|
I for one am tired of this nonsense. I know that no one, regardless of how accurate will ever be able to convince someone like Aurel how wrong he is. Therefore this is really a pointless post. I do however like a little politcal discussion from time to time, so here goes.
That "propaganda" that you put in the form of a chart is wonderfully inaccurate. The way a "surplus" was "achieved" was when Clinton "balanced" the budget. There was a "projected surplus" IF the economy remained at the same level of growth for the next 10 years. This will no doubt be argued, but even if I were to agree to the incorrect chart, let's look at how he got to the "balanced" budget. He cut our military by 1/3. Very nice from the man that said he "loathed" the military, Bush may have served his time in a jet for the Guard, but at least he SERVED. But I digress. He put burdens on individual states for federal programs and he RAISED taxes. The list goes on and on. Was this "proposed surplus" worth it? When you turn a blind eye to the defense of our nation (using our "spy satellites" to research global warming? Good idea, if you are a moron).
So, where did all the "good times" go? Remember 9/11? who do you think footed the bill for that? When you start to add up all of the costs to clean up the mess left in Manhattan, start up new protective agencies, get our current agencies up to battle readiness, loan billions to the already ailing air carriers, GIVE BILLIONS to the families of the victims of the attacks, extend unemployment benefits, run military actions halfway across the globe. Yikes. But I'm sure that there was a better more efficient way to do this and I am sure that every last one of you who condemns the president would have done a better job. Right.
Before I go any further let me say that I am NOT a republican. I have NO political affiliations at all. I am conservative (very) and a staunch "hawk". Unlike the "clinton defenders" I don't have a problem in looking realistically at my president and noting his errors. First of all, there is NO comparison to be made between Bush's WMD speech and the MANY lies told by Clinton. Period. End of story. If you want to try to justify what Clinton did go ahead, but it doesn't work. Let's just say for arguments sake that Bush knew that the infamous statement about Iraq were false. What would he benefit from this "lie"? Congress had already overwhelmingly voted to support the military action, so why would he do this? Did this military action go out to a vote and I missed it? Last time I checked, the president doesn't need "public opinion" to take military action. Don't get me wrong, it is VERY helpful if its there, but it is not necessary. I think he spent way too much time trying to convince people that he was never going to convince anyway. A president should do what is RIGHT, not what public opinion tells him. Clinton had no idea of what the right thing was, so he had no choice BUT to rely on opinion polls. Are you STILL using the "we went there for oil argument"? Now that we "control" the area (the oil wells anyway) are we "reaping the rewards"? I will be the first to admit that I personally would have done things differently at the "conclusion' of the war, but my methods lack a certain amount of "diplomacy". It's time to say that what we did in Iraq was not only the RIGHT thing, but also a good thing, for us, for them and for the stability of the region. It's time to move on and not use this as a campaign "soundbite" for those who long for the Clinton "era".
BTW "hardflex", you said you had a neice in the GAO, can she tell me why there is so much money that is unaccounted for in our government? After dumping BILLIONS into an education system that just doesn't work, are they ever going to account for the millions that no one can find? If the GAO can't do it's job, there is a problem that needs to be fixed. I was just wondering.
Pete
|