[ATTACH]22112[/ATTACH]

 

There's no getting around it.

 

 

From the same site that your chart is posted:

 

 

"In 1993 President Clinton inherited the deficit spending problem and did more than just talk about it; he fixed it. In his first two years and with a cooperative Democratic Congress he set the course for the best economy this country has ever experienced. Then he worked with what could be characterized as the most hostile Congress in history, led by Republicans for the last six years of his administration. Yet, under constant personal attacks from the right, he still managed to get the growth of the debt down to 0.32% (one third of one percent) his last year in office. Had his policies been followed for one more year the debt would have been reduced for the first time since the Kennedy administration."

 

http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm

From the same site that your chart is posted

 

:creepy: He had a national debt in the trillions, that says nothing to the contrary.

Yes, it was. You are still confusing the annual budget deficit and the national debt. They are not the same. It is a fact. Look a little closer at the chart that you posted. The deficit under Bush has never been in the trillions as you asserted in your earlier post.

 

:D:D:D:D:D

 

I'll take "Points that AcesFull has to make over and over in the same thread" for $200 Alex.

 

Aces, you need to just quote yourself and save some typing time.:thumb:

:D:D:D:D:D

 

I'll take "Points that AcesFull has to make over and over in the same thread" for $200 Alex.

 

Aces, you need to just quote yourself and save some typing time.:thumb:

 

Yeah cause he is the only one making the same posts over and over, right?

Clintons great economy had a little help with good timing. The internet business boom helped greatly. He did a fine job with the economy but this was a factor that would have helped any president.

From the same site that your chart is posted:

 

 

"In 1993 President Clinton inherited the deficit spending problem and did more than just talk about it; he fixed it. In his first two years and with a cooperative Democratic Congress he set the course for the best economy this country has ever experienced. Then he worked with what could be characterized as the most hostile Congress in history, led by Republicans for the last six years of his administration. Yet, under constant personal attacks from the right, he still managed to get the growth of the debt down to 0.32% (one third of one percent) his last year in office. Had his policies been followed for one more year the debt would have been reduced for the first time since the Kennedy administration."

 

http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm

 

Nice unbiased source. He did it by decimating the military and bringing on HUGE tax increases. The false rise in the tech industry and corporate fraud certainly helped the numbers also. Given better management, the economy should have done much better during Clinton's term.

Nice unbiased source. He did it by decimating the military and bringing on HUGE tax increases. The false rise in the tech industry and corporate fraud certainly helped the numbers also. Given better management, the economy should have done much better during Clinton's term.

 

Unbiased source? I was simply posting what I read off the site where Hab's chart came from!

 

He decimated the military? Was he responsible for them losing nearly 4,000 men fighting an unjust war?

Nice unbiased source. He did it by decimating the military and bringing on HUGE tax increases. The false rise in the tech industry and corporate fraud certainly helped the numbers also. Given better management, the economy should have done much better during Clinton's term.

 

 

Since this is a thread about "W", let's talk about decimating the military. Bush's Iraq war, which is going on five years old, has undoubtedly damaged our all-volunteer military. Several high-ranking military leaders have publicly stated that the country's ground forces are near the breaking point due to repetitive deployments, with men and machines being stressed beyond prudent limits. And there are many indicators pointing to a diminished military readiness. Career military officers are leaving in droves, standards have been lowered to boost sagging recruitment efforts, and the suicide rate in the Army is at the highest level in decades. Doesn't exactly sound like the U.S. military is faring too well under "W".

Unbiased source? I was simply posting what I read off the site where Hab's chart came from!

 

He decimated the military? Was he responsible for them losing nearly 4,000 men fighting an unjust war?

 

 

He is repsonsible for thousands of unborn babies dying when vetoed the partial birth abortion bill.

I'm not a mod but how did we get to the Clinton bash from talking about the view of George W's historical place?

I'm not a mod but how did we get to the Clinton bash from talking about the view of George W's historical place?

 

In regards to mine, those on here who have said GW's presidency was the worse of all time, I pointed out it was a point of view. For those, thousands who are alive today because their life was not stopped through a partial birth abortion when it would have been stopped the previous administration and they would be DEAD, I think they don't feel so negative towards GW's administration.

 

And while the 4,000 in Iraq who have died, I have a sneaky assumption that the have been more than 4,000 that would have died through partial birth abortion under a Democrat leadership.

The president that follows him will be put in Coach G's shoes; having the follow a leader who left it in shambles.

 

We are dealing with what Bill left coming down the pipe. The economic prosperity we enjoyed under Bill was neither due to him, nor was it "real" in a sense. The economic demise we are currently in, is not due to GW....There is a natural ebb and flow to the American economy.

I would be interested if you could give me some examples. Who do you think could have done worse than totally shifting attention to a war we had no right to be in?

 

I am still one of those that believe we not only had a right to be there, we were exorcising a duty.

IMHO, George Bush is a man whose trying to keep our country from becoming war torn such as the middle east. I think he provides our country with a blanket of security and I think its a little disappointing to question the manner in which he provides it.

 

When Im on campus, I see people display their hatred for George Bush but only because its the new fad. They know nothing about what he does provide for his country but since the media seems to dislike Dubya, so will they..and thats sickening. Im not nearly old enough to know so much about politics and world affairs to contend with some of the discussions in this thread, but I believe that although Bush may not be able speak as well as people expect him, I know he keeps me safe from any attacks when I go to bed; and that is what I hold dear.

In regards to mine, those on here who have said GW's presidency was the worse of all time, I pointed out it was a point of view. For those, thousands who are alive today because their life was not stopped through a partial birth abortion when it would have been stopped the previous administration and they would be DEAD, I think they don't feel so negative towards GW's administration.

 

And while the 4,000 in Iraq who have died, I have a sneaky assumption that the have been more than 4,000 that would have died through partial birth abortion under a Democrat leadership.

 

Did you feel the same way about George Bush's Administration? Reagan? None of these did much of anything to stop the killing of the unborn. Are they like Clinton in your eyes as well on this issue or do they have a pass?