Welcome to TigerFan.com! Log in or Sign up to interact with the LSU community.

Dems to take America in a "New Direction"

Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by SabanFan, Jan 17, 2007.

  1. CParso

    CParso Veteran Member

    I have to agree with you here. To say that they are down is purposely ignoring why they were so high.

    Clinton posting budget suprluses is a terrible, terrible thing & should not be commended. It contributed to the economic downturn.

    Maybe in some markets, but overall there is no real estate bubble - atleast not one that is going to burst.

    By the way, I love Hovnanian (HOV), a home builder, stock as a 5 to 10 year investment...

    haha, not ended, but won't be in the press perhaps.

    I don't know if the Dems will get it under control, but Bush certainly didn't.
     
  2. Sourdoughman

    Sourdoughman TigerFan of LSU and the Tigerman

    Since you brought it up here goes!
    First of all it isn't a Clinton thing I have a problem with its the Democrats.
    We've only had one Democrat as president in recent years.
    I could start on Carter but I think even the Democrats agree what a train
    wreck he was and still is.
    He and Clinton go to other countries and apologize for American Foreign policy.

    I would attack the Democrat Congress and Pelosi but it is futile.
    They are fighting among themselves anway.
    I laugh at the conservatives and republicans who vote against republicans for democrats.
    They have only hurt themselves, higher taxes, fairness doctrine.
    Like I've said before moderates aren't in power, leftists are.
    Party trumps person for these reasons.

    agreed
    Clinton didn't respond to terrorism by attacking Al Quada.
    He chose to treat it as a judicial situation which is why we've paid a high price kinda like ignoring WWII from the start and then entering!
    Timing is everything, Clinton decreased the military and was lucky to
    have the computer and internet revolutions to help the economy.

     
  3. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Well, you are going to have to explain this one to me.
     
  4. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Clinton did indeed attack Al Qaida. He tried to kill bin Ladin twice with cruise missile attacks in Afghanistan and Sudan after the embassy bombings. Conversely Bush did nothing after the USS Cole Bombing. Clinton also foiled the planned Millenium bombings.

    Wrong. Congress reduced the military after the fall of the Soviet Union from its high Cold War levels. The reduction began under George Bush 41, continued under Clinton, and continued under Bush 43. I've explained this to you before. Look it up if you don't believe me.
     
  5. Sourdoughman

    Sourdoughman TigerFan of LSU and the Tigerman

    I miss spoke.
    What I meant to say is that he (democrat before Bush) used more force
    in Bosnia, a non-US interest action versus Somolia, Afghanistana and Sudan which had US interests at stake.
    And some wonder why democrats have bad rap at defending country.
    Lets see, Clinton, Carter and Johnson equal disasters when it comes to
    defending the country.
    Pretty hard to argue with that!
    Hows that?

    A Democrat Congress at that, same difference if you ask me.
    It was a mistake to downsize the military, we will pay the price if
    we get involved or attacked by Iran, Russia or China!

    If the Republican Congress is to blame for continuing the downsizing efforts
    then I also hold them responsible.
     
  6. CParso

    CParso Veteran Member

    National debt is a good thing as long as it is held in check. Imagine our society without debt & loans. We would never have moved off the family farm. Being able to borrow money has allowed us to live beyond our means & greatly increased the advancements of society.

    Why should we have a national surplus? What purpose does it have? Absolutely none. A national suprlus means that the people & businesses are being too heavily taxed. Taxes that are too high ultimately lead to less economic activity.
     
  7. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Do you seriously think our National Debt is in check? Almost nine trillion dollars and increasing at 1.5 billion a day?

    National Debt Clock


    You confuse a surplus budget with the US National Debt. The budget is an annual affair, the national debt is all that we owe. Surplus budgets are the only way to pay down the national debt, as we did during the Clinton years. Continuing to run huge annual deficits only makes the national debt worse.

    We cannot continue to spend more than we earn without paying a big price somewhere. This is basic.
     
  8. LSUsupaFan

    LSUsupaFan Founding Member

    Living beyond our means is not positive. It weakens our buying power and devalues our currency. The debt is being financed by potential enemies. China is our largest creditor. There is no way to spin that as a positive.

    I agree here usually, but the surpluses under Clinton were allowing us to pay down our astronomical debt. This raised the value of the dollar, and a stronger dollar can do more to stimulate economic growth than lowering taxes.
     
  9. CParso

    CParso Veteran Member

    No, I do not think it is in check & have never said as much.

    You're right, I did confuse the two.
     
  10. CParso

    CParso Veteran Member

    Living beyond our means absolutely is positive - so long as it is done responsibly. Inflation is a natural part of a growing economy. It is not inherintly a bad thing, it is only bad when it is too high.

    Why should we care that China is our largest creditor?
     

Share This Page