Who wanted sex for free and who said he prays for it?
In a new poll comparing President Bush’s job performance with that of his predecessor, a strong majority of respondents said President Clinton outperformed Bush on a host of issues.
Respondents favored Clinton by greater than 2-to-1 margins when asked who did a better job at handling the economy (63 percent Clinton, 26 percent Bush) and solving the problems of ordinary Americans (62 percent Clinton, 25 percent Bush).
On foreign affairs, the margin was 56 percent to 32 percent in Clinton’s favor; on taxes, it was 51 percent to 35 percent for Clinton; and on handling natural disasters, it was 51 percent to 30 percent, also favoring Clinton.
Moreover, 59 percent said Bush has done more to divide the country, while only 27 percent said Clinton had.
When asked which man was more honest as president, poll respondents were more evenly divided, with the numbers — 46 percent Clinton to 41 percent Bush — falling within the poll’s margin of error. The same was true for a question on handling national security: 46 percent said Clinton performed better; 42 percent picked Bush.
I didn’t vote for either of them — for different reasons at differing times. But, it will be cheery watching the various rationales raised by True Believers who resent being confronted with opinions they don’t approve.
This is news?
How is the economy bad under Bush. With the exception of fuel prices, home sales are through the roof, unemployement is at a low 4%. Stock market is up. Where is the bad? The left wants you to think its bad and their propaganda machine in the media has brainwashed many into thinking the same. We will see how good the economy is after Pelosi and company take control next year. Taxes through the roof, and millions wasted on trying to impeach Bush, all while doing nothing to solve the problems they have been beating Bush up for the last 6 years. Oh yeah, I can hardly wait.
#2 gquaglia asks “How is the economy bad under Bush?”
The U.S. is technically bankrupt, as it has been for years, and the only thing that keeps us afloat is our continued strong borrowing power. If it looks like the economy is doing well, keep in mind that since Bush came into office in 2001, the government has borrowed approximately 2.7 trillion dollars more than what it collected, and it has infused the money into our economy. That increased our national debt by about 47% just since 2001. Of course we look rich, but our accountant can plainly see that we spend like a drunken sailor who always wants to buy a round of drinks for the house, while simultaneously volunteering for a wage cut (taxes). However, we hardly ever listen to our accountant because he has really geeky glasses and no sense of humor — he’s a real nerd!
Our economy will look incredibly sick if we ever lose the confidence on which our borrowing power is based. There are a number of things that could potentially set off a crisis of confidence, and I won’t even hazard a guess as to what will cause it or when (or even if) it might come. But the more we borrow in the meantime, the worse any coming crisis will be. Our current fiscal irresponsibility has made continued future prosperity less likely and harder to maintain. But all this can be easily blamed on a future administration.
We might be able to get a few bucks if we sold off the Statue of Liberty or the Washington Monument, but we really ought to just stop borrowing so damn much money and move toward a balanced budget. I know — maybe we could sell print ads on our paper currency.
Gary, so you’re saying that Bush is at fault for a problem that started long before him… or Clinton?
Please…
#4 James, not at all. As I said above, “The U.S. is technically bankrupt, as it has been for years.” The U.S. has become a growing pyramid scheme, but having a President and both houses of Congress from the same political party and all-too-similar fiscal philosophy has exacerbated an existing problem. A 47% increase in the national debt in less than 6 years should be a violation worthy of a penalty flag, but we don’t seem to have a referee for this game.
James,
What on earth are you talking about? When Bush was appointed president, the US had a balanced budget, and Alan Greenspan was saying the danger was that we were paying off the debt too fast.
This has only been a problem in this Bush administration.
don’t worry, one way or another bill’s going back into the white house in 08
I’m still waiting to see how the Social Security “crisis” shakes-out.
I remember Bush standing next to the filing cabinet which holds all the government IOUs to Social Security – during his push for “Personal Accounts” – and having him point to all those IOUs and state that there was no way the government could make good on them… [without massive cuts in other programs and/or large tax increases – so it won’t happen]
Why didn’t that scare the hell out of everyone with a clue? What has distracted us from facing that reality?
The Social Security surplus has been siphoned-off since LBJ – but why has Bush let this drop off the radar screen? Why have the Democrats?
Are they all saving this as a “campaign issue” for the elections? 🙁
America is in the biggest economic crises in world history. We have a $2.7 B trade deficit and a huge national debt of I forget how many trillions.
Plus, personal savings are at an all-time low and in conditions were just so, foriegn investors could significantly decrease the value of the dollar. Meanwhile, bribery and corruption is at an all-time high (and so are oil prices!) and politicians & beurocrats have zero accountability for how they spend your tax dollars. Stop for a few moments and think about all that for a while.
Scary, isn’t it??
It’s a wartime mentality at work. During WWII nobody worried about the debt, because it was an all or nothing proposition. The question is are we really in a major battle for survival, or are the good old boys spend happy? I guess they figured the Cold War was won by outspending the evil empire. Heck, Rhode Island could outspend the current evil empire. Keep in mind if I really knew what was going on I wouldn’t be wasting time posting in John’s Blog.
Support diversity!!! Tell others about dvorak.org.
How is the economy bad under Bush. With the exception of fuel prices, home sales are through the roof, unemployement is at a low 4%. Stock market is up. Where is the bad?
Yes, everything is just peachy. If you’re fuckin’ rich. 4 out of 10 home sales are for second homes. And with the rich cashing in on a Republican gubment, it’s no wonder they’re breaking out champagne bottles and buying up houses.
Meanwhile, middle and lower class wages are down compared to inflation, there is no saving going on (because they have to spend what little discretionary money they have left on higher gas and energy prices), and they are continually forced out of the housing market as housing rates go through the roof.
The left wants you to think its bad and their propaganda machine in the media has brainwashed many into thinking the same.
And the right wants you to think it’s good because their true beneficiaries, the wealthy, have it great; and their propaganda machine in the media has brainwashed many into thinking the same.
Under Clinton, the budget got balanced. So yes, the current skyrocketing deficit is entirely the responsibility of Bush and the rubber-stamp Republican Congress.
Wow, the right is really phoning in the pathetic apologist nonsense these days. It’s like they don’t even believe their own bullsh-t any more and are doing just out of habit.