I was there on that fateful day, were you?
Your place for discussion about RPGs, gaming, music, movies, anime, computers, sports, and any other stuff we care to talk about...
Bush's legacy...
- Somehow, we still tolerate each other. Eventually this will be the only forum left.
Maybe to the idiots who voted for him (and I don't mean those who voted for him because the decision between him and Kerry was like being between a rock and a hard place. I'm referring to blindly partisan voters). The rest of the world is a different story.Nev wrote:I think, in the end, Bush's real legacy will end up being remembered as the triumph of "good, Christian values" over common sense and competence...
In the rest of the world, he'll be relatively forgotten in 15 years unless he does something REALLY bad. Attacking small third world countries is bad, but every President does that.Oracle wrote:Maybe to the idiots who voted for him (and I don't mean those who voted for him because the decision between him and Kerry was like being between a rock and a hard place. I'm referring to blindly partisan voters). The rest of the world is a different story.Nev wrote:I think, in the end, Bush's real legacy will end up being remembered as the triumph of "good, Christian values" over common sense and competence...
-Insert Inspiring Quote-
You mean like his 800-billion dollar crusade to Mars =PNev wrote:It's Bush's fiscal excesses I worry about more than anything else...
-Insert Inspiring Quote-
Clinton was not really the profligate spendthrift that Bush is. His presidencies, as far as I know, ended with the federal gov't. in less debt than they started with, while Bush is likely to end his with about three or four times as much.
However, perhaps we could drop it...I'm trying to work on my "stop talking about politics" skills, as I'm finding it doesn't often seem to be the great, bringing-together-people conversation topic that I had always thought it was...
However, perhaps we could drop it...I'm trying to work on my "stop talking about politics" skills, as I'm finding it doesn't often seem to be the great, bringing-together-people conversation topic that I had always thought it was...
We'll drop it after one more comment:
Let me put it this way: CLINTON DID ABSOLUTELY ZERO FOR THE ECONOMY. All the successes he had were because of what Bush Sr and his administration did (remember, I hate the Bush family). The 80's were a mistake, everyone on the continent knows this (there was excessive spending up here too).
So in the late 80's, the economists sat up and said "shit, man, we gotta fuckin' stop this or we'll be back in 1929". So, they raised interest rates HUGE in the late 80's and early 90's and put the economy into a recession in mid-1990 (yes, recessions are planned; on a side-note, one of the results of this recession is downsizing due to the excesses of the 80's).
The plan was to have the economy bounce back so that he could reap the rewards in his second term since it takes years to show the effects. This is why he want to Iraq the first time, to help him over the hump (wars always boost the economy due to gov't spending and increase the president's approval rating at the same time). Of course, that war ended too early and everyone remembered all the downsizing and how shitty their lives were. Along comes a very different politician who spoke the right words (Clinton was a master at saying the right thing at the right time) and he got elected. At the same time, the economy started to bounce back.
After that, it was just a matter of tweaking and riding the bull (FYI, there's a standard economic cycle where there are strong periods and weak periods and it cycles every 8 years or so - look at what happened in early 2000's with the downturn then and Dubya's subsequent reaction - going to war in Iraq....wonder where he got that from?). Same thing happened up here with the liberal party.
It's easy to look like a good president when the economy is good since most people base their voting on how well they're doing personally. But it's usually your predecessor who sets the wheels in motion for the economy since it takes a couple of years for the results.
Let me put it this way: CLINTON DID ABSOLUTELY ZERO FOR THE ECONOMY. All the successes he had were because of what Bush Sr and his administration did (remember, I hate the Bush family). The 80's were a mistake, everyone on the continent knows this (there was excessive spending up here too).
So in the late 80's, the economists sat up and said "shit, man, we gotta fuckin' stop this or we'll be back in 1929". So, they raised interest rates HUGE in the late 80's and early 90's and put the economy into a recession in mid-1990 (yes, recessions are planned; on a side-note, one of the results of this recession is downsizing due to the excesses of the 80's).
The plan was to have the economy bounce back so that he could reap the rewards in his second term since it takes years to show the effects. This is why he want to Iraq the first time, to help him over the hump (wars always boost the economy due to gov't spending and increase the president's approval rating at the same time). Of course, that war ended too early and everyone remembered all the downsizing and how shitty their lives were. Along comes a very different politician who spoke the right words (Clinton was a master at saying the right thing at the right time) and he got elected. At the same time, the economy started to bounce back.
After that, it was just a matter of tweaking and riding the bull (FYI, there's a standard economic cycle where there are strong periods and weak periods and it cycles every 8 years or so - look at what happened in early 2000's with the downturn then and Dubya's subsequent reaction - going to war in Iraq....wonder where he got that from?). Same thing happened up here with the liberal party.
It's easy to look like a good president when the economy is good since most people base their voting on how well they're doing personally. But it's usually your predecessor who sets the wheels in motion for the economy since it takes a couple of years for the results.
I was there on that fateful day, were you?
I blame Thatcher for the economic problems of the 80's Conservative parties. It was her influence on the world that f'd things up.
I don't think war helps the economy. WW2 Certainly did not help the European economy for anyone, they were pretty much royally screwed after the war. They only very recently bounced back up to the lead in the world economy; and it's not a huge lead yet. Also, it is fairly clear that the Iraqi and Afghani wars have had horrible results on the American economy.
Also I am not sure where you get the idea that Clinton did nothing economically. Clinton's government managed money differently than the Bush regime. Clinton spent less on the military and space programs, and more on social programs and national investments, as a whole spent quite a bit less money than Bush. Clinton was also a strong supporter of trade. I would credit the economic success of theClinton era to economic changes he had made beginning very early on (Change in expenditures/investments, and a rise in taxes, tax relief acts towards low income families giving them more money to spend in the economy). Of course there are a lot of other factors, many of which are not controllable by the government.
The one major critisism I have of Clinton is not doing anything during the Rwandan Genocide. A country knows they're fucked when only Canada is doing anything to help them. He did step in during the Yugoslavia incident, and handled that situation FAR better than Bush has handled Iraq (Bush has done a lot more bad than good).
Anyways, that's all I'll say about Clinton. It's in the past, I don't really care much anymore. I also do not blame Bush for wanting to get some extra on the side, from what I hear Hillary is a nut. It was ridiculous that he almost got impeached over it, absolutely ridiculous; and made zero sence. I mean, you can bomb countries with no justification, but you can't get your dick sucked, what has this world come to?
Bush has done a lot to help certain people in the US, but the vast majority are declining. Since Bush has come to power, the Canadian dollar has climbed on the American dollar from 60 cents to almost 90 cents.
I don't think war helps the economy. WW2 Certainly did not help the European economy for anyone, they were pretty much royally screwed after the war. They only very recently bounced back up to the lead in the world economy; and it's not a huge lead yet. Also, it is fairly clear that the Iraqi and Afghani wars have had horrible results on the American economy.
Also I am not sure where you get the idea that Clinton did nothing economically. Clinton's government managed money differently than the Bush regime. Clinton spent less on the military and space programs, and more on social programs and national investments, as a whole spent quite a bit less money than Bush. Clinton was also a strong supporter of trade. I would credit the economic success of theClinton era to economic changes he had made beginning very early on (Change in expenditures/investments, and a rise in taxes, tax relief acts towards low income families giving them more money to spend in the economy). Of course there are a lot of other factors, many of which are not controllable by the government.
The one major critisism I have of Clinton is not doing anything during the Rwandan Genocide. A country knows they're fucked when only Canada is doing anything to help them. He did step in during the Yugoslavia incident, and handled that situation FAR better than Bush has handled Iraq (Bush has done a lot more bad than good).
Anyways, that's all I'll say about Clinton. It's in the past, I don't really care much anymore. I also do not blame Bush for wanting to get some extra on the side, from what I hear Hillary is a nut. It was ridiculous that he almost got impeached over it, absolutely ridiculous; and made zero sence. I mean, you can bomb countries with no justification, but you can't get your dick sucked, what has this world come to?
Bush has done a lot to help certain people in the US, but the vast majority are declining. Since Bush has come to power, the Canadian dollar has climbed on the American dollar from 60 cents to almost 90 cents.
-Insert Inspiring Quote-
Hey, if there is hope for this guy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwVatoUfty8
Then there is hope for Bush =)
Then there is hope for Bush =)
-Insert Inspiring Quote-
Zeus, you know as well as I that economy and federal budget are two different things.
Rosalina: But you didn't.
Robert: But I DON'T.
Rosalina: You sure that's right?
Robert: I was going to HAVE told you they'd come?
Rosalina: No.
Robert: The subjunctive?
Rosalina: That's not the subjunctive.
Robert: I don't think the syntax has been invented yet.
Rosalina: It would have had to have had been.
Robert: Had to have...had...been? That can't be right.
Robert: But I DON'T.
Rosalina: You sure that's right?
Robert: I was going to HAVE told you they'd come?
Rosalina: No.
Robert: The subjunctive?
Rosalina: That's not the subjunctive.
Robert: I don't think the syntax has been invented yet.
Rosalina: It would have had to have had been.
Robert: Had to have...had...been? That can't be right.
Yeah, but one is on top of the other. Really, there is no budget anymore that so severly effects the economy (which budgets are capable of doing) since all of the politicians are so sensitive to the needs of the corporations (ie. are their bitches)SineSwiper wrote:Zeus, you know as well as I that economy and federal budget are two different things.
I was there on that fateful day, were you?