Republican Candidates

1journeyman

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
This is what was being said at the onset of the war..
Quote someone in the Admin who said the only reason we were going into Iraq was to go after Al Qaeda...
 
1journeyman

1journeyman

Active Member
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?
So, despite the fact that the economy has been positive EVERY month of the current Admin you're trying to argue President Bush is responisble for a faulty economy.
Despite record low (read lower than under Clinton) unemployment our economy is in the trash..
 
1journeyman

1journeyman

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

How about her promise to get rid of Earmarks and Pet projects?
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
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.
No, no, this is good, at least he has something, to support what he thinks. They may be partially or clearly inaccurate. But aleast he has some information.
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
So, despite the fact that the economy has been positive EVERY month of the current Admin you're trying to argue President Bush is responisble for a faulty economy.
Despite record low (read lower than under Clinton) unemployment our economy is in the trash..
The lowest low under clinton was lower than today. I think he hit 4% as a low. All be it, clinton also had a higher high at 6% unemployment. Than bush.
 
1journeyman

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
The lowest low under clinton was lower than today. I think he hit 4% as a low. All be it, clinton also had a higher high at 6% unemployment. Than bush.
I believe the record low unemployment, however, was during President Bush.... let me check
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
I believe the record low unemployment, however, was during President Bush.... let me check
I don't think so, the lowest bush has gotten was 4.2% if I remember right.
Remember Bush got that slowing economy then 9 months in there was 9-11. So he was kind of really screwed.
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member
Does anyone actually know someone who's "quality" of life has declined since Bush took office? And can be directly correlated with his economic policies?
I don't.
Case in point. Intel here just laid off 2000 people at the plant down the road. Now many wil be quick to point at the "recession" and slower market as the reason for this. However this is not the reason at all. 5 years ago the employees were given a warning to increase their knowledge and traing as the plant was going to be automated in some areas and expanding in others, and only those employees that took the training offerred (funded by Intel) would be worry free from the possible future lay off. Well the lay off's came and I know people on both sides of the incident. The ones Intel kept, did their training. The one's the let go didn't.
So much in the form of job loss is laid at the administrations feet, but I have seen many "recessions" when other companies laid off employees including company I worked for. I never feared a lay off, why? Because I always enhanced my knowledge and abilities with every on the job opportunity I could grab. I don't call in. I work to the best of my ability and I am on time. I have never been laid off for the usual reason. I did get laid off once, But I was being replaced by a family member of the owner (not government fault) and I opened my own business the next day.
My point is "job loss" is never totally the administrations fault. No matter who is in office. I look at my fellow employees (part-time job for health insurance) at home depot and watch their work habits. 50% of our country no longer has a great work ethic. 75% of that group doesn't even have a "good" work ethic. And those are the people I see that get let go or fired....It is never the person that busts ass and does his job to the fullest day in and day out.
 
1journeyman

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
I believe the record low unemployment, however, was during President Bush.... let me check
ok.. Here are the unemployment numbers from President Clinton and President Bush: (taken from Bureau of Labor)
1992 7.5%
1993 6.9%
1994 6.1%
1995 5.6%
1996 5.4%
1997 4.9%
1998 4.5%
1999 4.2%
2000 4.0%
Average= 6.1%
2001 4.7%
2002 5.8%
2003 6.0%
2004 5.5%
2005 5.1%
2006 4.6%
2007 4.6%
Average= 5.2%
So the lowest single year was 2000 (Clinton). While the lowest average was under President Bush.
Of course, these numbers can be deceiving. For instance, President Clinton took office at the end of an actual recession, President Bush inherited a recession, 9-11 hit, we had Congress switch parties in 96 and 2006, etc.
I'm just not seeing the loss of jobs, doom-and-gloom scenario the Media is trying to scare us into believing.
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
Does anyone actually know someone who's "quality" of life has declined since Bush took office? And can be directly correlated with his economic policies?
I don't.
Case in point. Intel here just laid off 2000 people at the plant down the road. Now many wil be quick to point at the "recession" and slower market as the reason for this. However this is not the reason at all. 5 years ago the employees were given a warning to increase their knowledge and traing as the plant was going to be automated in some areas and expanding in others, and only those employees that took the training offerred (funded by Intel) would be worry free from the possible future lay off. Well the lay off's came and I know people on both sides of the incident. The ones Intel kept, did their training. The one's the let go didn't.
So much in the form of job loss is laid at the administrations feet, but I have seen many "recessions" when other companies laid off employees including company I worked for. I never feared a lay off, why? Because I always enhanced my knowledge and abilities with every on the job opportunity I could grab. I don't call in. I work to the best of my ability and I am on time. I have never been laid off for the usual reason. I did get laid off once, But I was being replaced by a family member of the owner (not government fault) and I opened my own business the next day.
My point is "job loss" is never totally the administrations fault. No matter who is in office. I look at my fellow employees (part-time job for health insurance) at home depot and watch their work habits. 50% of our country no longer has a great work ethic. 75% of that group doesn't even have a "good" work ethic. And those are the people I see that get let go or fired....It is never the person that busts ass and does his job to the fullest day in and day out.
It is pretty assine to assert that the admin is responsible for economic ups or downs. Their policy decisions do have a long term effect on the economy but there are so many variables, that effect the actual numbers.
If you don't believe in our work ethic work with people overseas, I used to think low of our habits but brazil and south america, Europe man o man.
But that being said I do see that lazyness creeping into our society.
 
dingo0722

dingo0722

Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
ok.. Here are the unemployment numbers from President Clinton and President Bush: (taken from Bureau of Labor)
1992 7.5%
1993 6.9%
1994 6.1%
1995 5.6%
1996 5.4%
1997 4.9%
1998 4.5%
1999 4.2%
2000 4.0%
Average= 6.1%
2001 4.7%
2002 5.8%
2003 6.0%
2004 5.5%
2005 5.1%
2006 4.6%
2007 4.6%
Average= 5.2%
So the lowest single year was 2000 (Clinton). While the lowest average was under President Bush.
Of course, these numbers can be deceiving. For instance, President Clinton took office at the end of an actual recession, President Bush inherited a recession, 9-11 hit, we had Congress switch parties in 96 and 2006, etc.
I'm just not seeing the loss of jobs, doom-and-gloom scenario the Media is trying to scare us into believing.
These numbers look good to me. The US record for unemployment was 0% during WWII. Unemployment has a paridoxal affect, when it gets below 3% it is bad for the economy, likewise anything over 5% is also bad.
 
1journeyman

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
Stock markets fall. The Dow, NASDAQ, and S&P 500 stock indices have all declined since President Bush took office. The declining market reflects investors' confidence in the economy. But it has also wiped out hundreds of billions of dollars in assets, including significant retirement funds, made it more difficult and expensive for businesses to raise capital, and reduced consumer spending. ....
I really want to know where Rylan is cutting and pasting this from... Clearly, based on the Stock Market numbers I posted, this is absolutely in error.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
These graphs just annoy the hell out of liberals
In this one take particular note of what happened shortly after the GOP took control of the house and Senate in 1995.

What is this I see, a falling economy while Clinton was still in office


What the graphs clearly demonstrate is contrary to the propaganda regurgitated by zombies too lazy or afraid to check the facts for themselves Clinton inherited a growing economy from Daddy Bush but the real economic gains from the 90's didn't happen until after Newt and the conservative took over Congress and drug Clinton kicking and screaming through spending cuts and welfare reform. Of course by 2000 Newt was gone and the Republicans were tying to out Democrat the Democrats so the economy started down hill and was headed for a recession. Clinton could have gone with what worked in the first couple years of conservative control of congress but did nothing.
As for Bush the market broke 14000 points last year. Yep, declining markets
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Rylan,
So I have time to read your remarks. And have headed up the main points.
·1.6 million lost jobs in Bush’s first term.
·Private sector jobs. But 821,000 jobs lost (1st term?)
·Unemployment up 2 million under Bush.
·6 million unemployed, 5.4% unemployment vs 4.2 when he was sworn in
·Numbers 3 years old.
·Poverty Rate increased .4% 2003 Increased for 3 consecutive years.
·Real income Falling at record paces. Only other prez with falling income are HW and Ford
·Surplus Bush inherited is gone.
·Record Debt increase
·Worst fiscal reversal in history.
·Stock Markets Fall.
After reviewing the pasted information, the information is grossly out of date. Most of the information would not hold true the following the second term.
There are some downsides to our economy, such as the poverty rate which is growing (slightly) sure unemployment is higher now then when he took office. But this article is just a snap shot of a conveniently chosen dates. There are other problems, rediculous spending. (both parties fault) Today most of these number quoted have reversed themselves, from the stock market to the unemployment rate. (this is within the range of frictional unemployment) So your arguments are simply VERY dated. It would be like me compairing the economy during Clinton's first year to Last year for Bush. It simply is apples to oranges.
 
scubadoo

scubadoo

Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
I'm just not seeing the loss of jobs, doom-and-gloom scenario the Media is trying to scare us into believing.
SInce things ar going well in Iraq...the liberal media has turned to something else. The doom and gloom mantra in Iraq is now turned around...so time to chant something different.
 
scubadoo

scubadoo

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

After years of historic deficits, this new Con-gress will commit itself to a higher standard: pay-as-you-go, no new deficit spending. Our new America will provide unlimited opportu-nity for future generations, not burden them with mountains of debt.
--Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), January 4, 2007.[9]
Fact: The House has already waived its PAYGO rules, and Congress has voted to increase entitlement spending by $179 billion. Offset by the $98 billion in tax increases, these policies would increase the bud-get deficit by nearly $81 billion.
 
scubadoo

scubadoo

Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
Saddam Hussein let the world think he had weapons of mass destruction to intimidate Iran and prevent the country from attacking Iraq, according to an FBI agent who interviewed the dictator after his 2003 capture.
- This article states that he wanted to rebuild a WMD program... but that at the time of invasion.. He did not have WMD's.
So my question is .... What real evidence did we have to support WMD's. I think that we knew that Hussein didn't have WMD's... And the reason why he didn't deny it is because he wanted essentially "bluff" Iran so that they wouldn't invade Iraq. This article aslo states that Hussein didn't think the U.S would invade Iraq and at most they may get bombed...
In my opinion a stable and military sufficient Iraq leads to a more stablized Middle East.. So I think that this war has done more damage than good in the long term.
Please, please....the piece on 60 Minutes does not mean Saddam was 100% truthful when he chatted with the FBI guy.
Remember he thought the guy reported directly to Bush. I doubt he would have said he had them and moved them. That comment would help Bush out...why should he do that for a man he hated?
What proof do you have that he did not mislead the fbi agent?
Sadam truthful?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top