Bush Economy the worst since Herbert Hoover

[LB Lex]

Originally posted by lex400sc
Once again, you guys are pointing all the fingers at Clinton, while forgetting that Bush didn't do jack to prevent Enron from it's illlicit activities.

You quoted my post wherein I stated that "I'm not putting all the blame on Clinton" but you only see what you want to see and then state that I am pointing all the fingers at Clinton. And then I said Bush is not "fault-free". You've been showing yourself to be ideologically blinded, it is difficult to have a discussion with someone who only sees what they want to see.

Originally posted by lex400sc
Bush either didn't know or didn't care about what they did until hundreds of thousands of employees and investors were left out in the rain. Then he very cautiously proceeded to denounce corporate scandals and it really must have hurt to ask his Attorney General to pursue charges on some of his best buddies. Oh you forgot that Enron, Arthur Andersen, Halliburton, and others were the largest contributors to Bush's past and present campaigns? Yeah and they were all accused of and many of them convicted of defrauding investors, padding the books, tax evasion, etc.

Bush had the balls to proesecute his "best buddies." You stated this but continue to state that he did nothing and left "employees and investors...out in the rain." The problem arose and expanded under Clinton's watch and then it blew up when Bush was in office. I guess it is all Bush's fault forinheriting an economy on the brink.

[2Lexus430s]

While Clinton may finish last in moral leadership and support for our troops, in some areas he is the undisputed champ. In over 90 percent of the cases that Clinton has exercised his line item veto, he has used it to cut defense spending. Since the end of the Gulf War, our military has shrunk by more than 40 percent. The Navy can't adequately man its aircraft carriers, and the Army has been forced to reduce its ranks by more than 630,000 soldiers and civilians. Army divisions have dropped from 18 to 10, and over 700 installations at home and overseas have been closed. Nonetheless, under Commander Clinton, the U.S. Army has been called into action 26 times, racking up an incredible eleven-fold increase over just 10 such "operational events" that were conducted by the Army between 1960 and 1991.

Hes such a great guy

[lex400sc]

Originally posted by SCLexus3.0
While Clinton may finish last in moral leadership and support for our troops, in some areas he is the undisputed champ. In over 90 percent of the cases that Clinton has exercised his line item veto, he has used it to cut defense spending. Since the end of the Gulf War, our military has shrunk by more than 40 percent. The Navy can't adequately man its aircraft carriers, and the Army has been forced to reduce its ranks by more than 630,000 soldiers and civilians. Army divisions have dropped from 18 to 10, and over 700 installations at home and overseas have been closed. Nonetheless, under Commander Clinton, the U.S. Army has been called into action 26 times, racking up an incredible eleven-fold increase over just 10 such "operational events" that were conducted by the Army between 1960 and 1991.

Hes such a great guy

There is no longer a need to build up and command humungous armies in a globalized unipolar world, such as the historically unique one we live in today. War is no longer profitable for developed nations and thus the most powerful nations never attempt terrestrial acquisition since nationalism has exploded worldwide and integration of others often means genocide (reference East Timor, Palestine, Chechnya). Thus the traditional 20th century measures of massive armies no longer applies. What is more effective is a small, higly specialized, elite military forces equipped with state-of-the-rt equipment. The military was built up heavily during the Reagan and Bush Sr. years, and unnecessarily so since we've enjoyed peace and prosperity throughout the 90's.

What we will eventually have to learn is that to maintain American primacy in the world, we must strengthen ourselves internally instead of manipulating our "interests" abroad. Look at the level of success of Japan and Germany as a result of heavy militarization----complete failure---versus the success of Japanese and German economies post-WW2---strength and dominance---without the existance of a military at all. Hell how did China rise to the second largest world economy? Sorry to say it but the communist principles of central planning and heavy government involvement in the economy was the key to their success. It is was was referred to as the "East-Asian Miracle" by the World Banc. The rules of the game are different. We are intricately connected and the world only gets smaller. Make due with what we have because our current model of dominance is obsolete. With all the military might in the world, look at what 19 men armed with box cutters did to cripple our nation. How do you fight that with nuclear submarines and battleships? To refocus internally is yet another way to rid the world of anti-American terrorists too. Why do you think they hate us to begin with? We meddle too much in their business.

[2Lexus430s]

Originally posted by lex400sc
What is more effective is a small, higly specialized, elite military forces equipped with state-of-the-rt equipment.

Hmmm, then read this.

<Former Reagan Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger>
"We also lost air and sea lift (capacity). We don't have forward position troops anymore. We had a procurement holiday for two or three years in which we didn't acquire anything. And we cut our research and development expenditure that was responsible for those weapons that enabled us to win the Gulf War at such little cost."

"By every count," Weinberger said of Clinton, "he was very neglectful of the military. I don't think he understood it. I don't think he liked it. And it was a very bad period for the military. Morale was very low."

Weinberger told the radio talker that while he didn't think Clinton consciously set out to undermine the U.S.'s armed forces, he cared so little about them that deterioration was inevitable.

"His foreign policy was basically to get reelected.... that took precedence over everything else," the former defense chief said.

[2Lexus430s]

California Governor Blacks Out the Truth

On Aug. 20, 2003, California Gov. Gray Davis stated that Enron and the Bush administration were to blame for the Golden State's electricity crisis.

"I inherited the energy deregulation scheme which put all of us at the mercy of the big energy producers. We got no help from the federal government. In fact, when I was fighting Enron and the other energy companies, these same companies were sitting down with Vice President [****] Cheney to draft a national energy strategy," stated Davis.

However, Davis is playing fast and loose with the real facts of his relationship with Enron. For example, according to the Sacramento Bee, Davis has received $119,500 in campaign donations from Enron, including $42,500 since becoming governor. Davis openly stated that he would not return the Enron money.

Davis has previously been quick to blame Enron for California's lack of power. In May 2002, Davis called Enron executives "robber barons."

"This is more than greed. This is depravity," stated Davis.

"As far as I'm concerned, the persons responsible are a menace to society and should be facing serious jail time, not 9 a.m. tee times," said Davis.

In 1999, only months before the California energy crisis, Davis led a $200,000 trade trip to Europe for Enron. Davis traveled at California taxpayer expense with his wife for two weeks in Europe and finally in ancient Greece, lobbying on behalf of Enron for the Greek Wind Project.

Davis also took a close-knit group of heavy campaign donors along on his trip to Greece. The group included grocery store magnate Ron Burkle, who donated $350,000 to Davis, and workers' compensation insurance executive Stanley Zax, who donated $100,000 to Davis.

Newsmax

[lex400sc]

Originally posted by 93LexoGS300
You quoted my post wherein I stated that "I'm not putting all the blame on Clinton" but you only see what you want to see and then state that I am pointing all the fingers at Clinton. And then I said Bush is not "fault-free". You've been showing yourself to be ideologically blinded, it is difficult to have a discussion with someone who only sees what they want to see.

I quoted you because yours was the last comment I read. And no I didn't say "you are putting all the blame", you misquoted me. However "you guys are point all the fingers" at him as if it was solely his fault. You only blamed Bush for a failed tax plan and not the corporate scandals. Padded books are harder to catch when the entire economy is blowing up, but much more obvious when the entire economy is in decline and a single company is reporting huge earnings. Especially obvious if you are Bush and have had recent financial dealings with them. Even in your concession you said that Clinton wasn't overseeing businesses. Excuse me but is that his job? To watch American companies and study their accounting books all day? You should take things less personal also, I did state "you guys", as in plural.

Originally posted by 93LexoGS300
Bush had the balls to proesecute his "best buddies." You stated this but continue to state that he did nothing and left "employees and investors...out in the rain." The problem arose and expanded under Clinton's watch and then it blew up when Bush was in office. I guess it is all Bush's fault forinheriting an economy on the brink.

He "had the balls"? More like he had no choice! Either make an example of Enron or play into the stereotype of corrupt Republicans favoring the rich. Could you imagine the backlash if Bush did nothing to prosecute a handful of slimeball execs that cheated tens of thousands out of money?? I think the choice he made was a pretty easy one for anyone in his position!

[lex400sc]

Originally posted by SCLexus3.0
Hmmm, then read this.

<Former Reagan Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger>
"We also lost air and sea lift (capacity). We don't have forward position troops anymore. We had a procurement holiday for two or three years in which we didn't acquire anything. And we cut our research and development expenditure that was responsible for those weapons that enabled us to win the Gulf War at such little cost."

"By every count," Weinberger said of Clinton, "he was very neglectful of the military. I don't think he understood it. I don't think he liked it. And it was a very bad period for the military. Morale was very low."

Weinberger told the radio talker that while he didn't think Clinton consciously set out to undermine the U.S.'s armed forces, he cared so little about them that deterioration was inevitable.

"His foreign policy was basically to get reelected.... that took precedence over everything else," the former defense chief said.

Look at the source!! Of course he's a harsh critic, LOL! *Reagan's Secretary of Defense*, I mean Jesus Christ, can you find a more militant man this side of Hitler?

[2Lexus430s]

<NEWSMAX>

It’s so easy to play Monday morning quarterback. President Bush has been hit with sharp partisan criticism, sagging poll numbers, a drumbeat of media attacks, a recessionary economy – and a war, which hasn’t gone so well. With just over a year to re-election, George Bush should be sailing to a re-election victory. But it isn't so.

What has gone wrong?

In many ways the president has exhibited great leadership, such as pushing through tax cuts and dealing with the “Axis of Evil.” When Bush does such bold things, he is applauded and supported. Yet when the public senses his administration drifting, it dampens its support. Bush seems to go through phases.
When he focused on “compassionate conservativism” during the primary election in 2000, he lost New Hampshire and nearly the whole race. When he returned to the Reagan roots of the Republican Party, he roared back to success – first in South Carolina, then all the way to Philadelphia. Squish. John McCain was rousted and trounced. During the 2000 election, Bush started off strong after the primaries, but a 20-point lead against Al Gore dwindled on Election Day to a popular election loss and a miracle win in the Electoral College. The lesson should have been clear: Morph into a fuzzy Republican at your own peril.
Bush was being tested his first year, perhaps as no other president has been. His bold economic stimulus plan was implemented and then he was hit with 9/11. Had 9/11 not occurred, I believe George Bush would be sitting on a full-blown recovery right now. But 9/11 happened. Such is life. Bush should have done two things that first year, two things Karl Rove would never advise him to do. Administration talking heads should have had a clear message: Bush inherited a “Clinton recession.” The economic indicators starting falling before Bush was even sworn in, and he could be little blamed for Clinton’s wild excesses and a Federal Reserve Board that did little to squelch “irrational exuberance.” But the Bush White House didn’t want to play the blame game. I understand their style, but in realpolitik you need to explain to the public why things happen. The Democrats have been quick to blame Bush for the recession. Why should he have been a gentleman toward them?

And then there was 9/11.

Nobody in the RNC or the Bush White House wanted to utter the “C” word and blame Clinton’s disastrous national security policies for Sept. 11. Hadn’t the hijackers operated for years within our borders, under Clinton’s watch, under the incompetent leadership of the Reno Justice Department, the Freeh FBI and the out-of-control INS? What about Clinton’s efforts to emasculate the CIA and his banning recruitment of informants in terrorist networks? Or his failure to extradite Osama bin Laden when, by his own admission, he had the opportunity to do so? No, it wasn’t gentleman-like for the Bush administration to point fingers. But true to form, within months of 9/11, the Democrats were blaming Bush, wondering what he knew about al-Qaeda intelligence. They were bandying about words like “cover-up.” These attacks have only intensified. Sen. Bob Graham, once thought of as a moderate Democrat, regularly accuses Bush of a cover-up and has raised the specter of impeachment.

Like Graham, many Democrats are already criticizing Bush, saying he has neglected homeland defense. What this means, and I’ll translate it for you, is that all hell will break loose the minute another 9/11 attack happens. You can be sure the New York Times will lead with vicious Page One attacks blaming Bush for his failure to prepare the nation and wasting our resources in Iraq. If another 9/11 were to happen, there would also be another Bush “mistake” coming home to roost: Hillary Clinton. After eight years of scandal, ending with horrific revelations about the sale of presidential pardons and the trashing of the White House, the Clintons should have been pursued legally.

In Carl Limbacher’s new book, "Hillary’s Scheme," he also lays out a convincing case that the go-easy Bush White House made a huge mistake by letting the Clintons off the hook and not allowing the Justice Department to go after them.

If a Democrat wins in 2004, the funny thing is that president will inherit, like Bill Clinton in 1992, an economy ready to bloom and a country much securer, thanks to his predecessor, George Bush.

The verdict is not in on Bush the Younger, however. He can still win in 2004.

But he needs to find the old Bush. Don’t apologize for 16 words in the State of Union address. Don’t sit idly by as the Democrats pick you apart. Take the offensive. Early. Pre-emptively. The American people will pick the right side, if they hear both sides.

[2Lexus430s]

Originally posted by lex400sc
Look at the source!! Of course he's a harsh critic, LOL! *Reagan's Secretary of Defense*, I mean Jesus Christ, can you find a more militant man this side of Hitler?

Want me to post more site that say the same thing.. Clinton HATED the military!! FACT

[lex400sc]

Originally posted by SCLexus3.0
California Governor Blacks Out the Truth

On Aug. 20, 2003, California Gov. Gray Davis stated that Enron and the Bush administration were to blame for the Golden State's electricity crisis.

"I inherited the energy deregulation scheme which put all of us at the mercy of the big energy producers. We got no help from the federal government. In fact, when I was fighting Enron and the other energy companies, these same companies were sitting down with Vice President [****] Cheney to draft a national energy strategy," stated Davis.

However, Davis is playing fast and loose with the real facts of his relationship with Enron. For example, according to the Sacramento Bee, Davis has received $119,500 in campaign donations from Enron, including $42,500 since becoming governor. Davis openly stated that he would not return the Enron money.

Davis has previously been quick to blame Enron for California's lack of power. In May 2002, Davis called Enron executives "robber barons."

"This is more than greed. This is depravity," stated Davis.

"As far as I'm concerned, the persons responsible are a menace to society and should be facing serious jail time, not 9 a.m. tee times," said Davis.

In 1999, only months before the California energy crisis, Davis led a $200,000 trade trip to Europe for Enron. Davis traveled at California taxpayer expense with his wife for two weeks in Europe and finally in ancient Greece, lobbying on behalf of Enron for the Greek Wind Project.

Davis also took a close-knit group of heavy campaign donors along on his trip to Greece. The group included grocery store magnate Ron Burkle, who donated $350,000 to Davis, and workers' compensation insurance executive Stanley Zax, who donated $100,000 to Davis.

Newsmax

What is your deal? Are you going to post any article that NewsMax has that bashes Democrats? Read the topic of this thread man, and quit using every last piece of ammo you can scour off the net to sidetrack the topic! You are just ever so eager to whine about bad Democrats. Have you given up on defending your benevolent leader George Bush?


* And learn how to paste URLs instead of 500-word articles into the thread. It's annoying.

[2Lexus430s]

Originally posted by lex400sc
What is your deal? Are you going to post any article that NewsMax has that bashes Democrats? Read the topic of this thread man, and quit using every last piece of ammo you can scour off the net to sidetrack the topic! You are just ever so eager to whine about bad Democrats. Have you given up on defending your benevolent leader George Bush?

A Fact is a Fact... Theres plenty of ammo out there to use and they are FACTS...

[lex400sc]

Originally posted by SCLexus3.0
A Fact is a Fact... Theres plenty of ammo out there to use and they are FACTS...

No, these are slanted news editorials. Can you tell the difference?

[2Lexus430s]

Strange, NBC News, CBS News, ABC News, Newyork Times, LA Times, CNN, MSNBC, all of these are Slanted Left.. It’s quite ok to post articles from some more "accurate" resourses....

I'm sure you won't think so...

[lex400sc]

You obviously haven't watched CNBC or MSNBC if you think they are liberal. They are the biggest Fox News clones ever. Only some of the sources you listed are slightly left-leaning, but they are still respectable news sources with high journalistic standards, unlike Newsmax. You'll find CNN and NY Times in the White House every morning, but Newsmax? LOL!! Dream on... Just compare the websites of Newsmax to that of the NY Times or CNN, it's pretty damn blatant that Newsmax is just another thirdrate ideolog site posing as a news outlet. It's a shame you can't see that.

[LB Lex]

Originally posted by lex400sc
I quoted you because yours was the last comment I read. And no I didn't say "you are putting all the blame", you misquoted me. . .You should take things less personal also, I did state "you guys", as in plural."

Uh, you quoted me above your statement. And no, I didn't take it personally.

Originally posted by lex400sc
However "you guys are point all the fingers" at him as if it was solely his fault. You only blamed Bush for a failed tax plan and not the corporate scandals.

Why do you always fail to see that Clinton was involved in the very beginning with Enron? Clinton and his administration have been buddies with Enron, they approved multi-million dollar loans to Enron, brought them along to on energy summits, listened to their advice on laws, and was glad to take their "donations". There is no doubt Clinton and his administration were involved, but it seems you overlook it because it diminishes your arguments about Bush.

Originally posted by lex400sc
Even in your concession you said that Clinton wasn't overseeing businesses. Excuse me but is that his job? To watch American companies and study their accounting books all day?

As the president,it was Clinton's job to ensure the law is being enforced, which includes watching over companies that balloon in profits with such speed. It's gotta make a person say, "maybe something is wrong here." But of course Clinton wouldn't do anything about it, he was taking advice from Enron There's a fundamental conflict of interest when you are taking advice and passing laws that benefit the one you were taking advice from.