Democrats runamok

[blackchipjim]

When Obama gets in which I hope it doesn't the democrats will be unstoppable. With a democratic congress and president we are all doomed. The days of Clinton will seem like a day in the park compared to what will happen to this nation after an Obama win in november. blackchipjim

[shadroch]

A simple question. Please answer honestly.

Which were better for this country?
A) The Clinton years
B) The Bush years

[callipygian]

Originally Posted by shadroch

Which were better for this country?
A) The Clinton years
B) The Bush years

To be comparable, you should limit this to 1992-1993 and 2001-2006, when the Democrats or the Republicans, respectively, controlled both the White House and Congress.

[blackchipjim]

It would depend on your point of view. A person's status would dictate thier opinion on that question. My belief would be Bush but with reservations. I don't really care for either but the lesser of two evils was Bush.I respect the office not nesesarily the man in the office. blackchipjim

[aslan]

Originally Posted by blackchipjim

When Obama gets in which I hope it doesn't the democrats will be unstoppable. With a democratic congress and president we are all doomed. The days of Clinton will seem like a day in the park compared to what will happen to this nation after an Obama win in november. blackchipjim

Clinton governed from the center, If Obama follows his lead it won't be so bad. If his past far-left associations were based on opportunism, no problem, but if they were out of conviction, then I agree, we are in for a heap of trouble. But doom? No. Americans have always had a propensity to play with socialist ideas. I think an overdose of socialism ala Obama is just what the doctor ordered. Americans will not tolerate much socialism when they begin to experience it up close and personal. It will IMO mark the end of socialism in America. Americans will rise up in large numbers against any real socialist agenda. Socialism is a system for losers. It reduces a nation to mediocrity and subservience. Americans will never support socialism en masse. Socialism is doomed, not us.

[aslan]

Originally Posted by shadroch

A simple question. Please answer honestly.

Which were better for this country?
A) The Clinton years
B) The Bush years

The Clinton years were blessed by the dot.com bubble, the unprecedented rapid expansion of the Internet economy, which burst shortly after his tenure ended. It made his time appear a lot more prosperous than it really was, and it had nothing to do with his fiscal policy. He was in the right place at the right time. He governed basically from the center. He didn't really do much IMHO, but he did give a good speech, if that's what you think makes a good President.

Bush had great challenges from the beginning. When the economy slowed due to the dot.com decline, he was faced with looming recession, but he brought us out of it. Then we were attacked on 911. He did a very credible job of launching the war on terrorism. I didn't favor his preemptive war on Iraq, but Colin Powell, and most of the Congress were all for it. Maybe the buck stops with him, but he could not have done it without Congress's consent. He has done a more than credible job of winning that war. If Obama wins the election, he will no doubt force it into failure by premature withdrawal, if he does what he says he will do. Had Congress listened to Bush, the Fannie Mae debacle would never have occurred, but no President can be successful if the Congress will not support him. Bush still is a lot more popular than the present Democrat led Congress. Any failure during his term should be placed where it belongs, at the feet of the Congress, both parties.

Given the challenges dealt with, the Bush years were better for this country. The country could have done just as well on automatic pilot during the Clinton years, and judging fron the time he spent chasing interns and others around his office, it was on automatic pilot for much of the time for all intents and purposes.

[Guynoire]

You guys aren't looking at the big picture. The strength of your game is not measured by any individual session result, but by your methodology and it's repeatability in the future. Asking who was a better president is like asking who would win in a fight, Superman or the Incredible Hulk? It makes no difference, neither man will be president again. The real question should be did either president Clinton or Bush have any effective methods or policies that we can repeat today?

Personally, I liked Clinton's "Pay as you Go" policy and think it was one of the most fiscally conservative policies in recent history. I think Bush's repeal of that policy was one of his biggest mistakes. Cynically, I think it was done to enrich and consolidate power in the Republican legislature as it's repeal directly conflicts his stated fiscal conservatism. Obama states on his website that he would reinstate "Pay as you Go," although you might doubt him doing so in a Democrat majority. Also it would severely limit any socialist policies as any new socialist program like health insurance would require a corresponding tax increase making it politically difficult.

[aslan]

Originally Posted by Guynoire

You guys aren't looking at the big picture. The strength of your game is not measured by any individual session result, but by your methodology and it's repeatability in the future. Asking who was a better president is like asking who would win in a fight, Superman or the Incredible Hulk? It makes no difference, neither man will be president again. The real question should be did either president Clinton or Bush have any effective methods or policies that we can repeat today?

Personally, I liked Clinton's "Pay as you Go" policy and think it was one of the most fiscally conservative policies in recent history. I think Bush's repeal of that policy was one of his biggest mistakes. Cynically, I think it was done to enrich and consolidate power in the Republican legislature as it's repeal directly conflicts his stated fiscal conservatism. Obama states on his website that he would reinstate "Pay as you Go," although you might doubt him doing so in a Democrat majority. Also it would severely limit any socialist policies as any new socialist program like health insurance would require a corresponding tax increase making it politically difficult.

It will be easy to do. Just raise taxes.

Clinton had greater revenues coming in due to the extraordinary dot.com expansion, otherwise it would not have been so easy to stick to his pay as you go policy.

I'd rather see a "don't pay for anything you can't afford" policy, and frankly, we can't afford anything except paying for the help, the rent and the lights in this economy. Now is not the time to build a new wing.

If now were the time to spend, Bush would have already saved us three times over!

[zengrifter]

Originally Posted by blackchipjim

I don't really care for either but the lesser of two evils was ....

Poll: Vote for the "Lesser of Two Evils"

[aslan]

Originally Posted by zengrifter

Poll: Vote for the "Lesser of Two Evils"

Obviously anthrax is the more lethal of the two elements. DU may never have killed anyone anywhere except in the minds of cetain members of the Zen Zone and a few conspiracy or pro Iraq theorists.