What happens when you oppose Bu$hCo too vigorously

Since 2001, over 90,000 cyclist's have joined Cycling Forums to discuss topics from general cycling to equipment, training, racing and travel or vacation destinations (especially in europe during the tour de france). We also feature an great deals in our online store, 100's of articles, classifieds and product reviews.

Yeah textbook.....until Enron surfaced....and MCI....and the tech bubble burst...and then Tyco....and and and and and.....

yeah...he was superb alright.



Naw, Bill, - your goverment's statistics show that Clinton's management of your economy was superb.
Enron, MCI - don't figure in your goverment stat's.

Historical low unemployment (3.5%)
Historical budget surplus ($200 billion - leaving office)
Historical trade suplus ($30 billion suprlus of exports/imports).
Strong US currency (trading at parity with Euro and stronger than sterling and Yen).
Historical expansion in GDP/GNP.

The liberals have NEVER cared about deficits caused by spending on social programs that make up half our budget, and that 84% of it is wasted.


................so why has your country got historically high budget deficits now?

And if Liberals like spending, Clinton handed Bush a budget surplus.




I don't like Bush because he LIKES social spending.

....that explains the budget deficit - all those hospitals and schools he's building must be damn expensive.

Naw, Bill, - your goverment's statistics show that Clinton's management of your economy was superb.
Enron, MCI - don't figure in your goverment stat's.

Historical low unemployment (3.5%)
Historical budget surplus ($200 billion - leaving office)
Historical trade suplus ($30 billion suprlus of exports/imports).
Strong US currency (trading at parity with Euro and stronger than sterling and Yen).
Historical expansion in GDP/GNP.

Then the Republicans took control of both houses and all of those trends reversed. Weirdly we see their supporters claiming that it is the fault of the Democrats, despite the fact the Republicans are in the driving seat... Odd.

Naw, Bill, - your goverment's statistics show that Clinton's management of your economy was superb.I disagree with Bill on just about everything.

But, Clinton's economy benefited from an orgy of capital spending on all kinds of tech-bubble speculation. Some was valid, a lot was pure crap. That in turn fueled wild stock speculation (remember the book "Dow 30000."?)

It generated a LOT of revenue for the gov't , but ultimately it was not sustainable. It created lots of throwaway jobs, too.

Clinton got lucky, really. I don't recall him having to prove his good management by navigating any real difficulties.

I disagree with Bill on just about everything.

But, Clinton's economy benefited from an orgy of capital spending on all kinds of tech-bubble speculation. Some was valid, a lot was pure crap. That in turned fueled wild stock speculation (remember the book "Dow 30000."?)

It generated a LOT of revenue for the gov't , but ultimately it was not sustainable. It created lots of throwaway jobs, too.

Clinton got lucky, really. I don't recall him having to prove his good management by navigating any real difficulties.

As Napoleon said - give me a lucky general, all the time.

Luck plays a part, no doubt.
But Clinton/Gore created a climate in which trade/commerce could expand.
His goverments macro-economic policies allowed the US economy to thrive.

Then the Republicans took control of both houses and all of those trends reversed. Weirdly we see their supporters claiming that it is the fault of the Democrats, despite the fact the Republicans are in the driving seat... Odd.

They can try to blame whomever.


What they cannot ignore is that their own goverment stats show that practically every economic indicator has moved from surplus to deficit under this Bush goverment.

I happened to be in an economics class at the end of Clinton's term.
The professor spent the whole semester showing how he was predicting a down turn of the economy because of Clinton.

Disclaimer: I do not profess to be an economics guru and was only a student, but I thought it was interesting while in the class and then seeing how his predictions were coming true after Clinton's term. We were studying primarily from Jude Wanniski's information.

Wanniski Example (http://www.wanniski.com/showarticle.asp?articleid=5130)

As a conservative I have not been content with GW or his staff based on economics. He spends more than most Dems. even without all the hardships America has faced in the last couple of years. (9-11, Katrina and so on)

As Napoleon said - give me a lucky general, all the time.

Luck plays a part, no doubt.
But Clinton/Gore created a climate in which trade/commerce could expand.
His goverments macro-economic policies allowed the US economy to thrive.What economic policy did Clinton actually implement that's markedly different from Bush? (Other than avoid a costly and useless war.)

What economic policy did Clinton actually implement that's markedly different from Bush? (Other than avoid a costly and useless war.)

there was a confluence of issues and policies which came together under the Clinton regime which ensured very strong economic performance.

First and foremost was Clintons initiative to bring down the federal budget deficit inherited from GH Bush's administration.
This required an increase in taxes but the tax increase collected was ringfenced in order to drive down the deficit - and only the deficit.
The Fed under Greenspan endorsed this prudent economic policy.

In terms of general fiscal policy, Clinton increased indirect taxation but managed to carefully control public spending especially in the period 1993-1995.
This caused major pain was goverment offices closing down - but this sent a clear message that Clinton would not waiver when it came to controlling public spending.

In addition, the settlement of GATT (General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs)
was an issue which Clinton's admin played a crucial role in the WTO talks
(world trade organisation).
This allowed international trade to be "freed up" and was the precursor to the term "Globalisation".
America under Clinton was well placed to provide goods and services which the rest of the world were willing to buy.

The conclusion of NAFTA in the Clinton years also ensured that US trade in the Americas (Canada, Latin America) allowed US companies easier access to those markets.

What economic policy did Clinton actually implement that's markedly different from Bush? (Other than avoid a costly and useless
war.)

There have been material changes in the spending. *Income* tax cuts, significant cuts in social services, massive increases in military budgets (War budget is actually excluded from military spending, and hence the budget deficit).

The policies *should* change with time too. If a crisis emerges a leader should be willing and able to adapt. Tony Blair *and* GWB clearly aren't able to do that, they have been repeating the same crapola for 6 years now.

Naw, Bill, - your goverment's statistics show that Clinton's management of your economy was superb.
Enron, MCI - don't figure in your goverment stat's.

Historical low unemployment (3.5%)
Historical budget surplus ($200 billion - leaving office)
Historical trade suplus ($30 billion suprlus of exports/imports).
Strong US currency (trading at parity with Euro and stronger than sterling and Yen).
Historical expansion in GDP/GNP.
If this is too complicated for you then I understand. Yes the numbers looked good under Clinton...but reality was it was a lot of smoke and mirrors and false reporting of financials in the corporate world.

This all came to light....right after he left.

Then the Republicans took control of both houses and all of those trends reversed. Weirdly we see their supporters claiming that it is the fault of the Democrats, despite the fact the Republicans are in the driving seat... Odd.
Sadly..both sides share a lot of blame.

Why do you guys pay more attention to our country than your own?

THAT is odd.

As Napoleon said - give me a lucky general, all the time.

Luck plays a part, no doubt.
But Clinton/Gore created a climate in which trade/commerce could expand.
His goverments macro-economic policies allowed the US economy to thrive.
Why do I get the impression that if Bush said the world was round...you'd argue that it was flat?

I disagree with Bill on just about everything.

But, Clinton's economy benefited from an orgy of capital spending on all kinds of tech-bubble speculation. Some was valid, a lot was pure crap. That in turn fueled wild stock speculation (remember the book "Dow 30000."?)

It generated a LOT of revenue for the gov't , but ultimately it was not sustainable. It created lots of throwaway jobs, too.

Clinton got lucky, really. I don't recall him having to prove his good management by navigating any real difficulties.
Dave...I'd bet we agree on more than you think....I haven't yet seen anyone ask my opinion on anything...they simply make assumptions.

For example...I think Bush is an idiot.....I just think John Kerry would have been even more of an idiot.

Dave...I'd bet we agree on more than you think....I haven't yet seen anyone ask my opinion on anything...they simply make assumptions.

For example...I think Bush is an idiot.....I just think John Kerry would have been even more of an idiot.
OK. Maybe I jumped to conclusions. You're one comment inre: one of my post's seemed rather harsh. However, I almost forgot that this is only the internet so there is no reason for me to take any remarks as personal affronts.

there was a confluence of issues and policies which came together under the Clinton regime which ensured very strong economic performance.

First and foremost was Clintons initiative to bring down the federal budget deficit inherited from GH Bush's administration.
This required an increase in taxes but the tax increase collected was ringfenced in order to drive down the deficit - and only the deficit.


Yes he raised taxes....and much of the tax revenue generated came from inflated and falsified corporate income reports. Why you keep dismissing this is beyond me. It shows your ignorance of the subject though.


The Fed under Greenspan endorsed this prudent economic policy.

The Fed was headed by Greenspan until very recently too. Same economic policies. Can you say 9/11? Do you think that and a war might have had an affect?



In terms of general fiscal policy, Clinton increased indirect taxation but managed to carefully control public spending especially in the period 1993-1995.
This caused major pain was goverment offices closing down - but this sent a clear message that Clinton would not waiver when it came to controlling public spending.


I will agree that Clinton was more economically conservative than Bush...hell I think everyone is more conservative than Bush when it comes to spending.



In addition, the settlement of GATT (General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs)
was an issue which Clinton's admin played a crucial role in the WTO talks
(world trade organisation).
This allowed international trade to be "freed up" and was the precursor to the term "Globalisation".
America under Clinton was well placed to provide goods and services which the rest of the world were willing to buy.


Job Exportation. Thanks Bill.....yet you blame Bush for it.


The conclusion of NAFTA in the Clinton years also ensured that US trade in the Americas (Canada, Latin America) allowed US companies easier access to those markets.
See above...same comment.

Limerick...you really don't understand our country do you? Where do you get your stuff...Wikipedia? :p

Keeping one's boot-heel, as it were, on the necks of the disinfranchised results in such behaviour. I guess you would be too "proud" to accept any kind of assistance, if it came to that :confused: I think we should take away the child exemptions and mortgages tax deductions. What do you say to that :eek: :confused: I await your well reasoned response.
Still not gettin' the bank robber reference, but as to this comment, I believe the Dems want the disenfranchised to stay disenfranchised. It's their bread and butter, voter wise. You think they care about poor people? Their programs have not made anyone not be poor anymore; they enculturate it. They've wrecked the public school system, making it nearly impossible for anyone to rise out of it.

Yes, I would be too proud. I come from a long line of people who are too proud (Scottish Highlanders), who are related to a line of people who are government parasites. I know first hand how it works, and I would rather dig ditches than take money, or heaven help me, "assistance" from the government. Ask anyone who went through Hurricane Katrina how much government assistance is worth -- the saying is popular again that if you see me being attacked by a bear, please ask the government to help the bear! (Yes, my family members went through it).

Tax deductions allow me to keep MY OWN friggin' money, david, that I earned. They don't take it from another person's earnings and give it to me. I have to pay to send my kids to private school and still pay taxes on schools I don't use, because they are unsafe and incompetent. I don't take much from the govt. And I would have NO problem with getting rid of middle-class welfare like college loans because it isn't the govt's job to help me pay for college or anything else. They reel in everyone they can with some kind of program so that if anyone objects to high taxes, they can threaten their personal program. Works every time. Meanwhile they piss it all away!!!!!!! Government is the least efficient entity in the universe.

The fact remains that the U.S. president has not asked anyone to make any sacrifices. Aftwer 9-11 and Katrina, he only told the American people that they should travel and it would be good for the economy. He hasn't ever asked anyone to conserve gasoline unless his back is against the wall. He asks for @ $100 billion a year, off the budget mind you, to pay for Iraq & never mentions whose going to pay it off (future unwitting generations). Simultaneously, he gives tax-cuts-during his war on terror, unprecedented during a time of war. Lastly, he showers $110 billion for hurricane area's. Where's that money going to come from :confused: You guessed it: the backs of future generations. Thats why even conservatives are pissed off.

Tax deductions allow me to keep MY OWN friggin' money, david, that I earned. They don't take it from another person's earnings and give it to me. I have to pay to send my kids to private school and still pay taxes on schools I don't use, because they are unsafe and incompetent. I don't take much from the govt. And I would have NO problem with getting rid of middle-class welfare like college loans because it isn't the govt's job to help me pay for college or anything else. They reel in everyone they can with some kind of program so that if anyone objects to high taxes, they can threaten their personal program. Works every time. Meanwhile they piss it all away!!!!!!! Government is the least efficient entity in the universe.
Do you police your own borders, pave your roads, run a library &/or museum, have your own military, ect... Governments are necessary. Human nature demands it. Otherwise people would only care about their immediate environs instead of the entire country.

The fact remains that the U.S. president has not asked anyone to make any sacrifices. Aftwer 9-11 and Katrina, he only told the American people that they should travel and it would be good for the economy. He hasn't ever asked anyone to conserve gasoline unless his back is against the wall. He asks for @ $100 billion a year, off the budget mind you, to pay for Iraq & never mentions whose going to pay it off (future unwitting generations). Simultaneously, he gives tax-cuts-during his war on terror, unprecedented during a time of war. Lastly, he showers $110 billion for hurricane area's. Where's that money going to come from :confused: You guessed it: the backs of future generations. Thats why even conservatives are pissed off.
Of course we are!! GWB really isn't very conservative at all.