February 19, 200917 yr True, my comment wasn't worded very precisely. My comment was meant to compare the Clinton debt to the Bush debt, relatively speaking. The debt is now $10.7 trillion, nearly double the one Bush inherited. Just curious ... how much of that $1.5 trillion was actually on the Clinton books and how much of it was interest on the debt he inherited? One other thing I've always wondered ... what percentage of the current national debt was incurred by the Reagan and Bush administrations? The last two are both very good questions, I'd sure be interested in the answers. I have no defense for the Bush spending, but I honestly do believe that Reagan's debt was a result of two things- A) Impulsive spending by Congress and B) An enormous amount of money, ~$1.5 trillion spent on National Defense (after Carter had spent less than $160 billion). Neither of these are excuses for piling up debt; to me, the blame goes to everyone- the Republican & Democrat Presidents included, but the Congresses as well... I guess Bush paid the debt down then. No he didn't. Bashing frmr. President Bush does not make frmr. President Clinton right or wrong, though.
February 19, 200917 yr In any event, I'd say it was a far bit better than $4.00 a gallon wouldn't you? How much did you pay in early 2008? I guess Bush paid the debt down then. So we are back to blaming Bush for the gas prices. Do you credit him with it dropping back to under $1.50? What does Bush have to do with your original post being just flat wrong? Maybe if you would do some actual research and know the facts your posts would have more credibility. But I guess you can always fall back on bashing Bush.
February 19, 200917 yr So we are back to blaming Bush for the gas prices. Do you credit him with it dropping back to under $1.50? What does Bush have to do with your original post being just flat wrong? Maybe if you would do some actual research and know the facts your posts would have more credibility. But I guess you can always fall back on bashing Bush. You're right, it makes much more sense to blame Clinton for what's happened the last eight years. My bad. I thought Bush was President from 00-08.
February 19, 200917 yr Knock off the silly jabs and take it to PMs if you wish to continue any other dialogue besides discussing Bush's ranking.
February 19, 200917 yr How much did you pay in early 2008? What does that have to do with your statment that gas was $.79 under Clinton? I was merely pointing out that it did get much higher than that. BTW, in late 2008 I paid, let me see.....$1.59.
February 20, 200917 yr What does that have to do with your statment that gas was $.79 under Clinton? I was merely pointing out that it did get much higher than that. BTW, in late 2008 I paid, let me see.....$1.59. Thank God for election year right.
February 20, 200917 yr I want to know how FDR and George Washington traded places in the last 8 years. What polices did they change or thing they did different that time frame to move? That is like someone not being a Hall of Famer in baseball and then getting in on their last vote.
February 20, 200917 yr These things crack me up. I never liked Bush and never will. But only time will tell if what he did was successful.
February 20, 200917 yr 36/42 sounds about right to me. He's in the top 85 percent. I saw the article in the paper today. Interesting how the ratings change over time. I agree!
February 20, 200917 yr If you think so. Well, I know how much it was from 03-08, and it wasn't anywhere close to $1.59. What other explanation do you have?
February 20, 200917 yr In all fairness to W, his quotes during his administration alone, should have been enough to constitute a higher ranking than 36th. I think we've all misunderestimated him his whole career. He's always been a gut player.
February 20, 200917 yr I want to know how FDR and George Washington traded places in the last 8 years. What polices did they change or thing they did different that time frame to move? That is like someone not being a Hall of Famer in baseball and then getting in on their last vote. One big difference between the two of them though was the fact that Washington stepped away from power willingly after two terms. I have known many historians and read in a number of books that FDR, had it no been for his death would not have been quite so willing to do so. His 4 terms in office indicate little desire to relinquish power.
February 20, 200917 yr One big difference between the two of them though was the fact that Washington stepped away from power willingly after two terms. I have known many historians and read in a number of books that FDR, had it no been for his death would not have been quite so willing to do so. His 4 terms in office indicate little desire to relinquish power. In defense of FDR you have to consider when his last two elections were held. 1940 the US was finally coming out of the depression and World War loomed. FDR knew this and didn't think it was time to change with that crisis ahead and knowing we would eventually get into that war. He did not want an isolationist to lead the nation. 1944 the US was winning the war and he wanted to see it through. I can't blame him for that and most presidents want to see the conflict through. Just noting four terms is not enough IMO. You have to examine when he ran and how grave the stakes were in those elections.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.