Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
You're new to the forum, and seemingly smug....even arrogant....compared to the lack of strength and documentation you presented.
First impressions are important. What is it that "you wanna hit"?
You indicate a personal feeling of anger that the actual "record" of the politician you favor, has not been fully appreciated.
In fact, I do appreciate Reagan's "contribution". He left us with a pathetic legacy and lasting influence that the Clinton presidency was temporarily able to reverse, but one that the Bush administration has set back "on track" again. <b>When will the eighty-five percent of Californians who cannot afford an average priced home, or the 45.8 million with no health insurance coveage, reap the "benefit" of the Bush influenced economy?</b>
"Trickle down" economic policies do not benefit the majority. Officials in the Bush administration seem to agree:
In the fall of 2001, nine months after Bush took office, 32 percent of California households could afford to purchase a median priced house in that state. 43 months later....in may, 2005, half the 2001 household number....just 16 percent could afford to buy the median priced, California house.
Can an economy that fails to bring improvements in wages and benefits and housing affordability to 84 percent of it's participants, an economy that places more households in poverty for four years in a row, be described as a success of the POTUS who presides over it?
<a href="http://www.faqfarm.com/Q/If_a_tree_falls_in_a_forest_and_there_is_no_one_there_to_hear_it_fall_does_it_make_a_noise">If a tree falls in a forest and there is no one there to hear it fall does it make a noise?</a>
Change the wording to "if an economy grows and only the wealthiest get to benefit from it, does a POTUS deserve much credit for the growth? |
As I have observed from this forum documentation is not required to have an opinion. I thank you for pointing that out though. If I have some time to pull up my old election files I will provide the documentation you require.
Smug/arrogant? Not so much more than anyone else, I'm afraid.
First impressions: Who am I trying to impress? Would you think my opinion true to form if I WERE trying to impress you?
I challenge you, then, to a documentation stand off. You havn't provided me with it to support your theory that Clinton fixed anything. (I would suggest that it happen in a seperate thread though-out of respect - or over PM or e-mail)
As to California, and the other states, Individual state economies can not be measured soely against national policies. They have individual laws, codes, legislatures, and regulations. California is a state that has been run by liberal-democrats for years. What does that say to you?
That is an interesting theory. I have a few that refute most liberal-democrat principles. The most important and the basis for many of my opinions is "Economics in One Lesson" By Henry Hazlett
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/051...lance&n=283155
This has the clearest and concise explination of "The Broken Window Theory" which I use as basis for the argument that Govenrment intervention to "fix" economic problems only creates more problems.
I don't think the President himself deserves credit for economic growth or delcine as a whole at all. I think that Presidential policies can take credit for "affecting" the economy one way or another.
Yet is it my beleif that our free market economy is an entity unto itself - influences by many sources -deserving to be seen through the eyes of the public AND private sectors (gasp, yes. corporations. And parnterships. And small businesses).