I will do you one better, he not only did he balanced the budget, but there was a surplus:dancingpa

A Trillion Dollar Surplus. Please explain where he got all that money?

Taxpayers???

 

I don't agree with everything Bush and the Republican Congress did and did not get done. I don't think Bush got tough enough, he came off tough, but backed off, IMO..

However we now have a democrat controlled Congress and they have a way lower rating then the president. Face it they are not good democrats, they are a new age of democrats. Too liberal.

They all talk a good talk, but have yet to stop spending money like it is going out of style. I have not heard anything yet about curbing the spending. And of course we are in the middle of a war that takes LOTS of money to fund.

I heard a report on the news that if Congress doesn't move quickly on a resolution, people 30 and younger will not have Social Security, and nine years from now, 55 and younger will have no Medicare.

They borrowed from Social Secuirty, and borrowed and borrowed, and never did it get put back. That is why it is on the brink of being bankrupt. So let's see how quick our democrat controlled govt. will act on a resolution to do something "quick".

I am disappointed with the whole group in Washington! So why put someone in there that is/has been running this disappointing thing now for years. We have no real candidates!

A Trillion Dollar Surplus. Please explain where he got all that money?

Taxpayers???

 

I don't agree with everything Bush and the Republican Congress did and did not get done. I don't think Bush got tough enough, he came off tough, but backed off, IMO..

However we now have a democrat controlled Congress and they have a way lower rating then the president. Face it they are not good democrats, they are a new age of democrats. Too liberal.

The surplus was not real. It's an actuary's guess at what the future will bring. And it was partially based on an overblown stock market that was about to implode.

 

For the 8 years that Clinton was in office, he ran an actual total deficeit of $320,383,000,00. Better than Bush, but can we please stop this goofy surplus talk?

 

The Federal Debt increased 40% during the Clinton years. It's increased 71% over Bush's 8 years, most at war.

And raised taxes.

 

Did Clinton reap 8 years of what Regan did?

Now Bush gets to reap 8 years of what Clinton did?

 

Clinton will be/is the first to shoot down trickle down ecomnomics, he would have to or he couldn't take credit for anything.

 

Not sure I understand that statement. George Bush had 4 years before Clinton and he was not a continuing practitioner of Reagan or Reaganomics. (See tax increase that his lips actually did speak)

Not sure I understand that statement. George Bush had 4 years before Clinton and he was not a continuing practitioner of Reagan or Reaganomics. (See tax increase that his lips actually did speak)

Yeah, Bush Sr. really screwed up. With the Cold War over, he had a chance to do some imaginative budgeting. Instead, he ended up with a recession and a mess. Clinton took that opportunity, he just didn't do it well.

Yeah, Bush Sr. really screwed up. With the Cold War over, he had a chance to do some imaginative budgeting. Instead, he ended up with a recession and a mess. Clinton took that opportunity, he just didn't do it well.

 

 

Bush Sr. squandered the biggest approval rating in history I believe. After the Gulf War he could have written his re-election speech but things went south in a hurry with the economy and with his going back on his taxes pledge.

Perhaps the answer to the inverse would help to determine why conservatives dislike Hillary so much: why do liberals like Hillary so much? From my perspective, Hillary was the First Lady, and not one that was anything to write home about, and a marginal senator at best. Yet she's been the front runner for this election since speculation began. Does conservative hatred fuel liberal support, perhaps? Is Hillary purely the result of conservative/liberal head butting?

Yet she's been the front runner for this election since speculation began. Does conservative hatred fuel liberal support, perhaps?

I believe that statement is very accurate, but even moreso I notice that conservative support fuels liberal hatred, and vice versa.

I will do you one better, he not only did he balanced the budget, but there was a surplus:dancingpa

 

Like leading a blind sheep to the wolf......in hindsight most of that surplus and the economic propserity was a fraud anyway....out of all the booming companies from Bill's time in office, I would be interested to know how many still exist.

Like leading a blind sheep to the wolf......in hindsight most of that surplus and the economic propserity was a fraud anyway....out of all the booming companies from Bill's time in office, I would be interested to know how many still exist.

 

So first, someone said that it was Regan that caused a surplus and the economic propserity which was a fraud right?

 

I need that point to be made clear.

 

Second, was the quality of life better in 90's versus now? Oil prices and such, again not President Bush is fault, I know, those evil oil tycoons, well wait a minute, was not the Bush family in the oil buisness?

 

Third, we were not in a war in the 90's. However, what is the offical reason why we went, five years later I am still not clear on why we are over there, but to question would label me as unpatriotic, right? I support our troops, but would just like to know why we are there?

 

Fourth, Bill Clinton did have an affair, even though, that is not a crime, it was unmoral, period the end. However, is his sin greater than mine? Greater then Nixon or an other human, for that matter?

 

I might be wrong that people in 90's had a better quality of life than they do now, people now might be seeing the greatest prosperty that they have ever had, people had houses and not worry of forecloser, but everywhere I turn, I don't see it.

 

These are real problems that need real solutions. The republicans have not produced a canadate that has a real solution other than, "I am not educated enough to speak on economic issues", "If it takes a 100 years, we will still be in Iraq".

 

However, my party has a figure that causes hope, the right does not like hope, everybody is wrong and sinful, or muslim, or doesn't pledge to the flag (which were proven wronge). In November, when one canadate will just say I am a vet, over and over again, and the other canadate will offer points of view, and not say the same thing over again, I look forward to seeing this.

 

With all of this said Obama in '08:dancingpa

They dislike her because a democrat. They hate her because she's a Clinton.

Bush Sr. squandered the biggest approval rating in history I believe. After the Gulf War he could have written his re-election speech but things went south in a hurry with the economy and with his going back on his taxes pledge.

 

He went from a 91% Approval rating in Feb 92, to gaining around 38% of the Popular vote in November.

So first, someone said that it was Regan that caused a surplus and the economic propserity which was a fraud right?

 

I need that point to be made clear.

 

Second, was the quality of life better in 90's versus now? Oil prices and such, again not President Bush is fault, I know, those evil oil tycoons, well wait a minute, was not the Bush family in the oil buisness?

 

Third, we were not in a war in the 90's. However, what is the offical reason why we went, five years later I am still not clear on why we are over there, but to question would label me as unpatriotic, right? I support our troops, but would just like to know why we are there?

 

Fourth, Bill Clinton did have an affair, even though, that is not a crime, it was unmoral, period the end. However, is his sin greater than mine? Greater then Nixon or an other human, for that matter?

 

I might be wrong that people in 90's had a better quality of life than they do now, people now might be seeing the greatest prosperty that they have ever had, people had houses and not worry of forecloser, but everywhere I turn, I don't see it.

 

These are real problems that need real solutions. The republicans have not produced a canadate that has a real solution other than, "I am not educated enough to speak on economic issues", "If it takes a 100 years, we will still be in Iraq".

 

However, my party has a figure that causes hope, the right does not like hope, everybody is wrong and sinful, or muslim, or doesn't pledge to the flag (which were proven wronge). In November, when one canadate will just say I am a vet, over and over again, and the other canadate will offer points of view, and not say the same thing over again, I look forward to seeing this.

 

With all of this said Obama in '08:dancingpa

You can't say that Reagan caused economic distress. It simply isn't backed by any economics. But you are correct in pointing out the contradiction that people in this thread are making.

 

Oil tycoons are not evil. What would be there incentive to inflict pain on American people? The huge profits they make are a business decision. First of all, Americans are too stupid to wean themselves off of oil. Until you at least attempt to lower your use, you can't complain. Second of all, if I were in a business in which costs are expected to get higher and higher (because OPEC is charging more and more) then absolutely I would make as much money as I could right now. Expected future price level is a basic component in setting prices.

 

Second of all, life was not better in the 1990's. That doesn't make any sense. And is not proved by anything. About the housing crisis, the only people who are at fault are the people who borrowed more then they can pay, and the people are lent out money to people who couldn't pay back. Those same types of people had the same types of problems in the 1990's.

 

The war is a legitimate complaint. I agree with the war but I can understand where someone would differ. That is a whole different argument.

 

I have no problem if McCain admits that he will need someone who knows economics to advise him on the issue. If Obama thinks that raising taxes will help the economy, then maybe he should humble himself and get someone who knows economics.

 

And what exactly does Obama say that is not "the same thing over and over again"? He says (and will say) "change" over and over and over again.

So first, someone said that it was Regan that caused a surplus and the economic propserity which was a fraud right?

 

I need that point to be made clear.

 

Second, was the quality of life better in 90's versus now? Oil prices and such, again not President Bush is fault, I know, those evil oil tycoons, well wait a minute, was not the Bush family in the oil buisness?

 

Third, we were not in a war in the 90's. However, what is the offical reason why we went, five years later I am still not clear on why we are over there, but to question would label me as unpatriotic, right? I support our troops, but would just like to know why we are there?

 

Fourth, Bill Clinton did have an affair, even though, that is not a crime, it was unmoral, period the end. However, is his sin greater than mine? Greater then Nixon or an other human, for that matter?

 

I might be wrong that people in 90's had a better quality of life than they do now, people now might be seeing the greatest prosperty that they have ever had, people had houses and not worry of forecloser, but everywhere I turn, I don't see it.

 

These are real problems that need real solutions. The republicans have not produced a canadate that has a real solution other than, "I am not educated enough to speak on economic issues", "If it takes a 100 years, we will still be in Iraq".

 

However, my party has a figure that causes hope, the right does not like hope, everybody is wrong and sinful, or muslim, or doesn't pledge to the flag (which were proven wronge). In November, when one canadate will just say I am a vet, over and over again, and the other canadate will offer points of view, and not say the same thing over again, I look forward to seeing this.

 

With all of this said Obama in '08:dancingpa

 

Could you please explain what you mean by hope?

So first, someone said that it was Regan that caused a surplus and the economic propserity which was a fraud right?

 

I need that point to be made clear.

 

Second, was the quality of life better in 90's versus now? Oil prices and such, again not President Bush is fault, I know, those evil oil tycoons, well wait a minute, was not the Bush family in the oil buisness?

 

Third, we were not in a war in the 90's. However, what is the offical reason why we went, five years later I am still not clear on why we are over there, but to question would label me as unpatriotic, right? I support our troops, but would just like to know why we are there?

 

Fourth, Bill Clinton did have an affair, even though, that is not a crime, it was unmoral, period the end. However, is his sin greater than mine? Greater then Nixon or an other human, for that matter?

 

I might be wrong that people in 90's had a better quality of life than they do now, people now might be seeing the greatest prosperty that they have ever had, people had houses and not worry of forecloser, but everywhere I turn, I don't see it.

 

These are real problems that need real solutions. The republicans have not produced a canadate that has a real solution other than, "I am not educated enough to speak on economic issues", "If it takes a 100 years, we will still be in Iraq".

 

However, my party has a figure that causes hope, the right does not like hope, everybody is wrong and sinful, or muslim, or doesn't pledge to the flag (which were proven wronge). In November, when one canadate will just say I am a vet, over and over again, and the other canadate will offer points of view, and not say the same thing over again, I look forward to seeing this.

 

With all of this said Obama in '08:dancingpa

You have still failed to answer my question so I will take it you don't have the answer but only the canned Dem response.

 

Since you can't answer my first question how about this one. What is the main reason for the foreclosers? Is it because unemployment is at an all time high meaning so many people are out of work and unable to make their loan payments? Or could it be that too many people bought houses they couldn't afford, with money they didn't have. How is that the Bush's fault?