Are you saying that even after 8 years of being in office, W couldn't fix the mess that was given him???gut;1630001 wrote:Hahaha....Clinton did nothing more than try to stay out of the way...but had his hand in the housing bubble and allowed the internet bubble to build to the point of bursting - big seeds of the Great Recession. Clinton arguably is more to blame than Bush having set the table for the 2008 financial crisis.
Well, the economy WAS looking like it was doing pretty well, even if it was artificially fueled with easy money . Monetary policy is technically supposed to be independent, but had he seen the risks he could have exerted influence (more like Clinton planted the seed, Bush watered it). And he DID see risks with Fanny & Freddie, but it fell on deaf ears to a Democratic Congress in 2006.cruiser_96;1630068 wrote:Are you saying that even after 8 years of being in office, W couldn't fix the mess that was given him???
Oh.
Please list for us the specific Clinton policies that "helped make a great economy," followed by the specific Bush policies that "destroyed it."steubbigred;1629992 wrote:I should have said male. By the way Clinton was a good president. His wife will be too. It's all about the economy and Clinton helped make a great economy and then Bush destroyed it.
You seem to know a lot about my internet activity.fish82;1630054 wrote:Yeah, I can see where keeping up with the activity on the GB would take up most of your time. : thumbup:
Meh. I find it easier and more expedient to blame Bush. And not just me. I like to get my journalist friends involved.gut;1630069 wrote:Well, the economy WAS looking like it was doing pretty well, even if it was artificially fueled with easy money . Monetary policy is technically supposed to be independent, but had he seen the risks he could have exerted influence (more like Clinton planted the seed, Bush watered it). And he DID see risks with Fanny & Freddie, but it fell on deaf ears to a Democratic Congress in 2006.
Me too. Bush is simply easier to blame than accepting responsibility for backing an Administration that's so inept, so incompetent, and so corrupt that the Bush Administration actually seems overqualified.cruiser_96;1630198 wrote:Meh. I find it easier and more expedient to blame Bush. And not just me. I like to get my journalist friends involved.
Now you're speaking my language!believer;1630244 wrote:Me too. Bush is simply easier to blame than accepting responsibility for backing an Administration that's so inept, so incompetent, and so corrupt that the Bush Administration actually seems overqualified.
I was just speculating. Don't get all wound up on me.HelloAgain;1630153 wrote:You seem to know a lot about my internet activity.
So should the Rs find a gay lesbian asian woman to run in the next election?IggyPride00;1623390 wrote:Hillary is going to be the next President.
The Democrat party are the masters of identity politics.
First it was the "first" black man. Now it will be the "first" women. Then the "first" Latino. Then the "first" Gay person. Then the "first" Asian. Then the "first" Lesbian. When they are done with all that they may just top it off with a Tranny in office since they ran out of other firsts.
All the while the GOP will be nominating white males and being accused of being racists.
This is the plan. Look how fast they have turned gay marriage into not only something accepted, but aspirational as just same old male/female marriage is out of vogue now.
The left will continue to get what it wants and the government will keep growing.
Rand being attacked by both the left and right now....so he must be doing something right, and both sides are taking note.thavoice;1642080 wrote: I see where Rand Paul 2016 Restore America Now items are starting to pop up.....
Not sure he can win the Republican primary campaigning on scaling back the military and the drug war.pmoney25;1642302 wrote:He is picking smart battles right now. People are war fatigued, dislike government spying on citizens and believe the drug war to be a failure. He can beat Hillary on those issues.
Protect our people, yes. Have our nose where it doesn't belong, no.Con_Alma;1642322 wrote:All Citizens are war fatigued until someone dies right here at home on our soil.You don't keep that from happening by scaling back our military while spending what we spend on entitlements. The first and most important role of our fed is to protect the people not conduct social experiments.No thanks Mr. Paul. I'll look elsewhere.
Exactly. I say freeze defense spending, or at least grow it slower than inflation or GDP, for the next 20 years. In real terms, that would be up to a 50% reduction ($350B or so in today's dollars). That's a number that looks about right to me. Sad part is that savings will be wiped out by debt service when rates normalize.Mulva;1642366 wrote:There's simply no room to scale back the military.
There's very few locations or issues in the world that we shouldn't have our nose in. We belong wherever we want to be to ensure we can dampen the potential threats or safety of U.S. citizens.WebFire;1642351 wrote:Protect our people, yes. Have our nose where it doesn't belong, no.
True.gut;1642248 wrote:Rand being attacked by both the left and right now....so he must be doing something right, and both sides are taking note.
Is that you John Bolton?Con_Alma;1642385 wrote:There's very few locations or issues in the world that we shouldn't have our nose in. We belong wherever we want to be to ensure we can dampen the potential threats or safety of U.S. citizens.
Here is the headline from WTOL about bombing Iraq targets this morning.Con_Alma;1642385 wrote:There's very few locations or issues in the world that we shouldn't have our nose in. We belong wherever we want to be to ensure we can dampen the potential threats or safety of U.S. citizens.
American planes bombed targets in Iraq this morning. President Obama says the aim is to protect Iraqi citizens.
Scaling back military spending can easily be accomplished with no effect on capability. At least easily except for congressmen and their pet pork.Con_Alma;1642322 wrote:
You don't keep that from happening by scaling back our military while spending what we spend on entitlements. The first and most important role of our fed is to protect the people not conduct social experiments.
That nose rarely needs to be attached to someone in a military uniform.Con_Alma;1642385 wrote:There's very few locations or issues in the world that we shouldn't have our nose in. We belong wherever we want to be to ensure we can dampen the potential threats or safety of U.S. citizens.
queencitybuckeye;1642504 wrote:Scaling back military spending can easily be accomplished with no effect on capability. At least easily except for congressmen and their pet pork.