Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Opinion Research Survey Majority Favored President Clinton to Bush

Opinion Bush Vs. Clinton Clinton Favored in 2006

  • Please log in to reply
54 replies to this topic

#41 Call Me Robin

Call Me Robin

    red-haired and proud

  • Islander
  • 970 posts

Posted 16 May 2006 - 04:40 PM

View Postscherzo, on May 16 2006, 09:37 PM, said:

Quote

I'd like to see how federal revenue has really increased under Bush.
...and Ye shall receive: http://www.breitbart.../D8HH2VM08.html

"April Tax Revenue 2nd-Highest in History"

-scherzo

And it took 6 years to get to that.  Wow.

Surely, the government will use it to pay off the deficit.  Right?  RIGHT?
Of all the varieties of virtues, liberalism is the most beloved.
--Aristotle

The fanatic is not really a stickler to principle. He embraces a cause not primarily because of its justness or holiness but because of his desperate need for something to hold onto.
--Eric Hoffer

#42 scherzo

scherzo

    I know things

  • Islander
  • 3,388 posts

Posted 16 May 2006 - 04:43 PM

^beats me.  :mellow:
"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."    -Ronald Reagan, October 27 1964
Posted Image

#43 Ogami

Ogami
  • Islander
  • 2,976 posts

Posted 16 May 2006 - 05:03 PM

Spidey wrote:

Clinton knew how to handle politics with other countries.

Like how he installed that dictator Aristide back in power in Haiti? Real leadership there. What a foreign policy success that was, Haiti is so much better after Clinton looked into it.

Or how about Clinton's friendly assistance with North Korea's nuclear power program? The U.S.A. gave that dictator nuclear technology, because we all want peace and hugs and hippie love, and they turned around and started making nukes with it. It took the Bush administration to call North Korea on their activities, and demand they stop. This ended our "cozy friendship" with North Korea, so this is perhaps what you are referring to. Bottom line, if you are a dictator or a friend of dictators (like France and Germany were with Saddam), then you don't like Bush.

I'd rather have a president less popular with dictators, thank you very much.

He knew how to keep saddam quiet without firing a single missile.

Saddam keeping quiet is when he is quietly killing and raping his own people? Ask the people of Iraq how much they loved Uday's and Qusay's rape rooms. I guess the new definition of peace is when the world's dictators are left alone to do as they please. Yet that is the sort of peace I've seen the left argue for and demonstrate for my entire lifetime, the peace of the free dictator and despot.

He knew how to talk to Congress, and could actually speak in complete sentenses on top of that.

Clinton ignored Republican calls for a balanced budget and welfare reform until the Republicans won control of congress. Then he stopped his stonewalling and started thinking about his legacy. (Yes, Spectacles, that's still the facts. Empty promise plans by the Democrat majority went nowhere.)

The economy was MUCH better during Clintons time, and unemployment rates were extremely low. Can't say the same for Bush.

Economic growth and unemployment are fine under Bush, both of which took serious hits on 9/11. We're not in a depression and life is good, not bad considering.

At least Clinton handled the budget rather than running it up to an all-time high.

And how would you pay for Afghanistan and Iraq? Clinton's thriftiness only extended to his depletion of our inventory of cruise missiles.

Did I mention Truman? No. So I'm not saying that am I? Pretty left field there, Ogami.

You claimed that Bush failed to resolve this war that's going on, did you mean the war on terror or the war in Iraq? Either way, three years is an awful short measuring stick. It took a decade for Japan and Germany to be rebuilt. And it took several decades for us to defeat the Barbary Coast Pirates.

However, I do wonder if Bush really gives a damn about the needs of Americans. His refusal to help California fix its many broken levees shows he really doesn't give a hoot.

I love this, because you complain of Bush expanding the Federal budget, yet also complain Bush has not spent enough. Which is it? How can you seriously argue this both ways? Either you're for fiscal responsibility or you're not. The federal budget is not a magic pot of gold that comes from nowhere, everything spent is paid for by the taxpayer. And that includes levee relief.

Uh, forget about Bush pushing for the Dubai port deal?

Sounds fine to me, that Islamic country has stood by us since 9/11. Again, you just complained Bush has made some world leaders unhappy, right here is a perfect example of Bush reaching out to a proven ally in the war on terror. Having it both ways in your criticism...

But Bush does have connections to the recent leaks scandal, as does Dick Cheney. Stay tuned for that.

Wishful thinking. I read article after article posted in 2001 hoping that Bush would somehow be indicted as the criminal mastermind behind the Enron/Worldcom collapses. Now we have the same predictions from the same crowd. Whoopee.

Oh, lets see, cutting into educational funding,

Federal education spending hasn't been cut one penny, it's been record spending increases non-stop. What the Democrats like to claim is that they'd spend one dollar more, and if Bush doesn't reach that hypothetical number, then he's cut something.

I thought the complaint was that Bush couldn't balance the budget. Yet the complaint is also that he's not spending enough. Which is it? Both ways again...

screwing with social security,

Social Security is already screwed, it's out of money. It was a scam to begin with, and it's a pyramid scheme that needs reformed. Not that Bush actually managed to get anything changed, so you should be happy he failed to "screw" it.

not doing anything about the problems of companies outsourcing everything to other countries...

You just complained that he was pissing off world leaders, how would curtailing such outsourcing with major countries like China endear him to them again? Either one of these is fair criticism, but you can't argue both. Either you want Bush to make world leaders happy or you don't, choose one.

No. But telling Americans to "drive less" isn't exactly a solution. Telling car manufacturers to produce more efficient cars by some outragiously late date like 2012 is pointless.

Well congress is united in not forcing auto companies to change their fuel economy standards. Americans still want to buy SUVs, even with gas at $3 a gallon. That's the marketplace, and unless we start clamping down on America's industries like some socialist hellhole, it's a good thing that we're not regulating auto companies more than we are.

Not funding a serious development of alternative fuel such as ethynol is also a huge mistake.

We subsidized alternative fuels such as ethynol in the early eighties, it didn't work. It's not economical (yet).

Drilling in Alaska, and building nuclear power plants ruins the environment and ecosystem.

France has nuclear power plants from one end to the other, and their country is not ruined. Aren't we always being told by Bush's critics that we should be more like France? Here's our chance.

29% is really a bad track record. That in itself should raise an eyebrow or two as to what the heck Bush is doing wrong. At this point, he should just stay quiet and his polls may actually improve.

29% tells you people are dissatisfied, but it does not tell you what the people want Bush to do, as the alternative. And it certainly doesn't prove that Democrats have the answer. On things like energy, immigration reform, and Iraq, people see no movement. Maybe they want Bush to be more aggressive, not less.

-Ogami

Edited by Ogami, 16 May 2006 - 05:06 PM.


#44 tennyson

tennyson
  • Islander
  • 6,173 posts

Posted 16 May 2006 - 07:18 PM

Quote

He knew how to keep saddam quiet without firing a single missile.

Not to damp down good rhetoric here but Clinton fired plenty of missiles at Saddam and his facilities from the dozens of HARM antiradiation missiles and hundereds of other muntions expended at Saddam's SAM batteries that targeted US, British and French planes patrolling the two No Fly Zones over 12 years and the hundreds of weapons launched in Operation Desert Fox in 1998 from aircraft, surface ships and submarines including dozens of Tomahawk cruise missiles. These weapons were targeting various SAM sites and what was believed to be the leftovers of Saddam's unconventional weapons program. So Clinton did not keep Saddam quiet without firing a missile, in fact it required the firing of many missiles to be him as contained as he was.
I thought Clinton did a lot of good things and he had charisma and prescence, something the current Bush lacks but neither of them operated or operate in a vacuum. Thier actions were done within a context and that context needs to be understood to appropriately judge them rather than compare isolated incidents taken from thier records like bating scores.
"Only an idiot would fight a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne of the Kingdom of Idiots would fight a war on twelve fronts."

— Londo, "Ceremonies of Light and Dark" Babylon-5


#45 waterpanther

waterpanther
  • Islander
  • 1,944 posts

Posted 16 May 2006 - 07:53 PM

Quote

29% tells you people are dissatisfied, but it does not tell you what the people want Bush to do, as the alternative

Sure it does.  They want him to go away.
Posted Image

#46 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 16 May 2006 - 08:17 PM

ogami said:

Clinton ignored Republican calls for a balanced budget and welfare reform until the Republicans won control of congress. Then he stopped his stonewalling and started thinking about his legacy. (Yes, Spectacles, that's still the facts. Empty promise plans by the Democrat majority went nowhere.)

That dog won't hunt, Ogami.  If Republicans are so concerned with fiscal discipline, explain how Bush's first budget -- for FY2001, aka, PRE-9/11 -- ran a deficit.  

Quote

Quote

The economy was MUCH better during Clintons time, and unemployment rates were extremely low. Can't say the same for Bush.

Economic growth and unemployment are fine under Bush, both of which took serious hits on 9/11. We're not in a depression and life is good, not bad considering.

If that's the best thing you can say about this president you worship -- "Not bad considering" -- Well, that says something in and of itself.

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#47 Captain Jack

Captain Jack

    Where's the rum?

  • Islander
  • 14,914 posts

Posted 16 May 2006 - 08:18 PM

View Postwaterpanther, on May 16 2006, 05:53 PM, said:

Quote

29% tells you people are dissatisfied, but it does not tell you what the people want Bush to do, as the alternative

Sure it does.  They want him to go away.

Yes.  Thank you.
Posted Image
689 Reasons to Defeat Barack Obama in 2012:

https://www.national...at-barack-obama

#48 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 16 May 2006 - 08:30 PM

Quote

Clinton ignored Republican calls for a balanced budget and welfare reform until the Republicans won control of congress. Then he stopped his stonewalling and started thinking about his legacy. (Yes, Spectacles, that's still the facts. Empty promise plans by the Democrat majority went nowhere.)

The Ominubus Budget Reconciliation Act of 93--before the Gingrich revolution in 94 and one year after Clinton took office--was not an empty promise. Anyone who wishes to do a little reality testing can check out this:

http://en.wikipedia....ion_Act_of_1993
"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman

#49 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 16 May 2006 - 08:53 PM

And regarding Welfare Reform, I recalled it being an arduous, bipartisan process with competing plans from Democrats and Republicans--competing plans even within parties.

I found this timeline, which made me flash back to the 90's when all this stuff made my head spin. (I was for Welfare Reform. I just wanted it to be done right. And there were so many plans on the table it was hard to figure out what "right" was.)

Anyway, here's the timeline:

http://www.aphsa.org...toryWelfare.asp

Notice that when this became a bipartisan effort and the bill addressed the concerns that lead Clinton to veto two earlier bills (primarily, lack of support for children of poor people) then he signed it. And the end result, while not perfect, hardly led the sky to fall. Nor did it turn into the sort of fiasco that Bush's totally political, totally partisan Medicare prescription bill has become. Sometimes, there's something to be said for allowing dissent and hearing competing views and getting as much factual information as possible before proceding with something.
"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman

#50 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 16 May 2006 - 09:05 PM

View PostSpectacles, on May 16 2006, 09:30 PM, said:

Quote

Clinton ignored Republican calls for a balanced budget and welfare reform until the Republicans won control of congress. Then he stopped his stonewalling and started thinking about his legacy. (Yes, Spectacles, that's still the facts. Empty promise plans by the Democrat majority went nowhere.)
The Ominubus Budget Reconciliation Act of 93--before the Gingrich revolution in 94 and one year after Clinton took office--was not an empty promise. Anyone who wishes to do a little reality testing can check out this:

http://en.wikipedia....ion_Act_of_1993
How is a bill to increase taxes (particularly on Social Security recipients) and increase spending a response to the subject of the post you were responding to, which was about how Clinton handled conservative/Republican ideas? That bill was just Democrats doing what Democrats want.

#51 tennyson

tennyson
  • Islander
  • 6,173 posts

Posted 16 May 2006 - 09:29 PM

Quote

And regarding Welfare Reform, I recalled it being an arduous, bipartisan process with competing plans from Democrats and Republicans--competing plans even within parties.

I found this timeline, which made me flash back to the 90's when all this stuff made my head spin. (I was for Welfare Reform. I just wanted it to be done right. And there were so many plans on the table it was hard to figure out what "right" was.)

Hence why I didn't comment on this because I didn't think I had enough knowledge of the issue to make any sort of authoritative statement.
"Only an idiot would fight a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne of the Kingdom of Idiots would fight a war on twelve fronts."

— Londo, "Ceremonies of Light and Dark" Babylon-5


#52 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 17 May 2006 - 04:36 AM

Quote

Delvo: How is a bill to increase taxes (particularly on Social Security recipients) and increase spending a response to the subject of the post you were responding to, which was about how Clinton handled conservative/Republican ideas? That bill was just Democrats doing what Democrats want.

The bill didn't increase spending. The bill cut spending while it raised revenues. Granted, 241 billion of the deficit-reduction came from increased revenues, but 146 billion came from spending cuts.

http://www.cbo.gov/s...4832&sequence=0

Quote

The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (OBRA-93) will increase federal tax revenues by $241 billion between 1994 and 1998. Major revenue-raising provisions in the act include raising marginal tax rates on the highest income individuals, increasing the taxation of Social Security benefits of middle-and upper-income retirees, raising taxes on transportation fuels, raising the top corporate income tax rate, and reducing a number of business deductions. These revenue gains are offset in part by revenue losses from provisions that expand the earned income tax credit for low-wage workers, extend a number of existing tax incentives, introduce some new tax preferences, and repeal some of the luxury excise taxes that were enacted in 1990.

Quote

The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (OBRA-93) relies on tax increases for much of its reduction in the deficit. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that OBRA-93 will reduce the deficit by $433 billion between 1994 and 1998. Of this amount, $241 billion (56 percent) will come from increased tax revenues, $77 billion (18 percent) from cuts in mandatory spending, $69 billion (16 percent) from cuts in discretionary spending, and $47 billion (11 percent) from lower debt-service costs.

And brace yourself: after the record deficits racked up under this administration, we'll probably have to do similar belt-tightening in the future.
"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman

#53 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 17 May 2006 - 08:00 AM

View PostSpectacles, on May 17 2006, 05:36 AM, said:

The bill didn't increase spending. The bill cut spending
I misread at the first link. But it makes me wonder: Why didn't the Democrats talk about that conservative aspect of the bill back then? All I heard about spending levels from them was how much one program after another needed more (always one at a time, as if to avoid making it a big general statement that spending should go up overall) and how evil the Republicans were for wanting to cut anything.

It's similar to my wondering why John Kerry didn't talk about the conservative aspects of his own fiscal policy ideas in public during his campaign. It might cause some slippage in the liberal base, but would have attracted more than that much support from fiscal conservatives. At least with the 1993 bill I can see that the votes were extremely close, so it could be that the Democrats really didn't like that part but had to compromise with Republicans in order to get the half of it that they did want ("I'll give you your spending cuts if you give me my tax increases"), but that still leaves Kerry's campaign unexplained (unless whoever it was here at Ex Isle that told me about Kerry's fiscal policy ideas gave me inaccurate information).

View PostSpectacles, on May 17 2006, 05:36 AM, said:

And brace yourself: after the record deficits racked up under this administration, we'll probably have to do similar belt-tightening in the future.
Brace myself? That makes it sound like a bad thing, but I'd love the idea!

#54 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 17 May 2006 - 09:12 AM

View PostDelvo, on May 17 2006, 09:00 AM, said:

View PostSpectacles, on May 17 2006, 05:36 AM, said:

And brace yourself: after the record deficits racked up under this administration, we'll probably have to do similar belt-tightening in the future.
Brace myself? That makes it sound like a bad thing, but I'd love the idea!

I'll remember you said that.

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#55 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 17 May 2006 - 09:31 AM

Quote

Delvo: It's similar to my wondering why John Kerry didn't talk about the conservative aspects of his own fiscal policy ideas in public during his campaign.

He did. He talked frequently about reinstituting the "pay as you go" policy in Congress--which capped discretionary spending so that it could not outpace inflation and caused any new spending to paid for either with offsetting tax increases or spending cuts. Paygo was in effect through the 90's but was allowed to lapse by Bush and the Republican Congress in 2002.

He also spoke frequently about deficit reduction, proposing essentially what 1993 Budget Reconciliation Act did: increasing taxes on the upper 2% and capping spending.

http://www.opinionjo...ml?id=110005623
"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Opinion, Bush Vs. Clinton, Clinton Favored in 2006

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users