what year will liberals stop being afraid of conservatives???

slightofjeff wrote:

I think most of us realize that the economy is cyclical, and has very little to do with the man in the Oval Office. But if it did ... people tend to forget that we were headed toward a recession at the tail end of the Clinton administration which (remarkably) didn't hit full bore until like seven years later -- and this despite the economic disaster that was 9/11.

If we're going to do the "were you better off eight years ago" thing ... the answer for everyone in MY standard middle class family would be no. We're better off now. Every single one of us.

But I do know this: We are all hanging on to our stimulus checks, just in case Barack decides we're all "The Rich" and asks for it back

Maybe Texas is doing well...who's in the Oval Office again...

But over in CA things are not that great.

I will throw in our relationships with other nations were better with Clinton. I think he could have had a real Coalition of the willing after 9/11. Not just UK and a bunch of small countries that contributed next to nothing in the war efforts.

my2hands wrote:

have you missed the last 8 years?

or the 12 under reagan/bush?


nobody is scared, they/we just realize these fuckers are running our country down the shitter

The eight under Reagan were the most prosperous of my lifetime, including the so-called golden years of the Clinton admin.

I'd put Reagan on the short list of Greatest American presidents. At any rate, it's grossly unfair to lump him in with the Bushes.

slightofjeff wrote:

I would say local economies are more the product of local governments. Cali has been a democratic state for so long (Yes, I know Arnie is a Repub ... barely). Look at the states and cities hardest hit economically (Michigan, D.C., etc). Almost all of them have been voting Democrat for nearly a century.

Basically, poor people have been voting Democrat for 50 years ... and they're still poor.

You would think that CA elects Democrats but we have only had Grey Davis as a Democratic Gov in the last 20 years. I was surprised by that myself actually.

And to top it off he didn't even get to finish his term because he was blamed for the energy crisis which really had nothing to do with him. The Recall election that led to Arnie was SOOOOOOOO shady that Karl Rove must have been involved somehow.

I just know that everything was better from food prices, strength of the dollar, gas prices, job market, housing market was better under Clinton and he should get some credit for that.

You can't blame Bush for everything that is wrong in the U.S right now but I can blame him for not offering any solutions.

The breaking point for me was a couple of months ago when he didn't even know the avg gas prices were over $4 a gallon. How can you be that out of touch with the country you supposedly run!

dmitry wrote:

The game of choosing sides and comparing economies during presidencies completely overlooks what the Fed was doing. The Fed is like the root, and the rest of the idiot politicians are like retarded gardeners.

bump + 1 million devalued dollars

Where'd this guy come from?

I like him already.

SPOT ON.

Slam dunk.

GOAAAAAL!

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

It's much better to be just a spender like Republicans. Raise the deficit until it gets to a breaking point and then have the Democrats get it lowered through increased taxes on the rich.

Anyone who thinks Democrats raise the taxes on the poor and middle class are wrong.

i didn't say that. I just said the dems tax and spend...I'm not happy with either parties economic policy. Give the people their money and make the govt operate within confines.

2012, because the world will end.

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

It's much better to be just a spender like Republicans. Raise the deficit until it gets to a breaking point and then have the Democrats get it lowered through increased taxes on the rich.

Eh, the republicans do suck too in this regard. But I don't know which is better or worse.

Anyone who thinks Democrats raise the taxes on the poor and middle class are wrong.

I suppose it depends on how you define "middle class." I know my parents -- who are both teachers, not doctors or lawyers or CEOs -- had to pay a lot more in taxes (percentage wise) under Dollar Bill than they have under GW. You'd be surprised. If you make more than 40K a year, the Democrats consider you "rich" and want to give your money to someone else.

Not a big fan of that.

Here's another thing about "taxing the rich" -- they ALREADY pay more in taxes, both in raw dollars and percentage, than anybody on Earth. How much more would you like to tax them? At what point does it take away the incentive to work hard, innovate, invent something -- the traditional manners in which people have gotten rich? At what point do we stop penalizing people for being successful, and rewarding people for being unsuccessful?

I guess it starts in Little League. "Everybody's a winner! Here's a ribbon! Yay!"