Republican Candidates

[rylan1]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
Not going to argue on spending (one of the reasons I'm against obama's social heath care plan more spending)
But there was no budget surplus, it was "anticipated" but never realised because of the lower revenue than what was expected with the high clinton taxes.
You can tho equally thank your liberally controlled congress for the massive spending problems.
(You have struck across my huge problem with Bush) Spending
Bush is also borrowing from Social Security which will have to be paid back very soon.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
Well there is a clear contradiction to this with France and the other countries not willing to send troops in, and wanting to let UN handle. I think if there was clear evidence they would have no problem with supporting us. We are being told the these agencies found evidence. My question is could this be part of a lie or misrepresentation of the actual facts?
I think its very nieve to believe everything that our agenices CIA and etc tell us because of there interests not to dismeninate the information they posses to public in "the interest of National Security"
So do you think that our Gov't is not capable of misleading the public and don't do this from time to time?
We went into this war thinking that Iraq supported the 911 attacks.
No contradiction... read the UN Resolutions passed that FRANCE and the other permanent members unanimously passed. France was practicing the same Foreign Policy historically they have done for a hundred years; Appeasement. Then President of France Jaques Chirac said "What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." October 16, 2002
Sadly, what is naive is to think our intel agencies are omnipotent. I wish they were. Up until Iraqi tanks rolled in Kuwait (in 1990) our Intel Agencies were saying Iraq was only "saber rattling". Our Intel Agencies also missed out on the fact that Korea had secretly kept their nuclear program going, missed Pakistan going nuclear, and missed India going nuclear...
I wish our Intel Agencies were as good as we make them out to be... Heck, look at the recent report on Iran; the different Intel Agencies couldn't even agree on what Iran is doing right now.
Who thought Iraq supported the 9-11 attacks? I didn't. I just knew Saddam supported terrorism and that leaders of Al Qaeda had spent time in Iraq.

Both were good enough reasons for me (among the plethora of others)

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
And we find ourselves in the current position that we are in today. There have been 3 periods during the Admin that had economic downturns. It also looks to be a record period of corportate corruption and scandal.
We are on the verge of a Recession... with some places already experiencing a recession. But I bet you won't contribute that to the Bush Admin will you. If you want to count all the "records" that you mentioned, you must also include what is happening today!
Today- Growth over 3%... Ya... that's a recession?
When have we have any negative growth under the current Admin?
Corporate scandal? That's now the Federal Government's responsibility???

 

[rylan1]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
Who thought Iraq supported the 9-11 attacks? I didn't. I just knew Saddam supported terrorism and that leaders of Al Qaeda had spent time in Iraq.

Both were good enough reasons for me (among the plethora of others)
This is what was being said at the onset of the war..

 

[rylan1]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
Today- Growth over 3%... Ya... that's a recession?
When have we have any negative growth under the current Admin?
Corporate scandal? That's now the Federal Government's responsibility???
1st was internet "bubble" than real estate "bubble.. and now this.
Are you denying that are not headed for a national recession?
Is there only one indicator for a recession or are there a few?

 

[dingo0722]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
1st was internet "bubble" than real estate "bubble.. and now this.
Are you denying that are not headed for a national recession?
Is there only one indicator for a recession or are there a few?
You should read up on the business cycle
GDP growth during the entire Bush admin has always been + despite huge "economic downturns"
The question needs to be asked, is bush responsible for the down turn? How could he be. When you have explosive growth in an industry like we saw in 2000, there are always going to be a correction in the industry. He is not responsible for the successes of businesses or industries, only for providing a median that is conducive to economic growth.
you can see that here: http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=us&v=66
GDP growth over 4% is not desirable. The federal reserve has a huge influence on this by the easing and tightening of money.

 

[stdreb27]

But wasn't it the government "reaching out to blacks" that put in place the equal house oportunity thing. And now they sue.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
I think he wanted WMD's ... I don't disagree with that... I however think our intel (given that it is the best in the world) knew he didn't have them. I think this war was a orchestrated because of 911 and America's anger toward the Middle East.. I think that Hussein was more of a target of convience than a target that was a threat to the U.S.
I think by going into Iraq... we strengthend Iran... who is a much more of a serious threat than Iraq was, or could have been in the next 15 years.
Then why did Clinton attack them in 1998?

 

[rylan1]

Originally Posted by dingo0722
You should read up on the business cycle
GDP growth during the entire Bush admin has always been + despite huge "economic downturns"
The question needs to be asked, is bush responsible for the down turn? How could he be. When you have explosive growth in an industry like we saw in 2000, there are always going to be a correction in the industry. He is not responsible for the successes of businesses or industries, only for providing a median that is conducive to economic growth.
you can see that here: http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=us&v=66
GDP growth over 4% is not desirable. The federal reserve has a huge influence on this by the easing and tightening of money.
I think policy can influence it.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
And we find ourselves in the current position that we are in today. There have been 3 periods during the Admin that had economic downturns. It also looks to be a record period of corportate corruption and scandal.
We are on the verge of a Recession... with some places already experiencing a recession. But I bet you won't contribute that to the Bush Admin will you. If you want to count all the "records" that you mentioned, you must also include what is happening today!
And when did all that corporate corruption start?

The case can be made that Bush deserves credit for catching stuff that had been going on for s.decade

 

[dingo0722]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
I think policy can influence it.
Historically fiscal policy has also ways been slow to respond as an economic stimulus. While it is an excellent tool for nurturing long term growth and development, it is slow to take effect unless there is a rebate.
Monetary policy changes have a faster influence in short-term economic stimulus

 

[rylan1]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
But wasn't it the government "reaching out to blacks" that put in place the equal house oportunity thing. And now they sue.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1
huh, where did this come from?
Glad you brought it up because they have a good case. If you look at the

[hr]
crisis and the people that were offered these loans.... If you take into account people of the same income, same credit, and same other factors... african americans were offered these loans in far greater %'s, than white americans.
wow - you can't say house payment on here...
these things you mention do have somethings alike, but in many ways are not. The EHO thing says that people can no longer exlude people from moving into a neighborhood or building because of their race,gender,oreintation... I wouldn't call that reaching out.. I would say thats stepping up to your obligation and the U.S Constitution and following the democratic principles.

 

[reefraff]

So rylan, When do you supposed the US government started "borrowing" from Social Security? You seem to indicate that it was something new for Bush to be using that money. A little homework is in order.
Your economic information glosses over a couple facts.
1. We were headed into a recession at the end of 2000. Can't lay that on Bush.
2. Your economic data didn't seem to mention the impact of the 911 attacks on the economy.
Considering the hand we've been dealt the econmoy is doing very good.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
huh, where did this come from?
Glad you brought it up because they have a good case. If you look at the

[hr]
crisis and the people that were offered these loans.... If you take into account people of the same income, same credit, and same other factors... african americans were offered these loans in far greater %'s, than white americans.
Got link? I wouldn't doubt it, I assume Blacks can make just as stupid decisions as whites but I haven't seen that information broken down anywhere. Didn't realize loan documents asked the race of borrowers.

 

[rylan1]

Originally Posted by reefraff
So rylan, When do you supposed the US government started "borrowing" from Social Security? You seem to indicate that it was something new for Bush to be using that money. A little homework is in order.
Your economic information glosses over a couple facts.
1. We were headed into a recession at the end of 2000. Can't lay that on Bush.
2. Your economic data didn't seem to mention the impact of the 911 attacks on the economy.
Considering the hand we've been dealt the econmoy is doing very good.
I agree with you about 911. As a major contributor... I think that policies since then have slowed the recovery process.

 

[dingo0722]

Originally Posted by reefraff
So rylan, When do you supposed the US government started "borrowing" from Social Security? You seem to indicate that it was something new for Bush to be using that money. A little homework is in order.
Your economic information glosses over a couple facts.
1. We were headed into a recession at the end of 2000. Can't lay that on Bush.
2. Your economic data didn't seem to mention the impact of the 911 attacks on the economy.
Considering the hand we've been dealt the econmoy is doing very good.
This is why I asked him to cite his "cut and paste" references. The information there is liberally biased to discredit W and is not based on tangible facts

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
I agree with you about 911. As a major contributor... I think that policies since then have slowed the recovery process.
The out of control spending is a problem but most of the economic policies have been good. Thats one point in McCains favor, he could seriously cut sending. Don't see President Hillary doing that.
By the way, SINCE DAY ONE of the social security program all the money collected has been placed in the general fund and spent. 100% of it.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
...Stock markets fall. The Dow, NASDAQ, and S&P 500 stock indices have all declined since President Bush took office. ....
Rylan, you're falling back into bad habits...
I'm not going to argue with all of the fallacies of that last post... just point this out... The NYSE highest closing ever was 10-11-07 at 14198.10.
Hard to argue the Stock Market has been declining during the current President's Admin with record high's being set.

 

[stdreb27]

Do you remember Nancy Pelosi's campain promise of Pay as you Go government.

 

[dingo0722]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
Do you remember Nancy Pelosi's campain promise of Pay as you Go government.

I also remember her saying that they would work 5 days a week. Joke