On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 07:31:53 GMT, "David Allen"
<
[email protected]> wrote:
>The economic slow down began way before Bush was elected.
>Perhaps you're selectiong the word "recession", which the slowdown
>led to, because it began after he was elected. I paid exquisite
>attention to the economy. It was one of the first things he focused on.
It began _when_ he was elected. Wall street discounts early.
Then he got into office and did nothing except pass a tax cut
that benefited his friends while doing nothing to help the
economy. He's still done nothing for the economy.
I used to think that he should come out and at least rally the country
on the economy. Then I checked the stats and found out that every
day he came out to speak, Wall Street went short. Some folks made
a good pile of money anticipating that. "Selling the President short"
is now part of the nomenclature there.
>This is the picture liberals want people to have. Reagan ran the economy on
>a credit card for 8 years; Bush Sr., (R) screwed up the economy even more
>and was thrown out of office. Clinton (D) was elected and magnificently
>turned it around, because Democrats are... well... just right about the
>economy! We had 8 years of growth thanks to his wise leadership.
You've got it about right, but it wasn't his "wise leadership". It was
continual attention to deficit reduction.
>Then Gore screwed up and Bush stole the election. No one likes Bush. He's stupid and
>clueless and in two months screwed up the magnicificnet economy he inhereted
>from Clinton and now we find ourselves in the midst of the worst economy in
>50 years. Please send Clinton back.
Now you're speculating. BTW - I don't want Clinton back and I don't
like Gore. Disliking Bush has nothing to do with Clinton or Gore.
>If you believe the above, you're a moron. It'll never, ever be written in
>any self respecting history book.
The part about the economy is fact. That's already in the economic
history books. Take a look, concentrate on the part about deficit
spending under Reagan and deficit reduction under Clinton.
>Hardly. Clinton missed the boat wrt World Terrorism. Shooting cruise
>missiles at him was as weak an action one could do aside from mailing an
>arrest warrant to the Taliban. Clinton sent the FBI after cell soldiers and
>shot cruise missiles at Bin Laden twice.
He responded as Presidents before him responded to terrorism. All
we had had were some attacks on our embassies. That had happened
before under Reagan and Bush Sr. Take a look at the history of
Reagan's responses to the attacks on us during his administration.
It's was par for the course. Things changed for Bush Sr. when
Saddaam was taking over countries (allies) and threatening the
world's oil supplies. Most of the free world and most of the
people in this country supported that war.
> Bush sent the Marines in and
>kicked their asses (pardon my French). I'll grant that Bush's perspective
>changed mightily post 9/11. I always wonder what Gore would have done. I
>just can't see him giving that 9/24 speech to Congress.
Things changed after 9-11. That was a direct attack on us. Who knows
what any other President would have done.
>And Clinton was offered Bin Laden by the Sudan. Clinton admin. declined as
>there was no legal pretext for holding him. Insufficient evidence that
>would hold up in a court of law. That's how the news articles read on this
>story.
Speculation, but even if true, it is the President's job to follow the
law. Again, things were different pre 9-11. Let's not forget that
Cheney and friends *met* with the Taliban in June 2001 in Texas in
hopes of negotiating an easement to build an Conoco oil pipeline
across Northern Afghanistan. Don't try the "holier than thou"
attitude, it won't hold up.
Bob
>
>> Bob
>>
>>
>> >
>> >Oh, the increase in defense spending (conservative thing) is nowhere
>> >near the increase in social programs the liberals have put through.
>>
>
