Right, the GOP shut down the government and Clinton shut down unemployment and inflation and balanced the budget.
Yes, most definitely. But, some of those same people were looking for vengeance. They were blind to logic and fell to political tactics. The reaction to the disaster in New York was to bite back, and without thought. Being a person who's been to war, I know it's never the answer to any problem. We lost in Viet Nam for the very same reasons we have not succeeded in Iraq. We are forced to fight fair. In actuality, true war is non-existent anymore. The fight is remote, strategic and it involves killing the innocent. We cannot compete on that level and the enemy knows that. We failed in Afghanistan because we were not the armed force sent in first. Blackwater was the first force in. These professional soldiers saw the writing on the wall and told our government it's a loosing position. The Russians taught us that much before we even went. Iraq was less a distraction and more a face saving for G.W.. I guess I was fortunate. I never trusted the man from day one. Human traits don't change. The same trait, weakness of character, which brought him to alcahol and drugs, is still with him today. The persons in here who did not support the war were labeled and shunned as unpatriotic. My comment on the rats was referring to those who took that stance and now they want to change direction. You know, the kind of people who bite back, without thought, and making bad decisions. I don’t think you’re one of them.
WOW! I could have written this myself! I started my trade as a pipe fitter, installing automatic fire sprinklers shortly after I got out of the Army in '67. I didn't care much about politics. In 'November of '68 (the day after Nixon won the election) I was riding to work with my foreman, an older guy who had been around for a while, and he said "well, there goes our jobs". And I thought (Yeah Right). The next thing I know, I am standing in the unemployment office. And it's been that way ever since. I was forced to leave my beloved New England in '83 during the Reagan years. I was fortunate enough to find work in Florida installing fire sprinklers in defense plants who had poured millions of dollars into Reagan's campaign. And even then, it was 'do a defense plant, get laid off, do a defense plant, get laid off'. I can relate! And I have voted in every election since 1972 and I have never voted for a republican in my life. And I figure I have done about as much for them as they have ever done for me.
See what can be accomplished through bi-partisan efforts? Why did the deficit issue fade only momentarily? Had that bi-partisan effort continued, we could have begun to pay down the national debt. Instead, the bi-partisan "pay as you go" agreement, that required every tax cut and every spending measure to be "revenue neutral" was cast aside almost the moment GWB took office. So instead of beginning to reduce the deficit in the new century, the opposite occurred. The national debt went from $5,656,270,901,615.43 at the end of the 1998-99 fiscal year, and $5,674,178,209,886.86 at the end of the 1999-2000 fiscal year, to $9,413,483,267,627.77 today. BTW, your share of that is [FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica]$31,001.98. And each of your children's share. And my share, and each of my children's, and each of my grandchildren's share. [/FONT]
But from 1994 until 2001, despite all the wrangling between the parties, they were able to make "pay as you go" work. It was Bush's insistence on pushing through his tax cuts without any corresponding spending cuts that caused the demise of that particular bi-partisan agreement. I know, I know, somebody is going to tell me that tax cuts actually pay for themselves by increasing revenue. I'll believe it when you show me where that has actually happened.
Are we talking about "bi-partisan" or tax cuts? My comment was specifically about politicians working "bi-partisan" So, where were you during the last five years of record economic growth? You know, that stuff about lowest unemployment rates, highest GDP and Consumer Confidence? The stuff on the news between the weather and sports.
My comment to which you first replied was about balancing the budget. That could only have been done through bi-partisan cooperation, and it happened in spite of all the other stuff that was going on at the time. Neither side liked it, but they made it work. Where do you get that stuff? Even the current Economic Report of the President doesn't bear that out.
I'm a little too busy to read an entire economic report. Please just cite the parts where it says that the years 2003 through 2007 (prior to the sub-prime meltdown) was not a period of economic growth.
Did I say it was not a period of economic growth? I do dispute your statements concerning "the last five years of record economic growth" and "lowest unemployment rates, highest GDP and Consumer Confidence" - the only part of that I would not dispute is "highest GDP."
Hmmm... Let's see. Recession followed by tax cuts followed by economic growth. Works for me. Do you have another answer for the economic growth that occured following the tax cuts?
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc? I suggest that growth would have occurred in any event, and it might have been more robust with some other economic or monetary policy. But that's just my opinion. And let's not forget the effect on the deficit. Our grandchildren won't. Unless, of course, the rapture comes next Tuesday right after lunch.
Well, you know about opinions. I'm of the same opinion about the economic growth during the Clinton years. It wasn't anything Clinton did that caused the economy to explode, but imagine how much better it could have been if Clinton had not proposed, and later signed, the biggest middle class tax increase in history. But that all having been said, you asked for it and I delivered. If you want to put your fingers in your ears and go, "La-la-la, I can't hear you", that's your business.
