Reply With QuoteSince the Goverment couldent make money with the Social Security, they will let you make the investement then tax the hell out of you.
AzDon,
After prop 56 passes, move to California and see how the Democratrats run our state into debt. Then tell me how the counrty should be run...
Since the Goverment couldent make money with the Social Security, they will let you make the investement then tax the hell out of you.
Originally posted by ROZ
AzDon,
After prop 56 passes, move to California and see how the Democratrats run our state into debt. Then tell me how the counrty should be run...
After 8 years with a Democratic Prez, we had a large surplus. ON THE DAY AFTER THE ELECTION everything started going to hell and we are now what? 3 trillion in debt? Yeah, Your Guy GWB is a great example of republican fiscal responsibility!
Originally posted by AzDon
After 8 years with a Democratic Prez, we had a large surplus. ON THE DAY AFTER THE ELECTION everything started going to hell and we are now what? 3 trillion in debt? Yeah, Your Guy GWB is a great example of republican fiscal responsibility!
Don,
You are smarter than this. The very fact that things started a downturn so quickly after the election PROVES that GWB is not the culprit, but a victim of the Democratic propaganda machine. Christ, he wasn't even in sworn into office, and he gets the blame. Seems to me that the Democrats need to work on their story board and timeline a little more. A man can't be guilty of a crime if he first appears at the scene of the crime months after it occured. Even 10th grade economics students learn that economic cycles don't change over night, and that the causes of economic fluctuations transpire long before the effects are seen. Look at every large market collapse and you'll see that the "problem" started while things were good, not the day the market tanked.
Chris
Exactly...You can add 09-11 into the mix as well.
Originally posted by flat broke
Don,
You are smarter than this. The very fact that things started a downturn so quickly after the election PROVES that GWB is not the culprit, but a victim of the Democratic propaganda machine. Christ, he wasn't even in sworn into office, and he gets the blame. Seems to me that the Democrats need to work on their story board and timeline a little more. A man can't be guilty of a crime if he first appears at the scene of the crime months after it occured. Even 10th grade economics students learn that economic cycles don't change over night, and that the causes of economic fluctuations transpire long before the effects are seen. Look at every large market collapse and you'll see that the "problem" started while things were good, not the day the market tanked.
Chris
So than was it Bush's military that performed so well in Afghanistan and Iraq or Clinton's? We all know a military can't be built up and perform efficiently over night as well. (Just playing devil's advocate here)
No actually it was the remnants of Reagans Military.
I fought in the first Gulf War, and we were able to fight it so well because of the build up that Reagan did.
Clinton downsized the Miltary, and crippled the CIA. That is why you hear people talking about the Military being spread so thin now.
Since the Soviet Union fell we have been able to withdraw our forces from Germany. If not for that we would not have the man power that we have today.
Originally posted by Havasu Cig
No actually it was the remnants of Reagans Military.
I fought in the first Gulf War, and we were able to fight it so well because of the build up that Reagan did.
Clinton downsized the Miltary, and crippled the CIA. That is why you hear people talking about the Military being spread so thin now.
Since the Soviet Union fell we have been able to withdraw our forces from Germany. If not for that we would not have the man power that we have today.
But did the military not perform as it should have? So even with the downsizing they got the job done. It's funny but you guys can't have both. You can't say that the economy was Clinton's fault but the military perfomed so well because of Reagan. It's pretty narrow minded. You can't pick and choose the good things and ignore the bad. If the economy was Clinton's fault what has Bush done in the time he was in office to correct it? Our economy should be the number one priority and not FCC guidelines and gay marriage.
Hows this for saving a few bucks - they don't pay out to people that do not pay into the system in the first place.
Originally posted by totenhosen
But did the military not perform as it should have? So even with the downsizing they got the job done. It's funny but you guys can't have both. You can't say that the economy was Clinton's fault but the military perfomed so well because of Reagan. It's pretty narrow minded. You can't pick and choose the good things and ignore the bad. If the economy was Clinton's fault what has Bush done in the time he was in office to correct it? Our economy should be the number one priority and not FCC guidelines and gay marriage.
Totenhosen,
There is one variable you are not addressing. AZDon and other Demos claim that Clinton made our economy strong, AND that Bush weakened it. My previous argument leverages the point that the economy doesn't turn on a dime and that the bad we now reap is related to decsisions made not by Bush Jr, but by Clinton during his reign.
In respect to the military, Cig has it pinned. The technology, troops, infrastructure used in Iraq are what was left over from the Reagan/Bush Sr. era after Clinton made his cuts. Clinton didn't do anything proactive for our military. He used it as a source of budget funds by cutting federal funding to support other freebie welfare programs. Think of how quickly the issue might have been resolved with the increased manpower present during Bush Sr.'s administration. Let alone the fact that perhaps 9/11 wouldn't have happend if the funding for the CIA hadn't been absorbed by Clinton's social welfare programs during his administration.
I'm not making a two sided argument, just stating facts. It's always easiest to play the devils advocate, as you only have to bring up opposing information; many times out of context to deflate another's argument in the eyes of the ill-informed. However, to utilize that information to draw a coherent and well founded conclusion is a whole other issue. Luckily for the Democratic party, they cater to the TV-educated populous who swallow their half baked rhetoric as quick as the government cheese that shows up in the mail once a month.
Chris
Posting Permissions