thank you friday on my mind we finally agree on something you said lets give some credit to clintons economic advisors i could not agree more. lets also name that advisor and give accolades to the man, that of course is allen greenspan.
worst president in our lifetime.
- Thread starter gmaxman1212
- Start date
The fact is of course that those years were ones of unparalleled stability and growth throughout the world.Our UK economy thrived even with Gordon Brown's tinkering.Manufactured goods were coming in from China at such low prices that inflation was kept in check.Allen Greenspan was the man at the helm but it helps to have a calm sea and a following wind.Clinton (like Blair/Brown) were rather more lucky than skilful.
scwarzenegger?............DICK VAN COCK!:cussing:
the last 10 posts were really good. thumbsup all around. i want to say a couple things at this juncture:
unless something really crazy happens in the coming years, g w bush will go down in history as the most reviled man in american history, president or otherwise. buchanan likes him, i think.
marquis2 said:
this points directly to jimmy carter. as far as being a decent and moral person, he's tops. as president, well i think you can make the argument that he was a victim of timing.
The President is responsible for giving the right jobs to the right people.As I've mentioned in another post, Clinton's years were ones which would have made any administration look good , the world economy was steady and growing, all the factors which cause problems weren't there.It was the nearest thing to a free ride.
When a country is doing well it should put some money by to help out in the times of recession.You mention Reagan , he was as unlucky as Clinton was lucky because his presidency coincided with a massive world wide recession and in such times governments have to spend more;their receipts are down and expenses are up.So to compare Reagan with Clinton on the economy doesn't make sense.
I had more in mind as economic advisors people like.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_B._Reich
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_E._Rubin
It's a lot easier to be an economic advisor at a time when the economy is going along pretty well on its own.It's like the captain of a ship claiming credit for a smooth ride when the sea is like a millpond.
It's the advisors who successfully deal with problems like spiralling unemployment , soaring inflation and lack of confidence who deserve credit.But they are usually associated with the problems they had to solve.
It's the advisors who successfully deal with problems like spiralling unemployment , soaring inflation and lack of confidence who deserve credit.But they are usually associated with the problems they had to solve.
To give Shrub credit....he does seem like a decent person. People give him grief to no end, but I have to admit he seems somewhat likeable. I could see myself having a beer with shrub and asking him for his daughters numbers. 
On the other hand, I can't say that about that quack he just endorsed. McCain seems like a real prick. :thefinger
On the other hand, I can't say that about that quack he just endorsed. McCain seems like a real prick. :thefinger
Both Reagan and Clinton were elected in large measure on anxieties about the economy.Clinton's winning slogan in 92 was "it's the economy stupid".Both came in during recessions.The biggest difference was that even when things got better whether you want to give them and their advisors credit for it or not was that Clinton and his govt exercised fiscal restraint where Reagan did not.Reagan spent more and more on defense especially where Clinton did not.America is being hosed by the military-industrial establishment which wants to spend no matter if there is real threat or not hundreds of billions on defense spending.Without the cold war they were lost as a rational to maintain that,so now we have the war on terror.Someday we will have a war on who knows what when they lose that one.
the war on [noun] can, by definition, never be won or lost. these are great, if you want to maintain a permanent war economy. unfortunately for such bastards, the war on *drugs* just hasn't panned out the way they've wanted. so let's create an enemy that is 10 times more scary than drugs ever were. and let's call it war on terror.
but the word "war" is actually not the right word. it is not in line with the constitutional definition of "war" (armed conflict between sovereign nations). so by some sideways definitions, we are at "war". this satisfies the economic need for war, and the fear-clamps need for war.
good enough.
but be careful when you launch a new war, because we've already got:
the war on drugs
the war on poverty
war in korea (de facto)
war in afghanistan
war in iraq
and we haven't lost, so we must be winning, right?
let's be happy. new poll here.
I understand you drawing a qualitative difference between their offenses, and for the much greater part I agree. But I think I look at the situation in a bit more linear fashion; i.e. if not for Clinton's lies Bush's depradations would never have happened.
Well then call me immature, because while I could have gotten past the adultery itself, I couldn't get past the drawn out fabrications; the ever-so-sincere, finger-wagging, how-could-you-possibly-doubt-me, bald-faced lying and his attempt to ruin his paramour's life in order to save his ass. Those are not the actions of a man of character and integrity, and those qualities are very important to me.
That's interesting. Most people do seem to think that about him but my impression of him has always been the exact opposite.
agreed
Very true
Reagan and Clinton inherited vastly different cicumstances.Reagan took over in a downward spiralling economy with the USSR ratcheting up the cold war.When Clinton took over the country was rapidly moving out of recession (and only a minor one too) with no external military threats.
thank you maquis2 that definately had to be defined and stated on this thread
there is absolutely no doubt that the undisputed champ here by a landslide is gwb no won else is even close
i guess i should change this poll to worst govenor in our lifetime
al right this poll is dead
or should i called this the worst presidenial election of our lifetime
all right i concede gw is the worst pres in our lifetime and perhaps the history of the world. I was loyal untill about 6 months ago when i truly realizes how he single handedly destroy this country
I fucking hate George dubya Bush.. as with most americans. But how stupid are we to elect this asshole for a full term? Did you know that bush is such a coward that when 9/11 happened he was notified in a school class room in florida but he proceded by just sitting there and waiting and not doing anything. you will know what i am talking about if you have seen fahrenheit 9/11.
Similar threads
