In response to the Tea Party protests and in honor of the taxpayer, let us remember where this all started.
0
Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
43, Dallas,
Tanks were not the only things he reduced. He ACCELERATED Bush Sr.’s more reasonable plan. Clinton choked the military. Under Clinton, people took 15 year retirements out of fear of getting RIF’d and not getting anything. Intel gathering got tied up under his watch. Clinton justified his more aggressive shrinking by stating it was more cost-effective to train for one weekend a month (National Guard) than it is to train daily (Active Duty). Tanks are just a tiny part of the picture. He then sharply curtailed equipping troops with better gear. Clinton’s approach was that should we go to a real war, the military would just activate the National Guard and Reserves and put them on active duty indefinitely. By the time Bush Jr. got into office, he got EXACTLY what Clinton envisioned and for some strange reason he was sharply criticized by liberals.
When Bush got in, he modernized the military (while liberals were whining that our troops were not properly equipped). He fixed the pay problem and got back to making our military stronger from the skeleton crew he inherited. BTW, troop morale was pretty damn low during the Clinton years. We got mobilized for police action with far fewer people to do those actions.
Like I said it’s a double standard with you guys. BTW, pay raises were also choked for military service members until the eighth year where it was halfway decent as a peace offering to the military in preparation of Gore running for President.
Oh you mean all those military conflicts the Clinton Administration got us into that were nothing more than police action? Bosnia? Serbia? Kosovo? Somalia? Or when he tried ousting Saddam out of power? Wow! That’s peaceful for you, eh?
>make laws preventing them from getting taxpayer money when they fail.
What law could you pass that has this effect? The reason they got taxpayer money was because Congress passed a new law giving them this money.
Picking Palin made McCain’s polls get better not worse. They got so good that Obama campaign was considering pulling out of Ohio and Gallup was saying Republicans could retake the House. Then the bailout happened… Still not sure why Obama didn’t oppose that.
44, Bobbo,
Liberal-leaning / Progressive Libertarians? LOL. Funny. Is that how you “no man is an island” liberals are going to try and win votes by distancing yourselves from the Democrat party?
A couple of things…
It doesn’t matter who is in office when it comes to the economy. Presidents (regardless if it is Obama, Bush, Clinton, or whomever you wish to use) have very little influence on our economy. Their main contribution is tax policies and their effect is DELAYED by years.
Secondly, it seems quite clear to me that the purpose of the thread was to deflect negative criticism of Obama by somehow continually pointing the finger to Bush. I’m just pointing out you liberals didn’t do the same under the last administration. Don’t confuse my pointing out double standards as though I’m a Republican. Just because I’m against Obama’s policies does not automatically mean I’m pro-Republican. I’m saying hold Obama accountable for his own actions instead of passing the buck. He’s been office for over a year now. Sooner or later he’s going to have to take credit for his mess.
Solution: Upgrade your rectal data bank.
It’s not a matter of acting “as he wished”. And my point was not to bring up Clinton for the sake of a Clinton vs. Bush debate. My point was there are double standards. If you want a taste of Clinton and how he stacked the deck, seem my comments to Dallas in the previous post.
Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm were not only done by the Army. Your memory is either bad, or you’re getting bad info.
As for the housing market crash of 2008, Clinton changed how banks complied with the Community Reinvestment Act by transitioning from a process-based lending system to a performance-based lending system. The metric was not based on whether a bank had a process in place to foster “community-based” lending, but rather whether or not such loans occurred. Throw in Acorn as the community “watchdog” and you got all sorts of problems banks were dealing with in order to comply with the CRA.
But I get it, somehow Bush is all at fault for this…. But remember, the effect a president has on the economy is DELAYED and takes years for them to come to fruition. Hell, people are pre-paying “free” health care for the first four or five years before they can use it. And once more entitlements kick in (and they will) the taxes will follow in lockstep.
I did not single him out for impeachment. You probably can’t anyways due to all his “votes” of “present”. 🙂
My comment was if Bush lied, then there are a lot of other people in Congress both Democrat, Republican, or whatever who participated in that “lie”. Apply the same standard across the board if you want to be objective.
Nah. You just see what you want to see. You can’t accept that I just want the same litmus test regardless of who is in office and that I’m getting tired of people passing the buck. How many years will it take before Obama can stand on his own two feat? Just because you’ve decided you’re a “liberal-leaning / progressive libertarian” doesn’t mean you represent the philosophy. Your “no man is an island” mindset frequently clashes with the maximum personal liberties and minimal government mindset of a Libertarian.
63, Bobbo,
That’s funny. Clinton made the same excuse when he was in Office.
Guyver—are we having fun yet??
Spent the morning on another website that was reviewing the “Does God Exist” debate between Hitchens and some religiouso. Seems each side of the debate thought the other side clearly lost.
And so it goes.
Still—-even within these apposite “values” it seems to me opposing sides should be able to agree when a point is irrelevant or not made?
The thread is long, so I’ll just review until I find the “first” example of this point……….: you say “It doesn’t matter who is in office when it comes to the economy. Presidents (regardless if it is Obama, Bush, Clinton, or whomever you wish to use) have very little influence on our economy.” /// Isn’t that objectively NOT TRUE? When a president gives tax cuts and increases social spending and unilaterally initiates an off budget invasion of another country 9000 miles away creating more debt than all the previous presidents combined ((Both Bush and Obama–or close enough)) and defunds and de-staff’s the financial regulatory commissions, then any reasonable person must conclude Presidents can have a severe direct and immediate negative consequences===JUST AS WE SEE TODAY. Now, I think you are right that the Pres/Gubment can’t micro-manage an economy==but that is an entirely different issue that must be raised with a different batch of words.
Can we agree on that?
Sadly, our Pols don’t make “excuses.” They stand on their records and are proud of their positions.
I certainly thought Obama was doing the Clinton/Democrat Shuffle when he talked about getting out of Iraq but that Afghanistan was where we needed to send troops. I thought he was just putting that out there so he could not be called a coward or unAmerican. Sadly, he was telling the truth.
This thread really has no relevance other than to incite arguments from fanatics like us. If you want to be a pawn or sheep please go see Apple!
#23
You seriously need to consider rehab.
A. If the executive branch is “the one on the steering wheel”, then Obama is to blame for double digit unemployment we have now.
B. It was the Democrat Congress that push through the regulations that compelled banks to make bad loans to people that could not afford them.
I am glad our forefathers had the sense to limit terms to two in case the people elected morons into office.
Indeed. That’s what we said in 2000. (and ’68 and ’72…)
#37
Poppycock. At no time during Reagan’s administration did the Republicans have a majority in both Houses. In Reagan’s final two years, the Democrats had a majority in both Houses. So to blame anything on Republicans without also implicating the Democrats is nonsense.
#47
Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. It sounds silly now but in the 90’s
No. It sounded dumb even then. He should have simply forced the military to allow gays and let the chips fall if he really cared. It was an idiotic idea then and now but it allowed Clinton to sit on the political fence on the issue which is what Clinton did best. My impression is that had Clinton’s own party not pushed him to act, he’d have done nothing. Let’s not forget that it was under Clinton that Defense of Marriage Act was passed.
THIS is why we shouldn’t leave anyone in office for more than one term unless it’s evident they’re helping. That’s why Carter went, Bush 1, etc. Although I think Ford got a bum rap. Bush 2 shouldn’t have stayed but the alternatives weren’t alternatives. If Obama goes, it will only be because no good alternatives will present themselves.
Good try, but you missed the mark a bit. You chose the wrong President Bush.
Supply side economics worked. It worked really well. Simple idea; make stuff, sell stuff, get money.
Keynesian economics failed. Failed a LOT. Dumb idea; create nothing, spend money, buy stuff, borrow more money, buy more stuff, economic movement just must mean growth.
Every president since Reagan has listened to Keynesian idiots and the economy now is what we get.
America is finished. How do I know?
Well even the stuff in the thrift stores now is made in China.
Revisionist history should be filed under humor. Bush being pitched as a great president is the funniest thing I’ve read all day.