"'nuther Bob" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:
[email protected]...
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 17:07:34 GMT, "David Allen"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > But when you
> >consider what Democrats have done historically.... well, the stereotypes
are
> >largely true... Democrats love to tax and spend. This tends to dampen
> >economic growth.
>
> Then how come we had unprecedented economic prosperity under Clinton,
> when we had serious economic problems under GHW Bush (as a result of
> incredible deficits run up by Reagan) ?
>
This is just so much liberal boilerplate. Economic problems during GHWB's
term had as much to do with the end of the cold war as anything. And the
deficits were a political price Reagan had to pay to get his priorities with
a liberal congress. The Reagan tax cuts were the engine of economic growth
throughout the 80's and 90's, even with the pot hole during GHWB.
Clinton paid the price for gays in the military, HillaryCare, and his '93
tax increases by losing both houses in Nov. '93. The price he paid for his
second term (the term of "unprecedented prosperity") was giving the new
Republican congress a bunch of what they wanted, like welfare reform and
fiscal conservatism ("The era of big government is over!").
Of course, we know the prosperity of the 90's overran itself for a couple of
years, but no one would believe it. Even though the engine had cut out, the
airplane was still going up. Clinton and company were holding the RPM gauge
needle in the green and some corrupt and greedy corporate execs were
holding pictures of bright, blue and upright skies to the windows, while
Greenspan was trying to warn us all.
I trust history will judge Reagan and Clinton appropriately.
> >Greenspan supports the tax cuts, conditional on corresponding spending
> >restraint.
>
> Sorry, current Republicans don't restrain anything, they just
> make sure it gets spent in their district to the advantage of their
> constituents. They even bumped up Bush's fluffy budget by 20-40
> billion this year. Check out the 50m Trent Lott directed to his
> district for a military project the Pentagon didn't even want.
>
I'm speechless. They all love to spend.
> >Frankly, the recession is over. The biggest problem now is
> >regaining the confidence of the investor and the consumer.
>
> Spoken like a true Bush man. Funny how the economy seems to
> disagree with you - and the Fed is talking about zero interest
> rates to prevent _deflation_.
>
Not at all. I do support bush, but the numbers show economic growth.
That's not a recession.
> >Those who grew up in the 90's economy, got burned bad when the bubble
popped
> >and are much more wary of where they put their money and how they spend
it.
> >The effect of 9/11 on the economy is real and it's impact enormous.
>
> Right, 9-11. That's the thing you Bush people like to blame
> it all on. Funny though, Bush's own administration reported
> that the recession started in March 2001. I don't know if you
> know this, but a recession is a mathematically measurable event,
> not a consensus of thought. Funny though, Bush kept denying we
> were in a recession long after March but his own figures proved
> him wrong later. (Just like this Uranium thing).
>
Maybe you don't appreciate what 9/11 meant to the economy and government
spending. It's affect was of of titanic proportion. It was a historic
turning point. Bush's enemies don't want him to have that, so they minimize
it or deny it. But history won't deny it of him.
> >It's lame to point the finger at Bush as if all we needed some Democrat
in
> >office to bring us back to a pre- 9/11 economy.
>
> Uh, see above. We were already in a recession. Bush and his
> supporters have tried to use 9-11 as a scapegoat.
>
> >> Or like spending 100b in Iraq for no apparent constitutional purpose.
> >> What are there, maybe 100 million tax payers ? That works out to
> >> about $1000 each. Send in your check.
> >>
> >
> >That pretty much summarizes what the Gore approach to 9/11 would have
been.
> >A total miscalculation of the degree to which terrorism has risen and
where
> >it's nexts steps were going.
>
> But Iraq has/had no connection to 9-11. Wrong argument, try again.
>
9/11 was the trigger. Global terrorism is the enemy and they've been in
transformation all during the 90's. Not just isolated occurances anymore,
but coordinated, global, and trying to be nuclear, biological and chemical.
This should not be a political ****ing contest. It should be an issue we're
all on the same side of.
Iraq's programs were well known. Cheney used the word nexus to describe the
connection Iraq had or would have to global terrorism. The probability
alone of such a relationship, considering his history, was enough to justify
taking him out. There are new rules post 9/11. Bush has said that over and
over again.
> >
> >If that's true, it's a mistake that's being quickly remedied.
> >
>
> Right... let's start with the Chairman of the SEC that Bush
> appointed and work from there. LOL.
>
> Bob
