i guess the republicans and/or just plain clinton haters, are pleased with bush 2's handeling of the mess clinton left.

but, look at what clinton did with the mess bush 1 left. 8 years of progress, unemployment at 2 or 3 %, no drilling in your garden trying to suck the last barrel of oil from the ground, and other then the lunatic fanatics, the world looking to us without wondering how we let another coup d'état happen.

unfortunatley rick you know as well as any other liberial leftest out there it wasnt clintons doing for properity...it was regan in the 80s. eevrybody knows it takes at leat 10-12 yrs for anything a presidnet to do to take effect!!!!

reagan?

you are too much.

ROTFLMAO.(sp)

actually james is 100% correct, at least when I studied political science that was the current thinking, and I doubt much has changed. By the way, happy birthday President Reagan.

jamesconnors

everybody? i doubt that.

good point, because "everybody" would be inclusive of liberals, and they are trying their best to "not know" that is it true.

dmjdc

i guess it is just you and me, jamesconnors left.

BARKEEP!!! one more round and put it on jamesconnors tab.

So when the budget deficit was eradicated during Clinton's term that really a credit to Reagan? Hmmmmm, nope, not buying it. You can argue that Reagan set up the economic circumstance that ALLOWED Clinton to do it. That has been put forth in some recent posts. But the deficit that was run up in those years was, in my opinion, a huge gamble. A gamble made with our money. GWHB couldn't get a handle on it either. And he RAISED taxes. You guys don't want to give credit to anyone who isn't a Republican.

well ill give credit when credit is due....clinton gets NO credit he an embarrassment to the american people. Even Gore knew it thats why he didnt want clinton campaigning for him! Regan set it up...it takes years to fianlly be implemented and work for itself. Clinton did nothing, but ride the wave out. that why at the end of his "legacy" everything went to ****. he should have kept it up by cutting taxes and stimulating the economy.

rick

ill by you rounds all day!

The "Clinton" economy was the result of of many factors. But perhaps the biggest was the "dot.com" boom.
The stock market grew based on "companies" that were oftentimes no better than the junk bonds of the '80s. The dot.coms created temporary (in hindsite) jobs, but also stimulated manufacturing and even construction (through Massive infrastucture).
When the realization that these dot.coms could not be sustained, the market crashed. Manufacturing is still in shock. And the infrastructure is left in many cases as empty conduit along roadsides waiting for the next best fiberoptic savior to fill them.
Bush? Clinton?
How about a market correction.
Add to this the resulting corporate corruption and the events of 9/11 and you've got a trifecta that nobody could either predict nor repair.
I don't blame Clinton for the dot.com problem. But his administration could have done more to prevent corporate corruption, and escpecially to be more aggressive against anti-American attacks during his regime.
If Clinton had the political environment that dubya inherited, nobody would have cared about his fat intern and her dietary habits.
A second term president need not be concerned with re-election, so you'd think they'd do more to help the next adminstration regardless of public opinion.
I guess that logic goes out the window when a book deal is pending...

Maybe 2 terms for a President is too limiting. If an economic policy takes 10 to 12 years to reach fruition then maybe the implementer should be given the chance to see it through. Nahhhh! I don't believe that. I think once the time factor was an economic truth. Now, things are changing so rapidly that a 10 year plan is just not practical. All the economists are just guessing. I really believe the government needs to operate in the black. If they had kept the surplus and cut taxes, they still may have been able to finance a stimulus package and the current military action. I know, hindsight is 20/20. If the Gov. coninues to foster huge deficit spending, eventually there will be a high cost to pay. That is not a party line but my personal opinion. We are currently operating beyond the old economic paradigm. It's all new. Anything can happen. Best to have something in savings in that environment.

x

i agree, a government should not be able to spend more then it takes in.

Rick-

I usually don't post to you when it involves politics or religion because we have differing views on both, but your comment to x about the government should not spend more than it takes in is exactly right on the mark.
Regardless of the presidential headpiece, the government continues to grow and function based on the amount of revenues collected. And each administration, Dem or Repub, believes they need more money than the previous.

So despite our differences in many opinions, I do agree with you right here. That's reason enough for me to enjoy a cigar with you.
M

divnmyk

the only thing we need to agree on is the world is divided into those who smoke cigars and riff raff.

or maybe we don't agree on that.

my posts are rarely to the choir.

Rick-

No, no, I quite agree with you that there are those who smoke cigars and those who are uncivilized.

I have a dear friend who is an athiest and a liberal. Long ago we decided that neither of us would be able to (nor want to) change the other ones mind. So instead, we agree to disagree and smoke cigars together.
It's a great friendship.

So here's to you, "clink"
M

Rick, I repeat, Clinton was blessed with events that were already going to happen. Don't you get it??????

My dog could have been president with the same result. Uh, take that back, she is spade, would have saved country a lot of embarrassment.

CulleyJC52

with a reach like that, you would have won the slam dunk contest.