The nation prospered during the 1990s due to an explosion in technological efficiency creating a massive tech bubble combined with policies created by the Clinton led White House and Gingrich led Congress (I don't care who you want to give the majority of the credit to for that because to get what they got done done they both needed each other). You can see the effect of this by the declining deficit over this time period. One area where Clinton gained a lot in picking up ground on the deficit was by cutting defense spending ...
You'll see that the deficit started to pick up shortly after Dubya took office in January 2001 and that coincided with an uptick in military. There were two primary reasons for this. First, one of the main criticisms of what Clinton did with the military was that many viewed it as poorly equipped and inadequately prepared. Second, the impact of 9/11 hastened the need not only for what was the military action against terrorist networks that resulted, but also investment in military intelligence to protect against the modern terrorist threat. Additionally, for those that don't remember (and as a Senior at the UW at the time trying to find a job I'll never forget this), as soon as 9/11 happened, the job market dried up immediately. While the unemployment rate was slowly rising as Dubya inherited the office from Clinton, the big upticks came around the time of 9/11 going forward.
About midway through Dubya's first term as the economy turned around and success in Iraq/Afghanistan was evident, you'll find that the deficit and military spending once again decreased as economic prosperity once again became the rule of the day. The massive spike that you see is tied to the banking/housing bubble burst as well as the automotive industry falling on its face. How much of that you put the blame on Dubya (many of the policies that led to this were created during the Clinton Administration) is debatable. He clearly could have probably been more proactive. Could very easily accuse the Fed of being asleep at the wheel.
Obama had a number of issues early in his presidency. While he has brought down spending compared to what he inherited, the biggest issue many have with his spending is that at no point is he projecting to do anything other than get to as low as Dubya's highest points (excluding the '08 crashes). His spending is generally irresponsible and he's got absolutely no problem spending what he doesn't have. It's very hard to argue against that when you look at the graphs and projections.
The nation prospered during the 1990s due to an explosion in technological efficiency creating a massive tech bubble combined with policies created by the Clinton led White House and Gingrich led Congress (I don't care who you want to give the majority of the credit to for that because to get what they got done done they both needed each other). You can see the effect of this by the declining deficit over this time period. One area where Clinton gained a lot in picking up ground on the deficit was by cutting defense spending ...
You'll see that the deficit started to pick up shortly after Dubya took office in January 2001 and that coincided with an uptick in military. There were two primary reasons for this. First, one of the main criticisms of what Clinton did with the military was that many viewed it as poorly equipped and inadequately prepared. Second, the impact of 9/11 hastened the need not only for what was the military action against terrorist networks that resulted, but also investment in military intelligence to protect against the modern terrorist threat. Additionally, for those that don't remember (and as a Senior at the UW at the time trying to find a job I'll never forget this), as soon as 9/11 happened, the job market dried up immediately. While the unemployment rate was slowly rising as Dubya inherited the office from Clinton, the big upticks came around the time of 9/11 going forward.
About midway through Dubya's first term as the economy turned around and success in Iraq/Afghanistan was evident, you'll find that the deficit and military spending once again decreased as economic prosperity once again became the rule of the day. The massive spike that you see is tied to the banking/housing bubble burst as well as the automotive industry falling on its face. How much of that you put the blame on Dubya (many of the policies that led to this were created during the Clinton Administration) is debatable. He clearly could have probably been more proactive. Could very easily accuse the Fed of being asleep at the wheel.
Obama had a number of issues early in his presidency. While he has brought down spending compared to what he inherited, the biggest issue many have with his spending is that at no point is he projecting to do anything other than get to as low as Dubya's highest points (excluding the '08 crashes). His spending is generally irresponsible and he's got absolutely no problem spending what he doesn't have. It's very hard to argue against that when you look at the graphs and projections.
I agree mostly with this as it is factual. It's just as dumb to blame dubya for the bubble (he does have his blame, along with wall street/banks, democrats, and other Republicans) as it would be to blame Obama for a $1.5 trillion deficit.
The one part you forget to mention about Bush was he twice tried to fix the economy by sending checks directly to taxpayers. Along with tax cuts while going into war. TARP was also his bill and the stimulus was Obama's bill. Both were needed and saved us from a much worse collapse.
Love how Honda is always here to defend democrats every time they are attacked in a thread.
Disagree. hondo is still getting paid by the Obama camp and while he will defend generic Dem viewpoints from time to time, he won't won't go fullTard Hillary until he's been released from his current assignment. She isn't engaging media yet and prolly won't for some time.
Love how Honda is always here to defend democrats every time they are attacked in a thread.
Disagree. hondo is still getting paid by the Obama camp and while he will defend generic Dem viewpoints from time to time, he won't won't go fullTard Hillary until he's been released from his current assignment. She isn't engaging media yet and prolly won't for some time.
I know you are being sarcastic. But I don't defend Obama, I call you guys out for being FS and believing anything you read on the internet.
Look at the last couple fucktards that have held the office, though, and you'll see that any dipshit has the necessary qualifications - even if they have no qualifications at all.
If we're going to start bashing Dubya, I'm out ...
Reminds me of a joke that UO Law School faculty members used to tell: "What kind of job can you get if you were at the bottom of your class at UO Law? - U.S. Senator!" (Ron Wyden was an underwhelming law student in Eugene, apparently)
Love how Honda is always here to defend democrats every time they are attacked in a thread.
Disagree. hondo is still getting paid by the Obama camp and while he will defend generic Dem viewpoints from time to time, he won't won't go fullTard Hillary until he's been released from his current assignment. She isn't engaging media yet and prolly won't for some time.
I know you are being sarcastic. But I don't defend Obama, I call you guys out for being FS and believing anything you read on the internet.
And you're listening to a washed up actor and game show host.
Fuck you.
Actually Ben Stein is an accomplished intelligent design advocate. Unfortunately that probably actually helps his credibility on this abortion of a bored.
And you're listening to a washed up actor and game show host.
Fuck you.
Actually Ben Stein is an accomplished intelligent design advocate. Unfortunately that probably actually helps his credibility on this abortion of a bored.
His movie was pretty good when he got the atheist expert to speculate that humans could have been seeded by aliens as he argued against ID.
And you're listening to a washed up actor and game show host.
Fuck you.
Actually Ben Stein is an accomplished intelligent design advocate. Unfortunately that probably actually helps his credibility on this abortion of a bored.
His movie was pretty good when he got the atheist expert to speculate that humans could have been seeded by aliens as he argued against ID.
And you're listening to a washed up actor and game show host.
Fuck you.
Actually Ben Stein is an accomplished intelligent design advocate. Unfortunately that probably actually helps his credibility on this abortion of a bored.
His movie was pretty good when he got the atheist expert to speculate that humans could have been seeded by aliens as he argued against ID.
And you're listening to a washed up actor and game show host.
Fuck you.
Actually Ben Stein is an accomplished intelligent design advocate. Unfortunately that probably actually helps his credibility on this abortion of a bored.
His movie was pretty good when he got the atheist expert to speculate that humans could have been seeded by aliens as he argued against ID.
But then who made the aliens?????
Stephen Hawking seeded the aliens. He's lying about his age and using ALS as a cover.
What the fuck is this thread even about anymore? 3-4 pages in and it has multiple tequila-length posts? Is it worth reading through all of this? Somebody help me out. Is there a TLDR summary?
What the fuck is this thread even about anymore? 3-4 pages in and it has multiple tequila-length posts? Is it worth reading through all of this? Somebody help me out. Is there a TLDR summary?
What the fuck is this thread even about anymore? 3-4 pages in and it has multiple tequila-length posts? Is it worth reading through all of this? Somebody help me out. Is there a TLDR summary?
Comments
http://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/spending_chart_1992_2020USp_16s1li011mcn_G0f30t_Annual_Federal_Deficit
The nation prospered during the 1990s due to an explosion in technological efficiency creating a massive tech bubble combined with policies created by the Clinton led White House and Gingrich led Congress (I don't care who you want to give the majority of the credit to for that because to get what they got done done they both needed each other). You can see the effect of this by the declining deficit over this time period. One area where Clinton gained a lot in picking up ground on the deficit was by cutting defense spending ...
You'll see that the deficit started to pick up shortly after Dubya took office in January 2001 and that coincided with an uptick in military. There were two primary reasons for this. First, one of the main criticisms of what Clinton did with the military was that many viewed it as poorly equipped and inadequately prepared. Second, the impact of 9/11 hastened the need not only for what was the military action against terrorist networks that resulted, but also investment in military intelligence to protect against the modern terrorist threat. Additionally, for those that don't remember (and as a Senior at the UW at the time trying to find a job I'll never forget this), as soon as 9/11 happened, the job market dried up immediately. While the unemployment rate was slowly rising as Dubya inherited the office from Clinton, the big upticks came around the time of 9/11 going forward.
http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet
About midway through Dubya's first term as the economy turned around and success in Iraq/Afghanistan was evident, you'll find that the deficit and military spending once again decreased as economic prosperity once again became the rule of the day. The massive spike that you see is tied to the banking/housing bubble burst as well as the automotive industry falling on its face. How much of that you put the blame on Dubya (many of the policies that led to this were created during the Clinton Administration) is debatable. He clearly could have probably been more proactive. Could very easily accuse the Fed of being asleep at the wheel.
Obama had a number of issues early in his presidency. While he has brought down spending compared to what he inherited, the biggest issue many have with his spending is that at no point is he projecting to do anything other than get to as low as Dubya's highest points (excluding the '08 crashes). His spending is generally irresponsible and he's got absolutely no problem spending what he doesn't have. It's very hard to argue against that when you look at the graphs and projections.
The one part you forget to mention about Bush was he twice tried to fix the economy by sending checks directly to taxpayers. Along with tax cuts while going into war. TARP was also his bill and the stimulus was Obama's bill. Both were needed and saved us from a much worse collapse.
Fuck you.
Panspermia??
FO, O.