Defending the Truth

They deserve the same credit as they deserved - 5 years ago - when you and all the other extremist liberals were WAILING about how bad the economy was, and how it was ALL BUSH'S FAULT!


You really can't have it both ways.

You THINK you can, but any of us with any intelligence are NOT buying it.

Is it just a general trade-mark of non-thinking conservatives that they lump people together as "you and all the other extremist liberals"?

Five years ago??? You mean during the year of September 11th?
Several months after Bush took over from Clinton?

No. I wasn't saying what you claim I was saying.
Quit making up stupid lies.


If you had any intelligence, you would realize that you haven't a clue what I was actually saying five years ago.
What I said earlier about the president's minimal impact upon the economy is accurate.

I even EXPLICITLY STATED that Clinton's boom shouldn't be credited to him.
George Bush Sr's bust shouldn't be credited to him.

If you had the "any" of the "intelligence" that you claim, you wouldn't have started talking out your arse claiming I said things I never did.

But don't let me stop you from proceeding to be a fool.
What else did I supposedly say?

(Is this where I insist that you show me saying what you claim five years earlier, and start calling you a liar if you don't? )

Clinton left in a recession. Bush took over during Clinton's recession then an attack that devastated the economy. Are you going to sit there and tell me the tax cuts did not help the economy when we have the lowest unemployment in years, the debt is cut in half 3 years earlier than expected, and all this while fighting a very expensive war?

You're nucking futs.

The economy was golden during Clinton's office years.
I suppose if you're giving credit for something, you're going to ignore that then, eh?

"debt is cut in half"?
Learn to use the right word. The DEFICIT, not the DEBT, is cut.
And the deficit is cut from what it was EXPECTED to be. Saying Bush cut HIS OWN DEFICIT is like saying that an alcoholic is getting half as drunk. You're comparing HIS bad deficit to HIS not as bad deficit.

The economy cycles ON ITS OWN. Whether or not you are capable of comprehending that is irrelevant.
I don't think you get that...

I believe the tax cuts did work. When Bush entered into office taking on Clinton's recession, and then 9/11, of course the economy is going to go downhill (as we saw). I am very surprised we were not in a depression after all of that.

Clinton had a good economy because of the dot-com bubble. The Internet changed everything and stocks rose significantly. But of course that would not last forever, which is why we started to go into a recession shortly after Clinton left office. It is common sense that the economy was doing well because of the dot-com bubble. If it wasn't for the dot-com bubble, I guarantee that we would not have much to say about the economy during Clinton's time in office.

If...If Bush's tax cuts did not work, it is common sense to say that we would still be in a recession, or depression right now. Because the economy has picked up significantly over the years, it is common sense to say that it was because of the tax cuts.

War is good for the economy.
Kicking the butt of the #@$@ organization that attacked America is good for morale, and good for the economy.

There is more going on here than just Bush's tax cuts...

I think the next couple of years will be interesting. People want the war to wrap up, and the defense industry $$$ will slow down. THAT is when the real test will be if Bush's "tax cuts" are doing something...

Sure, I do believe you are right that War does help the economy...but I also believe that the unemployment numbers have been dropping because of the tax cuts, not the War.

Tax cuts (A) in my opinion does two things;
1) Improves the economy (B)
2) Reduces unemployment (C)

People have more money to spend thanks to tax cuts. The increase in sales boosts the economy. But that's not it...to meet the demands of the consumers (now that they have more money) businesses need to hire more people (reducing unemployment)

If A, then B and C.
Did we recieve tax cuts?? Yes
Is the economy doing well?? Yes
Has unemployment fallen?? Yes

Does that make sense?? That's the way I see it...

Yup, and guess who was in office 5 years ago...

Anyway, the Clinton economic plan lowered unemployment to a rate lowest in 30 years (from the time of the Clinton administration, about 37 from now), with a surplus and in a peacetime economy (which Bush destroyed and put us in the largest deficit in history, predicting a $516 billion surplus once he got into office but made a $413 billion deficit).



Even though Bush may celebrate cutting the deficit in half; its still the fourth largest in US history (the first four are shared by this same President, while #5 goes to H. W.).

Even though unemployment may be down, as too is the median household income of American workers (while the rich's go up). Millions more are now uninsured and the minimum wage is just barely over the poverty line. And these wage and salary (because decreasing) aren't covering inflation.

As unemployment goes down, poverty rates go shooting up. Enough families sank below the poverty line under this administration to make the United States with the worst child poverty rate and worst life expectancy of all of the world's industrialized countries.

So in summary, short term economic gain does not mean long term. And we're in for a real tough ride; especially with an 8.5 trillion dollar debt.

Are you a liberal? Yes.
Are you a Bush-hater? Yes.

1+1=2

Though I did not hear YOU saying it 5 years ago, I'm pretty certain (about 99.99%) that 5 years ago you - and all the other pussy liberals - were screaming about how bad the economy was, and that it was all Bush's fault.

You're all VERY predictable.

You will never - ever - convince a liberal that tax cuts are good under any circumstances.

You will never - ever - convince a liberal that tax cuts do anything but make the rich richer.

It will NOT happen. Ever.