• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Bush Administration Makes A Big Mistake.

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Income taxes alone in Europe are 41% of GDP as opposed to 27 in the US.

In 2000, Germany's income tax rate averaged 56%.

History and I both say that socialism will not provide a job for me. It's never worked before, and it will never work now.
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
RightatNYU said:
I don't deny it because it doesn't suit my position, I question its credibility. If I was spitting statistics that the only backing was from Cato, I'd expect you to call me on that too.

And again, just because CEO salary increases, doesn't mean its bad.

It's a meaningless red herring. Think of this: There are maybe 5,000 CEO's in the country. If all 5,000 of them become 10 times richer, it makes that ratio 10 times worse. Does that really have an impact on the other 299,995,000 people in this country? Not a perceptible one.
If they become 10 times richer, the cost of living will certainly rise. That has an impact on the working class especially.
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
RightatNYU said:
Income taxes alone in Europe are 41% of GDP as opposed to 27 in the US.

In 2000, Germany's income tax rate averaged 56%.

History and I both say that socialism will not provide a job for me. It's never worked before, and it will never work now.
Yeah, I thought 70% seemed a bit too much...Oh and it's nice to see you've opened your mind up to new possibilities as a result of this discussion! We'll continue this tomorrow...its very late. BTW, history hasn't proven a thing against democratic socialism, or socialist policy.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
anomaly said:
I imagine if that happened, the cost of living would rise sharply as well, making any monetary gains we see insignificant. In a culture, its easy to see that wealth is relative, that wealth is relative to those who make the most. If my CEO made 1 mil a year and I made 20,000, does it really benefit me to see my salary raise to 30,000 if my CEO's will raise to 20 million? Undoubtedly the cost of living will rise, making the only important thing the ratio between me and him.

That's simply not true. All wealth is relative, but on a larger scale. If everyone in the US gets proportional raises, im not any richer than you or you to me, but we are both richer than the rest of the world. As the US's wealth increases, we become a richer country, allowing you to buy that Nintendo or Honda or trip to Prague.

If Bill gates were to become 10 times richer than he is now, it doesn't mean the cost of living for the rest of the US would dramatically increase.

And to answer your question, yes it actually would benefit you.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
anomaly said:
Yeah, I thought 70% seemed a bit too much...Oh and it's nice to see you've opened your mind up to new possibilities as a result of this discussion! We'll continue this tomorrow...its very late. BTW, history hasn't proven a thing against democratic socialism, or socialist policy.

That 56% is only income tax, as is the 41%. There is also corporate tax, social security tax, school tax, province tax, healthcare tax, etc. The total tax burden in denmark approaches 70% for many of its citizens.

and yea, it is very late. ugh.
 

ShamMol

Only Way Round is Through
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
1,988
Reaction score
10
Location
Pasadena, California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
RightatNYU said:
Income taxes alone in Europe are 41% of GDP as opposed to 27 in the US.

In 2000, Germany's income tax rate averaged 56%.

History and I both say that socialism will not provide a job for me. It's never worked before, and it will never work now.

27...its 33...but still the same principle.

but with that low of a tax rate, or government is owned by our creditors, which is very dangerous in the long run.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
anomaly said:
If they become 10 times richer, the cost of living will certainly rise. That has an impact on the working class especially.

Not true. If each CEO was making 100,000, and that went to 1,000,000, that is an increase of 900,000 per person. Multiply that by 5,000 CEO's, and you get 4,500,000,000 increase in pay. Divide that by 300,000,000 people, and that is an increase of around 12 dollars per person for the US.

So, if you make 24,000 a year, then a CEO pay increase of 900,000, or 10fold would have a .005% effect on your salary. And even that is highly doubtful because of diffusion's effect on the economy.

These numbers are extreme, but make my point. With such a small control group, the effects are absolutely minimal.
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
RightatNYU said:
Not true. If each CEO was making 100,000, and that went to 1,000,000, that is an increase of 900,000 per person. Multiply that by 5,000 CEO's, and you get 4,500,000,000 increase in pay. Divide that by 300,000,000 people, and that is an increase of around 12 dollars per person for the US.

So, if you make 24,000 a year, then a CEO pay increase of 900,000, or 10fold would have a .005% effect on your salary. And even that is highly doubtful because of diffusion's effect on the economy.

These numbers are extreme, but make my point. With such a small control group, the effects are absolutely minimal.
The cost of living rose steadily throughout the '90s. Again, the main point is that we are letting the gap between rich and poor to widen considerably, at a magnitude unseen since the '20s. This is not good, in the long run, for the economy.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
anomaly said:
The cost of living rose steadily throughout the '90s. Again, the main point is that we are letting the gap between rich and poor to widen considerably, at a magnitude unseen since the '20s. This is not good, in the long run, for the economy.

Again, because you don't seem to see what I'm saying, the numbers that I showed you COUNT INFLATION, which is the cost of living. Therefore, the cost of living increase is moot because it's already negated.

And the main point is that it doesn't matter if certain factors are the same in the 20's as now. There are SO many that are different, that it is irrelevant.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
anomaly said:
Clinton was simply, during the 90s, the lesser of the two evils. The Americans had no choice over how their economy would be run, as both the GOP and Clinton pushed the 'free market' agenda i.e. the pro-business agenda. Clinton's handling of foreign policy was indeed terrible at best, but he still looks like a Godsend compared to Bush in this area. I was very young during the Clinton years, and really all I know of him is that he ran a terrible foreign policy and a bad economy...his handling of the economy increased inequality all throughout the 90s and have led, combined with the lunacy of Bush, to the rough economy we see now. But why was he elected twice? I suppose because the people were fed up with Bush I, and saw no hope in Dole, so they chose the only remaining candidate, Clinton.
One of the major reasons the terrorists acted up on the Bush watch is that no matter how many times Clinton had his eye spat in, he smiled and ignored it. The Africa Embassy bombings, Mogadishu, and the USS Cole were just a few instances.

They became convinced that the US was just a paper tiger run by a guy who was more interested in diddling females and trying to suck up for a Nobel Peace prize.

Clinton's chief economic claim to fame was to limit the corporate tax deductibility on executive salaries to one million dollars so that the corporations would have an incentive to lower them. Good move? Nope. It led to the explosion of stock options as a way of circumvention. Remember what the stock option craze led to?

Remember, too, that the recession that the socialist-lib-dems blame on GWB was well under way BEFORE he was inaugurated.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
anomaly said:
The economy you speak of as 'growing' is doing so only for businesses...workers continue to see their salaries remain stagnant. Also, we saw such an economy during the 1920's, with it appearing, on the outside atleast, to be doing very well. The rise of inequality is not good for the economy, and the rise of business will inevitably lead to a surplus of goods created, overspeculation in the stock market, and thus the inevitability of the economy turning, as it does under capitalism. We are currently seeing a path eerily similar to that of the 1920's...and we all know how that ended. Also, may I note that the national debt rises continually, so we can easily see that those neat numbers you post do not tell the whole story. Clinton ran a conservative economy, lowering taxes and repealing parts of the New Deal, but Bush's economy, well, I don't know what you call it, as he cuts taxes and then spends in huge amounts. Hardly conservative, and certainly not liberal, the only term that describes his economic practices is lunacy! Clinton's problem is that he chose a pro-business route, lowering taxes, deregulating etc. etc. Just like the twenties, when this New Economy fails, it will do so in a big way. To check out some other neat numbers of the 'marvels' of the New Economy, check out my thread in economics: New Economy and its discontents.
Your doom and gloom vision is not borne out by the rate at which new housing starts, new cars, home resales, and every other measure of consumer confidence is rising. All of that activity is dependent solely upon a reliable source of steady income.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
ShamMol said:
but with that low of a tax rate, or government is owned by our creditors, which is very dangerous in the long run.
Please explain.
 

Hoot

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2004
Messages
1,686
Reaction score
18
Location
State of Confusion
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Fantasea said:
One of the major reasons the terrorists acted up on the Bush watch is that no matter how many times Clinton had his eye spat in, he smiled and ignored it. The Africa Embassy bombings, Mogadishu, and the USS Cole were just a few instances.

They became convinced that the US was just a paper tiger run by a guy who was more interested in diddling females and trying to suck up for a Nobel Peace prize.

What's really funny is there's talk of Bush being nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize! ROTFL!

As far as everything you said above.....

It's an outright, disgusting and obscene lie.

I'd be more than happy to debate the terrorism policies of the Clinton administration with you and show you the error of your ways.

The truth is....Clinton did more to combat terrorism than any previous president in history, while the republicans fought Clinton's 95' anti-terrorism bill, and Bush sat on his posterior and did nothing for 9 months, despite the warnings from the Clinton administration.

It took the events of 9/11 before Bush finally woke up.
 

Squawker

Professor
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
1,314
Reaction score
4
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The truth is....Clinton did more to combat terrorism than any previous president in history, while the republicans fought Clinton's 95' anti-terrorism bill,
I can't wait to see this one. Bring it on, Hoot. It doesn't have anything to do with Waco does it?
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Squawker said:
I can't wait to see this one. Bring it on, Hoot. It doesn't have anything to do with Waco does it?

I was going to reply to him, but I didn't have the energy to explain the same thing over and over again to someone who refuses to see reason.
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
RightatNYU said:
Again, because you don't seem to see what I'm saying, the numbers that I showed you COUNT INFLATION, which is the cost of living. Therefore, the cost of living increase is moot because it's already negated.

And the main point is that it doesn't matter if certain factors are the same in the 20's as now. There are SO many that are different, that it is irrelevant.
You don't see anything wrong with letting a very small percent of the population dominate the vast majority? Today, even democracy has its price, as big corporations consistently donate tremendously to the two parties which will most protect their interests. See, I don't like the idea of a very small percent of the population controlling me, instead, I'd like to see more power for the working class. Perhaps you don't...
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Fantasea said:
One of the major reasons the terrorists acted up on the Bush watch is that no matter how many times Clinton had his eye spat in, he smiled and ignored it. The Africa Embassy bombings, Mogadishu, and the USS Cole were just a few instances.

They became convinced that the US was just a paper tiger run by a guy who was more interested in diddling females and trying to suck up for a Nobel Peace prize.

Clinton's chief economic claim to fame was to limit the corporate tax deductibility on executive salaries to one million dollars so that the corporations would have an incentive to lower them. Good move? Nope. It led to the explosion of stock options as a way of circumvention. Remember what the stock option craze led to?

Remember, too, that the recession that the socialist-lib-dems blame on GWB was well under way BEFORE he was inaugurated.
Yeah, but remeber that Clinton's economic policy was rather conservative, as a majority of cons support that wonderful market option you site. He cut gov't spending, cut taxes, and cut out more of the New Deal, a tendency we saw with Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, and probably we'll see it again with Clinton II, if she's elected. Bush has only worsened things, as he runs an economic policy neither liberal nor conservative in principle. It simply doesn't make sense to cut taxes and then spend more than the budget will allow, and not veto spending bills. Please tell me, Fant, that you have the sense to admit that what Bush is doing to the economy is simply mad.
 

26 X World Champs

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
7,536
Reaction score
429
Location
Upper West Side of Manhattan (10024)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Fantasea said:
One of the major reasons the terrorists acted up on the Bush watch is that no matter how many times Clinton had his eye spat in, he smiled and ignored it. The Africa Embassy bombings, Mogadishu, and the USS Cole were just a few instances.

You don't say?

TERRORIST ATTACKS CLINTON STOPPED.

  • Just for the record, under Richard Clarke's leadership as Czar of Counterterrorism.
  • CLINTON developed the nation's first anti-terrorism policy, and appointed first national coordinator of anti-terrorist efforts.
  • Bill Clinton stopped cold the Al Qaeda millennium hijacking and bombing plots.
  • Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to kill the Pope.
  • Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up 12 U.S. jetliners simultaneously.
  • Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up UN Headquarters.
  • Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up FBI Headquarters.
  • Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up the Israeli Embassy in Washington.
  • Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up Boston airport.
  • Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up Lincoln and Holland Tunnels in NY.
  • Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up the George Washington Bridge.
  • Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up the US Embassy in Albania.
  • Bill Clinton tried to kill Osama bin Laden and disrupt Al Qaeda through preemptive strikes (efforts denounced by the G.O.P.).
  • Bill Clinton brought perpetrators of first World Trade Center bombing and CIA killings to justice.
  • Bill Clinton did not blame the Bush I administration for first World Trade Center bombing even though it occurred 38 days after Bush left office. Instead, worked hard, even obsessively -- and successfully -- to stop future terrorist attacks.
  • Bill Clinton named the Hart-Rudman commission to report on nature of terrorist threats and major steps to be taken to combat terrorism.
  • Bill Clinton sent legislation to Congress to tighten airport security. (Remember, this is before 911) The legislation was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the airlines.
  • Bill Clinton sent legislation to Congress to allow for better tracking of terrorist funding. It was defeated by Republicans in the Senate because of opposition from banking interests.
  • Bill Clinton sent legislation to Congress to add tagents to explosives, to allow for better tracking of explosives used by terrorists. It was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the NRA.
  • Bill Clinton increased the military budget by an average of 14 per cent, reversing the trend under Bush I.
  • Bill Clinton tripled the budget of the FBI for counterterrorism and doubled overall funding for counterterrorism.
  • Bill Clinton detected and destroyed cells of Al Qaeda in over 20 countries.
  • Bill Clinton created national stockpile of drugs and vaccines including 40 million doses of smallpox vaccine.
  • Of Clinton's efforts says Robert Oakley, Reagan Ambassador for Counterterrorism: "Overall, I give them very high marks" and "The only major criticism I have is the obsession with Osama".
  • Paul Bremer, former Civilian Administrator of Iraq disagrees slightly with Robert Oakley as he believed the Bill Clinton Administration had "correctly focused on bin Laden.
  • Barton Gellman in the Washington Post put it best, "By any measure available, Bill Clinton left office having given greater priority to terrorism than any president before him" and was the "first administration to undertake a systematic anti-terrorist effort".
 
Last edited:

26 X World Champs

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
7,536
Reaction score
429
Location
Upper West Side of Manhattan (10024)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Fantasea said:
One of the major reasons the terrorists acted up on the Bush watch is that no matter how many times Clinton had his eye spat in, he smiled and ignored it. The Africa Embassy bombings, Mogadishu, and the USS Cole were just a few instances.

Again, oh really?

After the 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa, which killed 224 and injured 5,000; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

The perpretrators of the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings WERE captured, and are now in jail for life.

Also, when President Clinton learned that Osam Bin Laden was having a top-level Al Qaeda leadership meeting in Afghanistan he ordered the site bombed and came VERY CLOSE to preventing the bombing of the World Trade Centers on 9/11/2001. And the response of the Republican leadership and the entire mainstream media was. "Bill Clinton, don't you dare try to distract us by "wagging the dog"! What America needs to attend to is the stain on Monica Lewinsky's blue dress, not some far away terrorist."

Cole bombing - After the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 and injured 39 U.S. sailors; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

Maybe, just maybe, if Clinton's Vice President had been elected in 2000, instead of a family friend of the Bin Laden family of Saudi Arabia, Al Gore might have been able to follow through on Bill Clinton's promise, and about 3,000 people in New York and Washington, D.C. might be alive today. The actual proof, however, that the bombing of the USS Cole was the work of Al Qaeda didn't come to light until February 2001. Who was President at that time?

Why didn't the Bush people punish Al Qaeda when they got proof that the group was behind the Cole bombings? Short answer: they were working on a deal with the Taliban regarding an oil pipeline that would run through Afghanistan and produce tremendous profits for all involved. And not only hasn't George W. Bush caught and prosecuted Osama Bin Laden, but he now says he's not even thinking of Osama any more!
 

26 X World Champs

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
7,536
Reaction score
429
Location
Upper West Side of Manhattan (10024)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Fantasea said:
Clinton's chief economic claim to fame was to limit the corporate tax deductibility on executive salaries to one million dollars so that the corporations would have an incentive to lower them. Good move? Nope. It led to the explosion of stock options as a way of circumvention. Remember what the stock option craze led to?

Remember, too, that the recession that the socialist-lib-dems blame on GWB was well under way BEFORE he was inaugurated.

You really believe that or are you simply incapable of admitting anything Clinton did was good? I think that Bush has some redeaming qualities, i.e. he's unafraid to take a stand, and to stick by it, right or wrong. Repubs, however, blame Clinton for everything and credit him for nothing! Clinton was a great President for our economy:

First, when Clinton won the White House, the federal budget deficit was at a historic high of $290 billion, 10 million Americans were out of work and the nation's economic growth rate under the outgoing Republican administration was the lowest in more than half a century. Clinton introduced his controversial economic plan that raised the income taxes of the richest 1.4 percent of Americans. We immediately heard from the Gloom and Doom congressional Republicans, every one of whom voted against the Clinton plan. Sen. Phil Gramm, R-Texas, announced, "This tax bill is a one-way ticket to a recession." House Republican Whip Newt Gingrich predicted, "This is the Democrat machine's recession, and each one of them will be held personally accountable."

What followed is unarguable: creation of more than 22 million new jobs; the nation's lowest unemployment rate in 30 years; the lowest unemployment rate among women in 40 years; and the lowest Hispanic and African-American unemployment rate in history. The nation went from the largest budget deficits in history to the largest budget surpluses in history, while the average family's income went up more than $5,000. snip

After the federal budget deficit had gone down each of the Clinton years and the cascading tax revenues generated by the prosperity led in 1998 to the first balanced budget in 30 years, Clinton still got no credit. "The federal government is balancing its budget, thanks to the Republican Congress," said Senate Republican leader Trent Lott of Mississippi.

But what about the continuing great economic news under Clinton? Lott offered kudos: "I agree that Bill and Al deserve a lot of credit, but I'm talking about Bill Gates and Alan Greenspan." Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, agreed: "I agree that Bill and Al are responsible for the prosperity we are currently enjoying across America. That's Bill Gates and Alan Greenspan."

So Bill Clinton had nothing to do with the nation's economic record of the '90s, according to fair-minded Republicans. But wait, President George W. Bush in his speech on corporate responsibility blamed the altering economy on the Clinton economic expansion: "We were in a land where there was endless profit. There was no tomorrow ... and now we're suffering a hangover from that binge."snip

But Mike Michaud was right. Bill Gates is still there. Alan Greenspan is still there. The House Republicans are still there. Ronald Reagan's tax and budget policies are still honored in the White House. The only two things missing are a good economy and Bill Clinton.

Source: http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/12/09/column.shields.opinion.clinton/
 

Squawker

Professor
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
1,314
Reaction score
4
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Here is a different analasis of Clinton’s job in relation to terrorist.
"When the terrorist gang controlled by Osama bin Laden exploded a bomb in the World Trade Center in 1993, killing six and injuring 650 others, President Clinton did not even visit the site of the attack. He remained aloof and uninvolved. Where President Bush insisted, from the outset, that the Trade Center attack on his watch was a declaration of war by foreign terrorists against the United States, Clinton treated the 1993 attack as a criminal-justice situation. His failure to mobilize America to confront foreign terror after that attack had dire consequences and led directly to 9/11."
CIA director James Woolsey adds that he never had a single private meeting with Clinton during his first two years as head of the CIA--the key period in investigating the 1993 attack.
President Clinton sat on his hands again after 19 American soldiers were killed and 372 others were wounded in the massive June 1996 explosion at the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, by a bomb larger than the one that destroyed the federal building in Oklahoma City. It was the same ineffectual comeback when 226 people were killed and more than 4,500 injured in the August 1998 terrorist bombings of the U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, and the same inaction the year before when a dead American soldier was dragged through the dusty streets of Mogadishu by angry crowds, and the same inaction in October 2000 when 17 American seamen were killed and 39 injured on the USS Cole by a terrorist attack.
Each time, Bill Clinton's failure to respond was followed by more attacks. And he continued to cut back on security and military preparedness. In 1995, the State Department rebuffed attempts by Sudanese intelligence officers to turn Osama bin Laden over to the U.S. for prosecution. In addition, CIA director at the time, John Deutch, imposed guidelines that made it virtually impossible to recruit informants from the wrong side of the tracks. Sensitivity, in short, took precedence over intelligence gathering and national security.
In his book The Choice, Bob Woodward reports that one night in 1995 Bill Clinton declared: "I would have preferred being President during World War II," lamenting that nothing big was happening on his watch.
Lucky for us. Considering how he handled the '90s, it's a pretty sure bet we'd all be eating wiener schnitzel and dining out at Benihana if Bill Clinton had been calling the shots in the 1940s.
--Ralph Reiland is a TAE contributing writer.
Source
 

26 X World Champs

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
7,536
Reaction score
429
Location
Upper West Side of Manhattan (10024)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Squawker said:
Here is a different analasis of Clinton’s job in relation to terrorist.

Source

The American Enterprise Institute is a well known RIGHT WING organization that claims to be non-partisan but only supports Republican policies, and never supports Democratic ideas. Their mission statement says, in part:

The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research is dedicated to preserving and strengthening the foundations of freedom--limited government, private enterprise, vital cultural and political institutions, and a strong foreign policy and national defense--through scholarly research, open debate, and publications. Founded in 1943 and located in Washington, D.C.

FYI - Senior AEI staff include Robert Bork, Lynne Cheney, Charles Murray, Michael Novak, and approximately 30 other conservative public intellectuals and activists, many of whom are closely intertwined with the institutional apparatus of the right.

I think I am being fair when I say that quoting anyone who works there assessment of Clinton that it would be negative. Therefore, it is not a credible source, it is a biased and slanted view that mixes truth and lies to conclude with an agenda that will always be Anti-Democratic / Anti-Clinton. In simple words, a worthless example, sorry.

I listed FACT after FACT re Clinton. Was he always right, NO! That's not the point. Some of you out there said:

Originally Posted by Fantasea
One of the major reasons the terrorists acted up on the Bush watch is that no matter how many times Clinton had his eye spat in, he smiled and ignored it.

I am considering the source of this quote, and I realize that most of things that I've read from that particular contributor are usually untruths, gross exaggerations and absurdly stupid generalizations. The above quote is typical.

The implication being that Clinton did nothing and was the single reason for 9-11 and all other terror incidents before and seemingly after! Of course there are different interpretations of a singular event, and of course Clinton made individual mistakes. However, overall, he was very strong against terrorism, did more to combat than any President that preceded him, and he thwarted many potentially nightmare attacks.

I previously listed indisputable facts of things Clinton did. Please do the same for either Bush? List for us the things they did and what they factually prevented? Keep in mind Clinton did all without the outrageous PATRIOT ACT that Bush signed and that gave him what I believe to be unconstitutional powers.
 
Last edited:

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
anomaly said:
You don't see anything wrong with letting a very small percent of the population dominate the vast majority? Today, even democracy has its price, as big corporations consistently donate tremendously to the two parties which will most protect their interests. See, I don't like the idea of a very small percent of the population controlling me, instead, I'd like to see more power for the working class. Perhaps you don't...

How are they dominating you? Did Bill Gates come down to your house recently and tell you what to do? No. Honestly, I'm going to be that the richest people in this country couldn't care less what you do.

And how do you figure that you will give "more power to the working class?" No matter what, in any economic structure, people will have to make decisions that will affect peoples lives negatively. People will be fired, people will be payed a low wage, etc. And no matter what, people like you will bitch. I'm frankly not excited to change the system just so you can continue to complain.
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
RightatNYU said:
How are they dominating you? Did Bill Gates come down to your house recently and tell you what to do? No. Honestly, I'm going to be that the richest people in this country couldn't care less what you do.

And how do you figure that you will give "more power to the working class?" No matter what, in any economic structure, people will have to make decisions that will affect peoples lives negatively. People will be fired, people will be payed a low wage, etc. And no matter what, people like you will bitch. I'm frankly not excited to change the system just so you can continue to complain.
How are the rich dominating us? Hmmm, well let's see: they consistently fund the campaigns of the two parties that treat them the best. I live in a poor family that can't afford health insurance. Why don't we have a national healthcare system? You need only to turn to to your beloved rich who lobby against it, and the Republican party which carries out their demands. I doesn't affect me personally, yet. I'm still a student in high school, though, and I look at the world I will soon enter and I don't like it. I feel that the goal of democracy is to help the majority of people, help the most possible. Capitalism does not do this, and for you to think that it does is an excellent example of the propaganda you are served daily on American news stations. We in America live well now, this no one is disputing. But continue on the path we are on, and we'll privatize SS, resulting in a higher percentage of the elderly in poverty, and we may even see minimum wage abolished. We, as a people, have not only given ourselves to the richest people, by letting them control what we see, and who leads us, but have also subjected the less fortunate majority of the world to their relentless greed and thirst for profit. I, for one, care about the mass poverty in the larger part of the world, and am willling to fight against the system that causes these injustices. Capitalism is meant to be a system of choice, where anyone can rise, but this is only true in the rich global north, and here only partially, as we are obviously not equal at birth, so we therefore don't all have an equal chance of getting rich. But, in most of the world, poor families, largely as a result of this system you so admire, have no chance of avoiding their unhappy circumstances. I am not, contrary to your belief, trying to take away your easy living, rather I am trying to give this living to the rest of the world. If you so oppose helping the people of this world escape the chains of capitalism, so be it, but I wish to help them.

How and why would I still complain? I'm pretty sure the only ones complaining in socialism would be the formerly sickening rich execs of capitalism, as they would see their salary lower slightly. But the majority would see their lives improve, as their salaries would raise. I am, however, impressed that you seemingly know everything about me! So tell me, what do you know about me that even I do not! How will it give more power to the working class? Well, this isn't hard, let's just think here. The majority of a population in any country in the world is its workers. If we democratize the economy, who will benefit most? The majority. Ah, now we see. That wasn't so hard was it? Your conclusion that I will continue to bitch, however, is entirely wrong. It seems to me that you, and the other supporters of the system that helps the minority, will be the ones bitching!
 
Top Bottom