Post Tools: 
PrintThis
Related Posts: Coverage of Last Night’s CD3 DFL Debate, CD3 Debate - August 21, 2008, Madia Holding Debate Watching Party, CD 3 Debate Tonight, Settle a Debate,
PrintThis
Related Posts: Coverage of Last Night’s CD3 DFL Debate, CD3 Debate - August 21, 2008, Madia Holding Debate Watching Party, CD 3 Debate Tonight, Settle a Debate,
Loading ...
Yes. yes. yes! Obama says that we must increase the number of troops in Afghanistan, by at least two or three brigades. Bush was right, the war on terror will be long and it will be hard. Thank God the next President knows that this is true. Nice song and dance by both candidates by the way, glad thay weren’t back in Washington doing their jobs…
Hey Tom.
McCain has not cast a vote in over six months.
BTW: Bush was not right about anything.
Just a thought…..
Let’s expand that cartoon to include the suite of key financial measures instead of just the one, and let’s also be sure to include Jimmy Carter on the timeline.
Clinton is going to kick everyone’s ass on all the economic indicators - jobs, growth, stock market, etc. And yes, Carter’s numbers weren’t very good. But the point here is the irony that the Republicans have all claimed to be fiscal conservatives, and they are anything but. At some point, people will start to recognize that Democrats are better for the economy, better for business, and better for everyone.
Let’s add the make-up of the congress in there to make things a little more clear. But, that would be an inconvenient truth, wouldn’t it?
Nothing inconvenient about it at all:
Reagan: Senate 6 years R, 2 years D; House 8 years D
Bush I: Senate 4 years D, House 4 years D
Clinton: Senate 2 years D, 6 years R; House 2 years D, 6 years R
Bush II: Senate 3.5 years D, 4.5 years R, House 6 years R, 2 years D
Sorry, but the common denominator is the presidents. That’s because Democratic economic policies create jobs and economic growth, and Republican policies don’t.
Really?
Reagan, entire term had a democratics house.
Bush I, entire term, Democratic congress.
SPEND SPEND SPEND
Clinton, most of his term, Republican, which limited spending.
Bush II - mixed, but got us out of the Clinton-Gore recession and overcame the worst attack on our country in 60 years and had to fight wars while doing it.
Hey, Really?
The president’s budget is called that for a reason.
Re. recession: There was no recession until the beginning of the Bush administration. At least for those of us know what recession.
Bush IGNORED warnings about that attacks. “You’ve covered your ass” though, really.*
*Bush’s response to the PDB warning of Bin Laden’s plans.
Know what the term ‘recession’ means.
Who knew, making fiscally responsible federal budget is easy. I recently played a game of Budget Hero at mpr and was able to reduced the size of govt/shrink the debt while meeting my goals in energy, environment and healthcare. I believe the this was achieved through my tax the rich philosophy combined with military cuts and ending the war.
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/projects/2008/05/budget_hero/
My question to conservatives who are against raising taxes is where are you going to find sufficient cuts to decrease the deficit? As Obama pointed out last night eliminating $16 Billion in pork/earmarks won’t make much difference in a 3 trillion dollar budget.
Lojasmo, really now, who is the entity that adds in all of the budget items, the earmarks, and then votes on it? That would be the Congress.
The Presdient can suggest, cajole, and browbeat, and then he can only sit back and veto the whole package, not item by item. If the Prez had the line item veto, then maybe you could call it the President’s budget.
Negative GDP growth occurred in 3Q 2000 and 1Q 2001, both under Clinton Gore policies. 3Q 2001 was also negative, due to Clinton Gore policies, and the 9/11 attacks. (and if you say that Bush knew of a specific plan then I will lump you in with the truthers and ignore anything else you say). A recession in some circles is 2 consectuve quarters of negative GDP growth, and in others, a mix of slowing or negative indicators.
Based on the above, fair, reasonable and educated people would call it the Clinton Gore recession. Only partisans and media hacks would argue otherwise.
It is the president’s budget, despite your opinion, Really?
And, I have read the PDB of August 2001. It was fairly clear about locations and methods.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/august6.memo/
“such as that from a — — service in 1998 saying that Bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to gain the release of “Blind Sheikh” Omar Abdel Rahman and other U.S.-held extremists.
Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.”
“Bush II - mixed, but got us out of the Clinton-Gore recession and overcame the worst attack on our country in 60 years and had to fight wars while doing it.”
Had to fight wars? He certainly didn’t have to fight the Iraq war.
Lojasmo,
Ok, looks like you conceded on the Clinton-Gore recession.
Now, we all know that there is a presidential budget proposal. It goes to the congress who then adds and changes all kinds of things, and then debates it, and then votes on it. It is then sent to the President for his signautre. Again, he can either accept ita all or rejct it all. If he accepts it, it is now the US budget - not the presidents. Nice try, but your logic fails. Oh, and if he did reject it, you would dig up some little piece of it that fed starving children and yelled “Bush doesn’t want to feed starving children”.
Next, the bulletin notes that there were UNCORROBORATED SENSATIONAL THREAT reports that OBL may want to try a hijacking to free the blind sheik. This is not ” takeover 4 plans and fly them into buildings”. Again, you did not bring the facts needed to answere the question I posed. Strike Three - you are out.
PS - Oh, and why did OSL want to attack the US? Because of failed policies of Clinton-Gore….from your same report….
”
After U.S. missile strikes on his base in Afghanistan in 1998, bin Laden told followers he wanted to retaliate in Washington, according to a — — service.”
George Will had a great article last week. It demonstrated in years when the was a President, House, and Senate of all the same party, spending was up 5% (regardless of party!!). When there was a President who had an opposing or split Senate and House, spending was up 1.5%.
The way this Government is intended to function is through checks-and-balances and the healthy tension of making parties comprimise. The worst thing that can happen is a full sweep by one party or the other.
Actually, DtM - the worst thing that can happen is when Representatives and Senators lose their institutional bearings, and represent their parties instead.
And the GOP “Contract On America”, by design, does exactly that on the “right” side of the aisle.
Really?
Didn’t concede. We’re going to have to agree to disagree about your characterization of it as the “clinton-gore recession”
So, do you not see Bush’s failure to act upon the PDB as a failure of the PDB itself? You truly expect that dismissing the failure as due to lack of EXACTLY specific plans in the PDB? That is a patently silly point of view.
But as Bush said: “You’ve covered your ass.”
Why did UBL attack? In UBL’s own words:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/16/terror/main4102367.shtm l (remove space from between last two characters.
So sorry, but no. Not due to Clinton.
America can’t take 4 more years of
BORROW AND SPEND REPUBLICANS