I guess I could say this a typical clinton fanboy response. Shall I also say that clinton set out a goal of gutting the military/intelligence agencies and raising taxes and he worked with Congress to accomplish both? They're both true. Bush's tax cuts would have accomplished exactly what they were designed to do if not for 9/11 (see Greenspan report to Congress Sept 01). I guess I could go further and say if clinton hadn't done what he did maybe Bush wouldn't have had to deal with 9/11 and we would have already been out of this once very mild recession. We won't go there it's been done to death with no gain. As for your last statement your telling me a guy who is ready to tell the rest of the world to stick it up their ass over Iraq has 0 political courage? That's not courage right, that's stupidity. Almost as stupid as hamstringing the very agencies that could have kept us out of this mess in the first place.
Bashing sells, reason and logic do not. Bashing also serves a political purpose by keeping two sides eternally opposed and therefore locked into a system of subservience.
It's this kind of BS that people hate, the GAO says that the reason for the disappearing surplus is because the economy slowed down NOT because of the Tax cut. The stupid politicians NEVER would have imagined that the economy would have slowed down. The democrats ALL signed the stupid tax cut along with Bush so they deserve the same amount of blame and/or credit for it.
Also why the hell should we have ANY surplus, it's our money, if the stupid ass government can't spend it responsible they shouldn't get it.
BTW: The Federal Government is 35 Trillion debt already!
HendrixFan
Diamond Member
- Oct 18, 2001
- 4,646
- 0
- 71
38 of the 50 Democrats in the Senate did NOT vote for Bush's tax cut. 12 out of 50 isnt even close to "all" as you claim.
THe GAO is right in that our surplus disappeared largely because of the economic slowdown. Bush's tax cut doesnt really kick in until 03 or 04, hitting full steam after he leaves office before it expires. Very little of the tax cut actually has gone into effect thus far. What that means then, is that once the tax cut starts to gradually phase in, the disappearing surplus becomes a massive deficit. Economic factors are to blame now, but the tax cut will weight heavily in the coming years.
Of course the tax cut was supposed to be a "reward" for the hard work americans did in a great economy, or so Bush claimed during the campaigns. Its the American public's hard work that has made the economy strong he told us. So its our laziness that made it crumble? I think not. Once the recession hit, the same tax cut went from being a "reward" to "stimulus", which was utter BS. With the economy showing early signs of lagging, the proper course (via tax cuts which was obviously the avenue Bush wanted) would have been through business tax breaks. Since Clinton was heavy on business taxes, they needed the relief more than citizens; and relief at that time would have helped to curb a need for slashing jobs. Instead we now have huge unemployment (almost up to Bush I levels) because businesses needed to "trim the fat" to make their margins.
THe GAO is right in that our surplus disappeared largely because of the economic slowdown. Bush's tax cut doesnt really kick in until 03 or 04, hitting full steam after he leaves office before it expires. Very little of the tax cut actually has gone into effect thus far. What that means then, is that once the tax cut starts to gradually phase in, the disappearing surplus becomes a massive deficit. Economic factors are to blame now, but the tax cut will weight heavily in the coming years.
Of course the tax cut was supposed to be a "reward" for the hard work americans did in a great economy, or so Bush claimed during the campaigns. Its the American public's hard work that has made the economy strong he told us. So its our laziness that made it crumble? I think not. Once the recession hit, the same tax cut went from being a "reward" to "stimulus", which was utter BS. With the economy showing early signs of lagging, the proper course (via tax cuts which was obviously the avenue Bush wanted) would have been through business tax breaks. Since Clinton was heavy on business taxes, they needed the relief more than citizens; and relief at that time would have helped to curb a need for slashing jobs. Instead we now have huge unemployment (almost up to Bush I levels) because businesses needed to "trim the fat" to make their margins.
Why the hell should we have any deficit? Why should you benefit from government spending that you likely wont be around to pay for. Looks like a pyramid scheme to me.
The rest of your comments is just hysterical unsubstantiated gibberish.
Clinton cut spending many programs across the board. Remember welfare reform. I know in your mind cutting spending means just cutting programs you don't like, but that's not how things work.
I guess it's too much to expect Bush to actually plan for some uncertainties in the future, as opposed to blowing a surplus on 10 year projections.
Well, maybe if Reagan didn't waste all that money training terrorists in the 80's, we would have had the money and no 9/11. Or maybe if the congress didn't waste 50 Million wasting Clinton's time on Lewinsky and just let him do his job, we would have had that money, and no 9/11. But we'll never know, will we.
So why did you go there?
I said Bush has no political courage on fiscal policy. It is not politically advantageous to raise taxes and cut social programs as Clinton did. That takes courage. It is easy to cut taxes and blow up spending as Bush has done, and let the future presidents worry about the debt. That takes 0 courage.
Right. I am glad you are catching my drift
About Iraq, there isn't much political courage in that either. The rest of the world is not voting in our elections.
Yes, they were very hamstrung. With 350 Billion dollar budget, with $2B bombers, and stealth planes, and fancy satellites, the whole defense establishment was raped by some 19 camelbangers with $100K budget and some box cutters. If you ask me, we gave them too much money. If we gave them more, they would just waste it on some more gizmos, maybe star wars, and that wouldn't stop 9/11 in any way. But we'll never know.
NesuD
Diamond Member
- Oct 9, 1999
- 4,999
- 106
- 106
The liberals had a free pass for many years. Now there are people who get huge audiences putting their feet to the fire. Who cares if they make a lot of money doing it. Do you think big time liberals have been doing what they do for free? It's all about money and power. Liberal or conservative doesn't matter.
and republicans NEVER give reagon credit for stuff he didn't do.
that really pisses me off when conservatives FLAT out refuse to give clinton ANY credit at all. Face it people the economic growth during clintons administration was LONGER and BETTER than anything during reagon and yet, EVERYTHING good that happened during the 80's is due to reagon, and EVERYTHING good that happened during clinton is probably also due to reagon as far as you ostrich (head in the sand) republicans think.
I think ur missing the point. The only reason there is IRONY in RUSH's case is BECAUSE HE MAKES SUCH A BIG DEAL OF MORALITY. HE PREACHES IT ALL THE TIME.
when is the last time clinton preached morality. oh wait, maybe you just dont' know what irony is.
Limbaugh's ex-wives have come out since Franken's idiotic rant in his defense. That should have been enough to stop the Rush Bashing on this count but a good Liberal never lets the facts stop them.
Red Dawn
Elite Member
- Jun 4, 2001
- 57,529
- 3
- 0
What about Limbaugh's current wife's ex husband? His relationship with her was the reason she divorced him? Maybe it was a bad marriage who knows, but the fact that she was another mans wife when Rush started a relatioship with her make's Rushes Moralistic diatribes, especially those leveled at Clinton , extremely hypocritcal. In fact knowing what the public does about Hilary, Clintons infidelity is understandable (though his taste in Ho's is rather repugnant)
Using you reasoning no person can ever tell another he is wrong. I do know that at the very least Marta, Rush's wife, was legally separated before they ever met. She has said so.
Part of Clinton's moral downfall was bragging he would have the most moral administration ever. And a stupid American Public refused to look at his dealings in the past which were anything but moral. While bashing 'The Decade of Greed,' as he called the eighties, he was doing exactly what he demonized those 'Rich Republicans' for doing. His morality went sharply downhill from there.
...And, Rush is far from perfect. As far a 'Liberal Bashing,' I hear him bashing Republicans with like vigor on many occasions. Although he claims to be a Conservative, his views like my own are a combination of Conservative and Libertarian principles.
The sad part of Clinton was he was very bright, but so self-centered he could not tell right from wrong. Every decision he made was about himself and how he personally could profit. Everyone else was second. It's too bad because without all his lies and underhanded dealings most Americans would have thought him the best president ever.
Red Dawn
Elite Member
- Jun 4, 2001
- 57,529
- 3
- 0
Sure they can. Everyone has the right to be a hypocrite is they choose to be.
Nobody is denying what you say..nobody. This topic was about Liberal bashing and the Hypocrites who were doing it, not the fact that Clinton was an immoral man. In fact the last time I looked Clinton wasn't President and hadn't been for two years.
ThePresence
Elite Member
- Nov 19, 2001
- 27,727
- 16
- 81
Liberal bashing? WTF is that? Lets see. Since we cant answer to Rush's and Co.'s arguments, lets just call them a "liberal basher" and dismiss them as fanatics. Yeah, they may be fanatics because they deeply believe in what they preach. Why dont you try listening to them and actually answering their accusations instead of just labeling them and dismissing them.
And what does that mean? Are we now upset because someone is making too much money? The reason he's making so much money, is because he's damn good at what he does, and there are millions of people (myself included) who listen to him avidly, and enjoy his program. Despite some people's best efforts to the contrary, this is still a capitalist society, and someone who got a service to sell can still make money. I think he's worth every penny he can make.
How then do you explain the Regan still is being bashed and he has not been president for 14 years?
We are ALL hypocrites. You, I, everyone that thinks makes mistakes and does things that we would condemn others for. I rarely use the word as it applies to every single person.
Liberals want to do what they feel is right.
The problem is, feelings are a poor substitute for common sense.
The problem is, feelings are a poor substitute for common sense.
Red Dawn
Elite Member
- Jun 4, 2001
- 57,529
- 3
- 0
Hahahaha... Reagan? Occasionally his name comes up but usually it's GW that takes all the heat from the Libs. When someone at this forum starts up about Reagan it's usually some wanker who was just a twinkle in his daddy's eye when Reagan was elected.
Any and every time the economy and it's ups and downs are discussed Regan is drawn into the discussion. Everytime. Those 'wankers' have been taught in a Liberal Education System that he was evil and a buffoon.
[/quote] Your common sense is what gives you the feeling of what is right. I think the truth is that the Liberals do what they think is Politically Correct.[/quote]
I believe some are sincere. Their ideas of how to lead a great Nation are, very wrong.
I believe some are sincere. Their ideas of how to lead a great Nation are, very wrong.
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 Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter