LOL!
Whenever MurryMom asks Bush supporters to list the things Bush has DONE, all she receives in response is some vague reference to tax cuts. When MurryMom points out that Dumbya's tax cuts have reversed the Clinton-Gore budget surpluses, along with higher interest rates, no employment growth, and a stagnant DJIA, the Bushies generally retreat into their standard Repukie rants about Monica and oral sex.
Appointing a stellar cabinet, including Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell, and others, without regards to race or sex; reversing some terrible EO's foisted on the American people at the last minute by a malicious administration; rallying the nation and the world to combat terrorism; freeing the people of Afghanistan, particularly the women, from the brutality of the Taliban regime; passing an education bill which requires accountability by the schhols; initiating a new relationship with Russia based on mutual respect; dumping the Kyoto protocol; pushing forward with the missile defense shield despite the whining of the left and the EU; promoting a culture of life as much as is legally possible; restoring dignity, honor, and pride in the presidency by his stellar conduct and that of his gracious wife; promoted volunteerism and charity; restored the Peace Corps to Peru and began a new, positive relationship with its people; redecorated the White House in good taste; AND demonstrated to the world that he can use a chain saw.
Please file this list away for referral. Thank you.
the Bushies generally retreat into their standard Repukie rants about Monica and oral sex
I don't know about you, but we've really forgotten about Monica for the most part -- that is until the classless one opens his big mouth. The war and all.
Bush has waged a MUCH better job on the war against terrorists ... unlike Clinton. Clinton only released missiles as cover-up for bad news (release of news showing how he clearly was a Liar ... ("I did not have sex with that woman ..." that is a lie) ... and a Perjurer and someone who attempted to obstruct justice (felonies!!).
But MurrayMom is a brain-dead liberal (probably redundant) ... who can never admit a Conservative is doing good, and will NEVER NEVER NEVER be willing to admit a liberal like Clinton is an immoral cheat who disgraced the country. But then I suspect MurrayMom is jealous of the opportunities Monica L. had.
Mike
Hi, MurryMom; where the heck have you been for the last several months?
To answer your rhetoric, this McCainiac has to admit that Bush will go down in history as the president who successfully attacked terrorism...Clinton will go down as the president who shot his wad on a blue dress!
Ignore this DU troll folks. He/She/It comes here periodically, tosses off a few verbatim quotes from DU or the DNC website. Tries to get folks here upset and to say silly things and, regrettably, some of us do.
IGNORE IGNORE IGNORE
I think the much more persuasive argument for you would have been to actually do what the author states is never done, list Clinton's accomplishments. Instead you write a diatribe about "Bushies" and their tactics. By taking up the author's challenge with drivel rather than proof, you let him win.
Maybe next time, huh?
When Murrymom points out these things she is obviously oblivious to the fact that surpluses mean we've been overcharged for government and that rebates and tax cuts give the money back to the people who have overpaid. Therefore, the excess hoarding of funds - which she thinks is a good thing - ends.
Families and private entities should have surpluses. Governments should not.
I have challenged you on countless opportunities to have a head-to-head debate about who was the author of this recession.
It was Bill Clinton. I was in Brazil during the '00 election period and I clearly remember Lou Dobbs saying on CNN that there was a recession on the horizon and that it will be tagged on Bill.
You've never ever challenged me on that. I think it is time you did.
That's something that ALL Clintonites are proud of.
Let's talk about that, too.
I vote for the latter..
Among his accomplishments, Bush is fighting the war that was forced upon him by the inaction(s) and weakness of resolve of the US under the Clinton acministration. Kobar Towers, African Embassies, 1993 WTC, the USS Cole and Clintons lack of decisive leathal response to these events all gave the signal to bin Laden and Co. - "these guys can be had"!
And I use the term "Clinton administration" loosely. Clinton's cabinet and staff were rank amatuers - college kids playing at running the most powerful country in the world.
Bush has surrounded himself with some of the best and most experienced domestic and foreign policy people in the nation. These folks aren't "wonks", they have actually accomplished difficult tasks in the field as opposed to the Clinton bunch that learned "policy" in the liberal classrooms of the ivy league schools. They had no apprenticeship - they were thrown into running the USofA without an ounce of real-world experience. That as much as anything else that Clinton did was the reason for his disasterous 8 years.
Comprende.....I doubt it.
MM the topic of this thread is Clinton and what did he do..... Not President Bush.
Now is your chance.... you are center stage with the opportunity to list as many as you can of the "Accomplishments of Bill" for all of us to see. After eight years plus a year out of office now, you should have a lengthly list to share with us....
Pray for GW and the Truth
You conveniently forget the economic picture of the Sinkmeister's first year. Shouldn't be too difficult to live up to these dismal results:
A business cycle upswing was already well underway when the Clinton policy changes were under consideration. The continuation of an already existing expansion only indicates that any policy changes implemented were not damaging enough to end the business cycle, it cannot prove that policy changes had any positive effect on a previously existing expansion. Moreover, the pace of GDP growth slowed from the 3.7 percent annual growth rate set in 1992 (measured 4th quarter to 4th quarter) to 2.2 percent in 1993, 3.5 percent in 1994, and 1.3 percent in 1995. The rate of economic growth did not accelerate relative to its 1992 pace under the 1993 budget policies...
Moreover, there was actually very little partisan disagreement about the direction of the economic effects of the Clinton budget plan in 1993. In 1993 both Democrats and Republicans publicly expressed concerns about the drag the Clinton budget plan would impose on the economy. For example, Democrats on the Joint Economic Committee, including Senators Kennedy, Sarbanes, Dorgan, and Congressmen Obey, Stark, Mfume and Wyden, voiced their concerns in the 1993 JEC Annual Report. According to the Democrat views, the Clinton budget plan "will continue to exert downward pressure on economic activity through the next five years."
Of the $126 billion decline in the deficit between 1992 and 1995, $71 billion is accounted for by a continuation of the business cycle, $21 billion by swings in deposit insurance outlays related to the S&L problem, and $8 billion by spectrum auctions. These three factors account for $100 billion of the $126 billion decline in the deficit. When the effects of these three technical and economic factors are filtered out, the decline in the deficit is a much less impressive $26 billion. This decline in what we will call the adjusted deficit is accounted for by policy changes in one specific category of federal spending.
A review of the 1992-95 budget data shows a dramatic change in the levels of one spending category affected by policy changes -- discretionary defense spending. If this defense spending had remained at its $303 billion level of 1992, the deficit adjusted for major economic and accounting factors would have been virtually unchanged since 1992. Total increases in other federal spending categories would have just about equaled the amount of higher tax revenues between 1992 and 1995. However, discretionary defense spending had been cut $29 billion during this period. This cut in defense spending accounts for 115 percent of the $26 billion reduction in the adjusted deficit.
Outside of the defense category discussed, there has been virtually no net deficit reduction due to policy. The 1993 tax increase merely funded an increase in other federal spending. Moreover, deficits would be higher if President Clinton's proposed "stimulus," or "investment," spending increases had not been stopped by the Republican minority in Congress. To the extent nondefense deficit reduction has been realized, it is due to stopping, not implementing, President Clinton's policies.
...soon after enactment of the Clinton program in August of 1993, the Administration revised its economic growth assumptions downward for 1993 and 1994, and shortly thereafter long term interest rates began rising, not falling. By July of 1994, the yield on a 30 year Treasury bond had risen to 7.6 percent, above the level in the first full month of the Clinton Administration.