil companies profit :roll: It's a resource with a fixed amount on the planet, we are consuming at this rate because as the economy grew (at its fastest pace) in the 90's...our infrastructure was based on oil. Maybe you can figure out a way to blame Bush for that as well.

d) "The US at the pinnacle of our power in the world" This is still the same...

2000 was no better than today. The negative things you see are either your own misperceptions or normal cycles in any nation's history.

 

[Ferocious]

Originally posted by: zendari
Things were bad well before Bush came into office, and since then have gotten better.

LMAO. Weren't you in grade school back then?

The Clinton years was a time of optimism. I remember when places like McDonalds had to offer hiring bonuses to get people to even apply!

Now Walmart opens a store needing 300 people and 5000 apply. Good grief, only in Bush's America.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: zendari
That's funny actually, because terrorists hit the US several times during the Clinton adminstration, including the USS Cole bombings in 200.

The hitting of a U.S. Military target where it didn't belong to begin with affected Joe Blow Citizen how back then???

Why should it not have been there?

It's Yemen. Why must we have Warships in Yemen???

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: zendari
That's funny actually, because terrorists hit the US several times during the Clinton adminstration, including the USS Cole bombings in 200.

The hitting of a U.S. Military target where it didn't belong to begin with affected Joe Blow Citizen how back then???

Why should it not have been there?

It's Yemen. Why must we have Warships in Yemen???

It was refueling. Are we not allowed to have warships refueling in Yemen?