Re: BBB
McGentrix wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:Hardly. The economy is medium at best. Real wages for the average person haven't risen in years, the amount of jobs created under Bush is the lowest ever. You're comparing, at this point in the presidency, 20 million jobs for Clinton v. how many for Bush? 4 million? If that.
Wars also tend to create jobs as well, so it's not really a good excuse to say that we are 'at war.'
The markets have been basically flat, health insurance costs have skyrocketed, our national debt has gone up by several trillion dollars in just the last few years, our national savings rate is negative, etc... there simply is no comparison between the economy of Clinton and Bush, Clinton's economy was miles better, and our current one sucks.
The current economic situation is based on the wars we are fighting. Bush was given an economy nose-diving into a recession as a result of Clinton's economic policies. The Bush administration has done a wonderful job of not only getting us out of the Clinton recession, but reversing it into a booming economy considering world events. Between the Clinton recession and 9/11, it's a wonder the US recovered at all.
The markets have been flat? Where? Certainly not in the US. The stock market has been all over the place.
I agree that there can be no comparison. The Clinton administration was a prosperous time for America, so prosperous that thousands lost their pensions and millions of dollars were lost when the high-tech market crashed and large companies deceived their stock holders into believing the same hype you appear to have latched onto.
Hmm, it's hard to argue with the record job creation numbers, the dropping of the national debt, the balanced budgets, and the shrinking gap between the poor and rich during the Clinton admin. The fact that the high-tech market got overextended prevents this from being a stellar period, but people were doing better then than they are now, by many definitions of 'better.'
There is no evidence that 9/11 hurt the country seriously economically. Within just 9 months, we had made back the vast majority of the losses in the stock market. Everything else is just an excuse used by unprofitable sectors of our economy to get handouts from the gov't.
Quote:Quote:Quote:international relations are good (aside from those that hate us, which would hate us regardless of who the president was)
No, international relations aren't good. International opinions, including most of our allied countries, are very negative about America right now. It isn't enough for you to just say 'relations are good' when you know they aren't... and not just amongst people who 'hate us regardless,' either.
You are absolutely wrong. Whether Hans in Germany likes the US or Xingu in China likes the US, or Abduul in Iraq likes the US has NO, ZERO, NADA bearing on international relations. No country has severed diplomatic ties with the US, no country has sent back any money that we have given them and no country has backed out of any treaties with the US.
Countries like Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, Iran have negative opinions of the US... Frankly, I don't give a **** about those governments and the sooner the world is done with them, the better.
You're wrong if you just think it is countries like the ones you list that matter. Perhaps you are unaware, but the civlian populations in foreign democracies are represented by their leaders the same way that our population is. If enough people in foreign countries dislike our policies for long enough, it will begin to have serious ramifications on our ability to lead other countries in the global struggle against poverty, terrorism, and war.
It is other developed countries whose populations are turning against us. Unlike you, I happen to think that this matters.
Quote:Quote:Quote:the budget could be better, but we are at war and that always leads to budgetary problems.
True, though non-military spending has also risen under Bush. It's enough to make a Conservative cry, really.
Yep and that spending has made many conservatives question what our leaders have been doing.
No argument here.
Quote:Quote:Quote:
I didn't say he was worse, BBB sais "he (Clinton) was a better president than Bush could ever pretend to be. "
I'd like to see the justifications for that.
He was. He got more done during his term, the country was doing better, both financially, diplomatically and culturally, there was less division amongst the people of America, and our international position was at its highest level in years. How can you possibly say that Bush is better? With what matrix could you judge Bush a 'better' president??
Cycloptichorn
There is that "doing better" crap again.
He got more done? Like what? Are you referring to his extra-marital affairs in the white house? How do you quantify "got more done"? How many dictators did Clinton depose? How many countries did the US cut and run from during the Clinton years? How many tax cuts happened during the CLinton years? How many terrorists were killed during the Clinton years?
He didn't depose any dicators, but that isn't a measure of how good a president is.
He didn't preside over any tax cuts, but that isn't a measure of how good a president is.
He didn't preside over the killing of many terrorists, but that isn't a measure of how good a president is.
He was a strong, effective, and respected leader, both at home and worldwide. Even in the midst of the trumped-up Lewinsky scandal, his approval ratings were still
way higher than Bush's, both domestically and foreign. Why is this? Becuase people knew that his personal life was seperate from his governance, and they didn't really have a problem with his governance.
Quote:Financially - No way of judging that, give specifics. Give specifics in such a way that raw numbers don't simply make your point while ignoring the reasons why the numbers are different. You can't ignore the effects that the Clinton induced recession and the attacks on 9/11 had on the economy financially. We have recovered quite well considering.
Financially? The job creation record, shrinking debt, budget surplus, amazing rise of the Dow, shrinking gap between the rich and poor, I could go on all day. There are plenty of matricies in which one could say that the country was better off under Clinton than Bush.
You are forgetting the fact that historically, wars have
created more jobs as the country enters a wartime economy. The fact is that Bush didn't put us into a wartime economy for this war. Everything is being paid for on loan, noone is being asked to sacrifice anything to pay for our foreign adventures. This is astoundingly poor fiscal planning on the part of Bush and the Republicans, a mistake that we will be paying for for years.
The only sector to show job growth under Bush is Healthcare... every other sector has lost jobs in the last 5 years. Not a great track record there.
Quote:Culturally? You mean fahrenheit 9-11? Is that what makes better culture? I see no differences in American culture now or then.
Um, that doesn't have anything to do with the Clinton era, as F9/11 was produced several years after he left office.
No, I am referring to the fact that the Republicans have used each and every opportunity possible to use divisive politics to win elections and maintain their control of the country. We have a far more polarized electorate today than during Clinton's time. Remember Bush's promise to be a 'Uniter, not a divider?' Big-time lie there.
Quote:America not divided?! What hole did you pull that out of? It was Clinton's whole presidency that started the divide in America. The Republicans indictment of Clinton and later impeachment that wounded America. It wouldn't mattered if Jesus himself won the Republican presidency, the Democrats have been out for blood since day one and there is NO way you get to blame the current division in America solely at the hands of the Bush administration.
Perhaps not solely, but the invasion of Iraq took the national unity that existed post 9/11 and ripped it to shreds, and you know it.
Cycloptichorn
