PDA

View Full Version : Kerry will not reveal his economic plan until AFTER the election......



Section126
07-30-2004, 10:42 PM
(CNSNews.com) - A top economic advisor to Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry said the public won't hear Kerry's financial plans until after he's elected - if he's elected.

In the Aug. 2 cover story of "Business Week," former Clinton administration treasury secretary Robert Rubin said, "I don't think you can make proposals to try to dig out of this hole until you've gotten elected ... If you start to put out proposals now, they would be vigorously attacked and they would in effect become tainted so they couldn't be used."

Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) stated that Kerry is trying to avoid revealing his plan to increase taxes on the middle-class because it would create a campaign liability if he did.

In a release, the group stated that Kerry's plan to roll back President Bush's tax cuts for the top earners "will yield him only $40 to $60 billion per year, far below the more than $200 billion of new spending commitments he has promised to special interests who feed off of American taxpayers."

"In other words," ATR stated, "if Kerry is elected, middle-class tax increases are coming."

Dan Clifton, chief economist for ATR, said the Kerry strategy relies on deception. "The idea is just say, 'Only the rich are going to get taxed,' [and] run out the clock on the campaign. Once they get in, they'll develop a crisis and say 'we've got to raise taxes on everybody.'"

If, as a presidential candidate, "you have something up your sleeve, you should let us know," Clifton said. Rubin's comments, furthermore, "made it very clear that they (the Kerry campaign) have something up their sleeve."

According to Clifton, Kerry's plan could include raising the gasoline tax which the Democrat has proposed in the past, raising the tax rates on the top one, two or three tax brackets, raising the capital gains tax and more.

"There are a number of things that they can do once they get in," Clifton said. "They're just not giving an indication to any of us what they're doing."

Clifton said Kerry's campaign promise not to raise taxes on the middle-class echoes the promises former president Bill Clinton made in his first Democratic National Convention speech as a presidential hopeful in 1992..

Clinton promised that "the wealthy" would be asked to pay their "fair share" and the taxes on middle-class families would not increase, but "Clinton and Kerry imposed the largest tax increase on middle class families," ATR stated.

The group pointed out that Kerry voted in favor of Clinton's tax increases while he served in the U.S. Senate.

Repeated calls to the Kerry campaign office seeking comment for this article were not answered.

Section126
07-30-2004, 10:44 PM
This guy is a real jerk....what audacity to say that you will not reveal your economic plan to the country before the election.....

A vote for Kerry is a Vote for MASSIVE TAX HIKES!!!! We are talking Jimmy Carter here folks!!!!

ohall
07-30-2004, 11:02 PM
As more of the truth comes out the more ppl will not vote for someone they don't even like in the 1st place.

I'm sticking by my prediction, Bush will win this election by 7-9%.

By the way have seen if Kerry has got a bump from the convention?

Oliver...

Muck
07-30-2004, 11:14 PM
God, I don't want Bush back. I don't really care for Kerry either.

Is it too much to ask to have a candidate you can get behind?? This will be my second presidential election. And it will be the second time I pick the "lesser of all evils". I hate this. I desperately want to get behind a candidate. And I'm tired of a two-party dominated system.

Please lord, Jesse Ventura.....2008.

DolphinDevil28
07-30-2004, 11:29 PM
Muck, please tell me you didn't just say Ventura.

Please tell me you were kidding.

As for Kerry, it doesn't matter what article comes out about him. EVERY SINGLE DEMOCRAT that has ever run for president always promises these "wonderful" programs that will help everyone and we will all live in fantasy land. Thing is, they never explain how they will pay for it.

It always turns out that taxes go through the roof, the programs never happen and the economy tanks.

Muck
07-31-2004, 12:02 AM
I liked Ventura because he was the opposite of every politician I'd ever seen. He was refreshingly candid, intelligent, and brought new ideas to the table. He destroyed his opponents in debates. I'd vote for him in a heartbeat over the rest of the riff-raff running this year.

You said it yourself, "every Democrat promises the same thing". I'll do you one better. They ALL promise the same thing. They all write checks you know they can't cash. It's not limited to whatever party you don't like.

I have no party affiliation. I could give a rat's azz about Dems and Reps. I'm tied to no one. The hard core partly line **** just turns me off. It felt so good yesterday to renounce my "official" party affiliation for "party left blank" status when re-registering to vote (only reason I registered as one of the two was because the area I was from is heavily populated on one side....that way I could vote more often).

I'm the guy your candidates are after. You're vote is a shoo-in because you're party-line guys (just speaking in general, not directed at anyone in particular). But people like me decide the election (which isn't always a good thing :( ).

modestophinfan
07-31-2004, 05:29 AM
seriously, if i put up a new thread bashing bush everyday, id be banned, so why should bashing kerry be any different?

Clumpy
07-31-2004, 05:36 AM
This will be my second presidential election.


You lost the first time :roflmao:

Den54
07-31-2004, 08:13 AM
I liked Ventura because he was the opposite of every politician I'd ever seen. He was refreshingly candid, intelligent, and brought new ideas to the table. He destroyed his opponents in debates. I'd vote for him in a heartbeat over the rest of the riff-raff running this year.

You said it yourself, "every Democrat promises the same thing". I'll do you one better. They ALL promise the same thing. They all write checks you know they can't cash. It's not limited to whatever party you don't like.

I have no party affiliation. I could give a rat's azz about Dems and Reps. I'm tied to no one. The hard core partly line **** just turns me off. It felt so good yesterday to renounce my "official" party affiliation for "party left blank" status when re-registering to vote (only reason I registered as one of the two was because the area I was from is heavily populated on one side....that way I could vote more often).

I'm the guy your candidates are after. You're vote is a shoo-in because you're party-line guys (just speaking in general, not directed at anyone in particular). But people like me decide the election (which isn't always a good thing :( ).


I'm so there with ya Muck. One day an Independent will take office. I hope I live long enough to see it. And yes Jessie Ventura would be a fine canidate.
Why could'nt have Arnold been an Independent? And so forth and things of that nature. :lol:

Section126
07-31-2004, 09:47 AM
I liked Ventura because he was the opposite of every politician I'd ever seen. He was refreshingly candid, intelligent, and brought new ideas to the table. He destroyed his opponents in debates. I'd vote for him in a heartbeat over the rest of the riff-raff running this year.

You said it yourself, "every Democrat promises the same thing". I'll do you one better. They ALL promise the same thing. They all write checks you know they can't cash. It's not limited to whatever party you don't like.

I have no party affiliation. I could give a rat's azz about Dems and Reps. I'm tied to no one. The hard core partly line **** just turns me off. It felt so good yesterday to renounce my "official" party affiliation for "party left blank" status when re-registering to vote (only reason I registered as one of the two was because the area I was from is heavily populated on one side....that way I could vote more often).

I'm the guy your candidates are after. You're vote is a shoo-in because you're party-line guys (just speaking in general, not directed at anyone in particular). But people like me decide the election (which isn't always a good thing :( ).


Muck.....Doesn't it bother you that Jesse Ventura was basically run out of office in Minnesota?

The guy was going to get booted out by 15 points.....doesn't the opinions of those he governed matter?


BTW, I was a Jesse Ventura kool-aid drinker.....I loved the guy cuz I thought he was the perfect candidate...A fiscal conservative but a social liberal with moral standards.....

Then he took office.....and began to govern....and I did this: :foundout:

DolFan31
08-03-2004, 10:55 AM
Get rid of the electoral college system and you'd have a better chance at getting a 3rd Party or Independant in office.

DolFan31
08-03-2004, 11:58 AM
Muck.....Doesn't it bother you that Jesse Ventura was basically run out of office in Minnesota?

The guy was going to get booted out by 15 points.....doesn't the opinions of those he governed matter?


BTW, I was a Jesse Ventura kool-aid drinker.....I loved the guy cuz I thought he was the perfect candidate...A fiscal conservative but a social liberal with moral standards.....

Then he took office.....and began to govern....and I did this: :foundout:
Sounds like Bill Clinton fits your description of a perfect candidate(except the moral part).

Section126
08-03-2004, 12:47 PM
Sounds like Bill Clinton fits your description of a perfect candidate(except the moral part).


Bill Clinton was not a fiscal conservative.........

He Taxed and Taxed and then asked for studies into every single evil tax hike you can think of.......Including his doozy...the USER Tax.....(An Al Gore Special)

Sorry....Bill Clinton does not qualify....

Think Evan Byah and Joe Lieberman.......

DolFan31
08-03-2004, 01:29 PM
Bill Clinton was not a fiscal conservative.........

He Taxed and Taxed and then asked for studies into every single evil tax hike you can think of.......Including his doozy...the USER Tax.....(An Al Gore Special)

Sorry....Bill Clinton does not qualify....

Think Evan Byah and Joe Lieberman.......

:roflmao: :roflmao: :shakeno: :shakeno:

Not fiscally conservative eh?
http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus/
http://clinton3.nara.gov/WH/Work/102899.html

DolFan31
08-03-2004, 01:37 PM
Let me add a few charts to my last post so you dont use the excuse that my sources are bias.

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?DocID=139
http://www.finheaven.com/clear.gif
http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2004/08/bush_deficit_graphic-1.gif
http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2004/08/chart6_1-1.gif

Section126
08-03-2004, 03:00 PM
Let me add a few charts to my last post so you dont use the excuse that my sources are bias.

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?DocID=139
http://www.finheaven.com/clear.gif
http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2004/08/bush_deficit_graphic-1.gif
http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2004/08/chart6_1-1.gif


Deficits don't matter...at least not in the short run.....

Those charts are a product of a Republican Congress.....

Bill Clinton is not a fiscal conservative. PERIOD.

DolFan31
08-03-2004, 03:11 PM
Deficits don't matter...at least not in the short run.....

Those charts are a product of a Republican Congress.....

Bill Clinton is not a fiscal conservative. PERIOD.

We still have a Republican congress. What happened?

Deficits DO matter. That means cuts to beneficiary programs and departments. It means cuts to education, health care, veterans, the environment, law enforcement..I can go on and on..

How is Clinton not a fiscal conservative?

Ross
08-03-2004, 10:39 PM
How about because he wanted to pass a health care plan that was very expensive. Put that in your fatcheck research engine. Instead of looking to just what actually happened, you must also look to what he wanted to happen. The programs he wanted to push and the cost of those as well. And the last I looked, our National debt just kept on rising with the Fiscally Conservative Clinton at the helm too...

--Ross

DolFan31
08-03-2004, 10:46 PM
How about because he wanted to pass a health care plan that was very expensive. Put that in your fatcheck research engine. Instead of looking to just what actually happened, you must also look to what he wanted to happen. The programs he wanted to push and the cost of those as well. And the last I looked, our National debt just kept on rising with the Fiscally Conservative Clinton at the helm too...

--Ross

If they didnt pass, they didnt get funding. I really dont know what your point is, because it doesnt make any sense. Clinton was attempting to pay off the National Debt, and thats a FACT buddy.

PhinPhan1227
08-03-2004, 10:59 PM
If they didnt pass, they didnt get funding. I really dont know what your point is, because it doesnt make any sense. Clinton was attempting to pay off the National Debt, and thats a FACT buddy.


He was fortunate to be President during the dotcom bubble which gave him a cash influx which the next PResident had to pay for. Clinton also tried to pay down our debt by gutting the miltary. 40% of it was gone by the time he left office.

DolFan31
08-03-2004, 11:11 PM
He was fortunate to be President during the dotcom bubble which gave him a cash influx which the next PResident had to pay for. Clinton also tried to pay down our debt by gutting the miltary. 40% of it was gone by the time he left office.

So you are confirming Clinton tried to pay down the debt?

PhinPhan1227
08-03-2004, 11:25 PM
So you are confirming Clinton tried to pay down the debt?


Sigh...every American President wants to pay down the debt. Bush tried to pay down the debt as well. Then 9/11 happened. Perhaps if Clinton hadn't butchered the military and the intel services to "pay down the debt", 9/11 wouldn't have happened and we would be further down the path to ACTUALLY paying down the debt?

DolFan31
08-03-2004, 11:51 PM
Sigh...every American President wants to pay down the debt. Bush tried to pay down the debt as well. Then 9/11 happened. Perhaps if Clinton hadn't butchered the military and the intel services to "pay down the debt", 9/11 wouldn't have happened and we would be further down the path to ACTUALLY paying down the debt?

Every president may want to pay down the debt, but how many actually TRY? At least Clinton tried. You have to give him credit for the effort.

So, Mr. Moderate, are you taking the conservative's stance on 9/11 and not the moderates and blame Clinton for 9/11? Even Im in the "9/11 probably would have happened no matter what" crowd.

And with this War on Terror eating up the debt, will we ever pay down the debt? And permanent tax cuts? We're in for deficit hell(we're already there)/

PhinPhan1227
08-04-2004, 02:19 AM
Every president may want to pay down the debt, but how many actually TRY? At least Clinton tried. You have to give him credit for the effort.

So, Mr. Moderate, are you taking the conservative's stance on 9/11 and not the moderates and blame Clinton for 9/11? Even Im in the "9/11 probably would have happened no matter what" crowd.

And with this War on Terror eating up the debt, will we ever pay down the debt? And permanent tax cuts? We're in for deficit hell(we're already there)/

Eventually a 9/11 was going to happen. You're never going to be 100% against people willing to die. But specifically the 9/11 on 9/11? I think Clinton's responses to other terrrorist acts, and his cuts to the intelligence agencies contributed. Nothing like this is ever one persons fault...but Clinton contributed. As for the debt, Reagan built it in order to bring down the Soviets. Once that was achieved, the debt could be brought down(which it was). Same thing here. Make the changes needed, then bring the debt down.

DolFan31
08-04-2004, 12:58 PM
Eventually a 9/11 was going to happen. You're never going to be 100% against people willing to die. But specifically the 9/11 on 9/11? I think Clinton's responses to other terrrorist acts, and his cuts to the intelligence agencies contributed. Nothing like this is ever one persons fault...but Clinton contributed. As for the debt, Reagan built it in order to bring down the Soviets. Once that was achieved, the debt could be brought down(which it was). Same thing here. Make the changes needed, then bring the debt down.

But we're not fighting the Soviets anymore. There's no one to outspend. How does Bush plan on bringing the debt down? He never mentions it! At least Kerry mentions it. What happened to fiscal conservativeness?

Section126
08-04-2004, 02:00 PM
But we're not fighting the Soviets anymore. There's no one to outspend. How does Bush plan on bringing the debt down? He never mentions it! At least Kerry mentions it. What happened to fiscal conservativeness?


By growing the economy....pay attention!

DolFan31
08-04-2004, 02:23 PM
By growing the economy....pay attention!

An economic slowdown like right now isnt helping.

PhinPhan1227
08-04-2004, 03:23 PM
But we're not fighting the Soviets anymore. There's no one to outspend. How does Bush plan on bringing the debt down? He never mentions it! At least Kerry mentions it. What happened to fiscal conservativeness?


That was the Cold War, this is a hot war. We're spending to build our military back up after Clinton butchered it, and more importantly to retool our security and intelligence services. Remember, both were designed to fight the Soviets, they need to be rebuilt.

Section126
08-04-2004, 04:12 PM
An economic slowdown like right now isnt helping.


ECONOMIC SLOWDOWN? What SLOWDOWN?

The economy is growing at record numbers.....


Please don't tell me that the Democrats are going to the Communist propaganda playbook this early...... :rolleyes:

Tell a lie as fact as to make it true......


In Fact...DELETE THAT POST YOU MADE RIGHT NOW.

DolFan31
08-04-2004, 08:20 PM
ECONOMIC SLOWDOWN? What SLOWDOWN?

The economy is growing at record numbers.....


Please don't tell me that the Democrats are going to the Communist propaganda playbook this early...... :rolleyes:

Tell a lie as fact as to make it true......


In Fact...DELETE THAT POST YOU MADE RIGHT NOW.

Why do you guys get offended so damn easily? Smoke some pot, and chill out. Be free!

All kidding aside...

http://www.freep.com/news/latestnews/pm20876_20040728.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21700-2004Jul28.html
http://www.mlive.com/newsflash/business/index.ssf?/newsflash/get_story.ssf?/cgi-free/getstory_ssf.cgi?f0229_BC_Economy&&news&newsflash-financial
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2004-07/29/content_1667774.htm
http://www.starbanner.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040731/NEWS/40731002/1009/BUSINESS
http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD%2FMGArticle%2FRTD_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031776980959&path=!business&s=1045855934855
http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/journalgazette/business/9271555.htm


But Im gonna guess your not going to read any of it since youre too afraid of admitting anything negative about Bush.

DolFan31
08-04-2004, 08:25 PM
That was the Cold War, this is a hot war. We're spending to build our military back up after Clinton butchered it, and more importantly to retool our security and intelligence services. Remember, both were designed to fight the Soviets, they need to be rebuilt.

#1: Pork defensive spending leads to wasted dollars because a portion of it goes to projects that wind up being scrapped.

#2: Clinton didnt butcher the military, he just cut the pork spending. It turn, he made the military more advanced in technology(cut in orders for tanks, more orders for "smart bombs").

#3: They do need to rebuilt as most of the military was built up to fight the Soviets. It does need many reforms to fight terror. I think we should combine the FBI and the CIA since the DOHS isnt forcing the two agencies work together. It will be the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Central Intelligence(FBICIA). :)

PhinPhan1227
08-04-2004, 08:32 PM
#1: Pork defensive spending leads to wasted dollars because a portion of it goes to projects that wind up being scrapped.

#2: Clinton didnt butcher the military, he just cut the pork spending. It turn, he made the military more advanced in technology(cut in orders for tanks, more orders for "smart bombs").

#3: They do need to rebuilt as most of the military was built up to fight the Soviets. It does need many reforms to fight terror. I think we should combine the FBI and the CIA since the DOHS isnt forcing the two agencies work together. It will be the Federal Beaurea of Investigation and Central Intelligence(FBICIA). :)

We're not talking programs like the Osprey(piece of crap that it is), we're talking 40% of the MANPOWER of the military. 40% of the Army's Divisions are GONE. That's not "pork", that's feet on the street. That right there is the manpower we now lack. True pork defensive spending is more often things like keeping military bases open that are no longer needed. And that kind of pork is bipartisan. As for rebuilding to fight terror, I agree. If we had even HALF of what Clinton cut available as Light Infantry we could have Afghanistan and Iraq under total lockdown. As for CIA/FBI being combioned, the ACLU would throw a FIT. The CIA is in the business of spying on people. They don't want them spying on America. What needs to happen is that the DOHS needs to be given teeth. If people hold out the DOHS should have the power to can their beaurocratic a$$es.

DolFan31
08-04-2004, 08:37 PM
We're not talking programs like the Osprey(piece of crap that it is), we're talking 40% of the MANPOWER of the military. 40% of the Army's Divisions are GONE. That's not "pork", that's feet on the street. That right there is the manpower we now lack. True pork defensive spending is more often things like keeping military bases open that are no longer needed. And that kind of pork is bipartisan. As for rebuilding to fight terror, I agree. If we had even HALF of what Clinton cut available as Light Infantry we could have Afghanistan and Iraq under total lockdown. As for CIA/FBI being combioned, the ACLU would throw a FIT. The CIA is in the business of spying on people. They don't want them spying on America. What needs to happen is that the DOHS needs to be given teeth. If people hold out the DOHS should have the power to can their beaurocratic a$$es.

When the two agencies are combined, they will be split into two departments: One for federal investigations, the other for intelligence for national security. Perhaps adding the NSA to it. Force the agencies to work together by combining them.

Ross
08-04-2004, 11:28 PM
If they didnt pass, they didnt get funding. I really dont know what your point is, because it doesnt make any sense. Clinton was attempting to pay off the National Debt, and thats a FACT buddy.


No son, its' anything but a fact. What is a fact is Clinton raised taxes and gave us 'lip service' about the national debt while the national debt kept rising. Fact is, if he wanted to pay off the national debt he would have done so.

So I guess the point is the man wasn’t a fiscal conservative. He was the exact opposite…

--Ross

PhinPhan1227
08-05-2004, 10:41 AM
When the two agencies are combined, they will be split into two departments: One for federal investigations, the other for intelligence for national security. Perhaps adding the NSA to it. Force the agencies to work together by combining them.


Hey, I've got no problem with it, but I guarrantee that there's no way the Civil Liberties Union or other privacy groups would go for it.

DolFan31
08-05-2004, 03:40 PM
Hey, I've got no problem with it, but I guarrantee that there's no way the Civil Liberties Union or other privacy groups would go for it.

The CIA probably already spies on American citizens, so I dont think it would make much of a difference.

PhinPhan1227
08-05-2004, 04:06 PM
The CIA probably already spies on American citizens, so I dont think it would make much of a difference.


Probably not, but appearances are everything. MArk my words, if they attempt to join the two agencies, the ACLU wil cry foul.

DolFan31
08-05-2004, 04:09 PM
Probably not, but appearances are everything. MArk my words, if they attempt to join the two agencies, the ACLU wil cry foul.

Perhaps add to the constitution a true Right to Privacy that would not hurt investigations?

PhinPhan1227
08-05-2004, 04:12 PM
Perhaps add to the constitution a true Right to Privacy that would not hurt investigations?


Lol...Right to Privacy is already skewed WAY to the side of the accused. Make it any stronger and the only people arrested will be those caught in the act.

Section126
08-05-2004, 05:04 PM
Why do you guys get offended so damn easily? Smoke some pot, and chill out. Be free!

All kidding aside...

http://www.freep.com/news/latestnews/pm20876_20040728.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21700-2004Jul28.html
http://www.mlive.com/newsflash/business/index.ssf?/newsflash/get_story.ssf?/cgi-free/getstory_ssf.cgi?f0229_BC_Economy&&news&newsflash-financial
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2004-07/29/content_1667774.htm
http://www.starbanner.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040731/NEWS/40731002/1009/BUSINESS
http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD%2FMGArticle%2FRTD_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031776980959&path=!business&s=1045855934855
http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/journalgazette/business/9271555.htm


But Im gonna guess your not going to read any of it since youre too afraid of admitting anything negative about Bush.



I repeat....stop with the commie propaganda tactics.......Those articles are talking about a slight down tick that would correct itself in the next quarter......after that down tick the Economy would still be growing at a record pace.

DolFan31
08-05-2004, 05:19 PM
I repeat....stop with the commie propaganda tactics.......Those articles are talking about a slight down tick that would correct itself in the next quarter......after that down tick the Economy would still be growing at a record pace.

:sleep:

ABrownLamp
08-05-2004, 05:43 PM
We're not talking programs like the Osprey(piece of crap that it is), we're talking 40% of the MANPOWER of the military. 40% of the Army's Divisions are GONE. That's not "pork", that's feet on the street. That right there is the manpower we now lack. True pork defensive spending is more often things like keeping military bases open that are no longer needed. And that kind of pork is bipartisan. As for rebuilding to fight terror, I agree. If we had even HALF of what Clinton cut available as Light Infantry we could have Afghanistan and Iraq under total lockdown. As for CIA/FBI being combioned, the ACLU would throw a FIT. The CIA is in the business of spying on people. They don't want them spying on America. What needs to happen is that the DOHS needs to be given teeth. If people hold out the DOHS should have the power to can their beaurocratic a$$es.
I love how REPS keep saying CLinton was the one who gutted the military. Lets not forget that there was a REP House of Rep who agreed with him and his cuts . They were all for it. Until of course they could use it against him.

You guys hate Clinton with all of you being. I LOVE IT. Hey you know who else inherited a deficit when they meved into office...Bill Clinton.

PhinPhan1227
08-05-2004, 05:45 PM
I love how REPS keep saying CLinton was the one who gutted the military. Lets not forget that there was a REP House of Rep who agreed with him and his cuts . They were all for it. Until of course they could use it against him.

You guys hate Clinton with all of you being. I LOVE IT. Hey you know who else inherited a deficit when they meved into office...Bill Clinton.


Ohhhh...so Clinton isn't responsible for any of the bad things that happened during his term, but Bush is responsible for everything in his. With that kind of double standard do they charge you twice when you go to the movies?

ABrownLamp
08-05-2004, 06:04 PM
Ohhhh...so Clinton isn't responsible for any of the bad things that happened during his term, but Bush is responsible for everything in his. With that kind of double standard do they charge you twice when you go to the movies?

That's not what I'm saying. Every President wants to take responsibilites for their successes and blame their failures on the last President and their administration. The fact is that yes, Clinton got lucky and came into Presidency during the dotcom era. However, that is not the only reason the economy did well.
He gutted the military, but lets not forget that there is a system of checks and balances within government. And a REP led HOReps agreed and approved his cuts. Clinton came into office with a deficit too. He initiated programs and brought in a cabinet that helped turn things around IN ADDITION TO THE DOTCOM BUBBLE. And he raised taxes too. So what? So did Bush 1 and Reagan.
GWB "inherited" his deficit in 2001. Not in 2000. And he had the unfortunate experience of being in office during 9/11. Every 4 years in different. It's a crapshoot. But it's what the Presidents do with what they have that makes them who they are. And that is why I don't like Bush.

PhinPhan1227
08-05-2004, 06:07 PM
That's not what I'm saying. Every President wants to take responsibilites for their successes and blame their failures on the last President and their administration. The fact is that yes, Clinton got lucky and came into Presidency during the dotcom era. However, that is not the only reason the economy did well.
He gutted the military, but lets not forget that there is a system of checks and balances within government. And a REP led HOReps agreed and approved his cuts. Clinton came into office with a deficit too. He initiated programs and brought in a cabinet that helped turn things around IN ADDITION TO THE DOTCOM BUBBLE. And he raised taxes too. So what? So did Bush 1 and Reagan.
GWB "inherited" his deficit in 2001. Not in 2000. And he had the unfortunate experience of being in office during 9/11. Every 4 years in different. It's a crapshoot. But it's what the Presidents do with what they have that makes them who they are. And that is why I don't like Bush.

The difference as I see it is that Bush has made tough and unpopular decisions. He could have played it safe and still been sitting on a 80% approval rating. But a leader is SUPPOSSED to make tough, unpopular decisions when he sees the need. Clinton never did anything to piss anyone off. But there's an old saying...if you aren't pissing anyone off, you probably aren't DOING anything.