PDA

View Full Version : Will Clinton help share blame????



eg8r
10-08-2003, 02:55 PM
Since some of the CCBers here feel that Clinton should be recognized as the reason our country went though such prosperous times during his presidency...I am sure they are also willing to accept the fact then, that he was also reason for the fall of the dot com industry. Is this fair... If Clinton can take credit for the good economy during his term, should he not be forced to take credit for the bust during the same term?

Now, since we are all in agreement and Clinton is at fault for the dot com bust, will he take credit for at least having a part in about $11 billion in tax loss in Ca? Here is an article (http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1008/p03s01-uspo.html) about the uphill climb for Arnold. The following quote was taken from this article... [ QUOTE ]
Since California's tax system relies heavily on sources of personal income that fluctuate wildly - such as capital gains and stock options - state leaders often fund social programs based on erroneous estimates of incoming revenue. Such was the case leading to California's recent years of budget deficits, including an $11 billion shortfall in tax revenue that happened between 2001 and 2002, the year after Silicon Valley's high-tech, dotcom industry went bust. Unemployment, a nagging issue for the state, has also hurt incoming revenue.

"California has yet to find a way to swallow the money they lost in personal income tax that year," says Claire Cohen, an analyst at Fitch Ratings, a bond rating service. When the income dried up, legislators were stuck with the conundrum of which programs to cut amid pressure to raise taxes.

<hr /></blockquote>

C'mon Q, Sid, cheese and whoever believes Clinton was economically a great president, what do you think? Is Clinton is responsible for 11 bil of Ca deficit? If you say no, why not?

eg8r

cheesemouse
10-08-2003, 09:27 PM
[ QUOTE ]
If Clinton can take credit for the good economy during his term, should he not be forced to take credit for the bust during the same term? <hr /></blockquote>

hey, I bit on that one but only if you make Bush responsible for the national debt &amp; economic woes right here right now...LOL...Now I know you are desparate and all ready looking for ways to cover poor Arnolds butt when he gets thrown into the grinder.

Qtec
10-08-2003, 10:03 PM
is GW to blame?

Q

eg8r
10-09-2003, 06:18 AM
I always have blamed W for the debt. He is a big government big spender and I have said that is what I do not like about him. I am not desperate at all. You are so quick to tell everyone that Clinton was the reason for his economy, so is he not the reason for the bust?

eg8r

eg8r
10-09-2003, 06:21 AM
Hey Q, is your reply void of answer because you agree but do not want to say it. If not, then why even bother to post if you have no answer.

eg8r

cheesemouse
10-09-2003, 08:24 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> I always have blamed W for the debt. He is a big government big spender and I have said that is what I do not like about him. I am not desperate at all. You are so quick to tell everyone that Clinton was the reason for his economy, so is he not the reason for the bust?

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="red"> What is it again you like about this guy??? </font color> I don't give any president credit for the economy they sit on but rather for the sake of argument and to help further a reasonable debate try to avoid the cop-out of blaming the last guy for the 'now' guys situation...if Clinton did anything to help the ecomony it was to recognize that it was a hotrod and all he had to do was have some good spotters out front of him so he could avoid the potholes while he joyously carreened down the road. Bush on the other hand jumped into the hotrod and immediately started to ride the clutch and grind the gears, he is not enjoying the ride and neither are we.

eg8r
10-09-2003, 10:28 AM
[ QUOTE ]
What is it again you like about this guy??? <hr /></blockquote> There is plenty, but one of the big issues is the tax cut. He is an honest man and has strong morals. He is a Christian man. He understands that defending the country might cost some money but it is worth it. His personal life is not caught up in so much controversy that it affects his ability to run the country. He does not give away intelligence to China. He does not use the White House as a motel for anyone with a checkbook and willing to vote for him. He does not have any past history in which he has raped women.

I could go on for hours. There are definintely comparisons being made with him and the former White House tenant. This was done to show you ideals that I like in a man in comparison to what we have already had.

[ QUOTE ]
to help further a reasonable debate try to avoid the cop-out of blaming the last guy for the 'now' guys situation... <hr /></blockquote> So, are you saying Californias deficit is Arnold's fault???? That is what this thread is about isn't it. Arnold has his hands full now, and I just don't think he will be able to move much through.

eg8r

cheesemouse
10-09-2003, 11:29 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
What is it again you like about this guy??? <hr /></blockquote> There is plenty, but one of the big issues is the tax cut. He is an honest man and has strong morals. He is a Christian man. He understands that defending the country might cost some money but it is worth it. His personal life is not caught up in so much controversy that it affects his ability to run the country. He does not give away intelligence to China. He does not use the White House as a motel for anyone with a checkbook and willing to vote for him. He does not have any past history in which he has raped women. <font color="red"> You could be discribing Jimmy Carter... /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif </font color>

I could go on for hours. There are definintely comparisons being made with him and the former White House tenant. This was done to show you ideals that I like in a man in comparison to what we have already had.

&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
to help further a reasonable debate try to avoid the cop-out of blaming the last guy for the 'now' guys situation... <hr /></blockquote> So, are you saying Californias deficit is Arnold's fault???? <font color="red"> No, and I actually feel kind of sorry for the guy and wish him the best of luck because that place is a mess and I don't think the powers that be in the democratic party are real happy about one rich republican floating the boat on the recall; they want some blood </font color> That is what this thread is about isn't it. Arnold has his hands full now, and I just don't think he will be able to move much through.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

Qtec
10-10-2003, 02:40 AM
You seem to think tax cuts are the wonder pill that will solve all problems.
GW is just a puppet. Why do think the Reps have dumb Presidential candidates? Reagan, GW, coincidence!!
GW came to the Whitehouse to spend money.He does what he is told.
The Cold war is won. Do we spend less on defense? No.

Scince the war on terrorism , the US and GB have actually sold more weapons. Does that make sense?

There are aprox 3 weapons[ handgun, aka 47 etc] for every person on earth. Are we safer?

I think it strange that DR was against extra troops for Iraq.
Would it be that that cash would be spent on soldiers rather than some new weapon that you dont need.

I saw a US soldier who was mad because his buudy had been shot. He was mad because he would have surrvived if he had had a kevlar vest. There didnt have enough to go round!!!
How about tanks going into battle and they have to stick reflective plastic sheets [ its true ]on the tanks so that they could be recognized by their own side.

Ok, I,m way off subject but the US has plenty of cash to make life better for all Americans. The Reps want to cut taxes and spend the taxes left over to make themselves richer.Do not underestimate the power of the Defense and Energy industries.
I ask you this, is peace in the interests of the Defense [ arms ] industry?
Do Laws that protect the enviroment help or hinder oil companies ?

GW and whats really the issue in America.






[ QUOTE ]
. Why wasn't Bush brought to justice for the Harken perjuries before he was elected president?

The sad fact of the matter is that these crimes occurred under the watch of his father, Bush 41, and his father's political appointees failed to prosecute these cases properly.

5. What do people mean exactly when they talk about 'the rule of law?' Why should the president be hampered by laws?

Under the rule of law, the people make laws that applies equally to everyone--the government included. The rule then governs the people.

In order for the Rule to govern, the administration must have less power than the people and no single part of the administration can have the power to effect change by itself. This is also called the balance of powers, or checks and balances.

Legislative changes after 911 have upset the constitutional balance of powers, and centralized great power within the office of the president, who has the ability to effect change by himself. The rule no longer governs us. A person governs us. This rule-of-a-person is called despotism.

6. What has Bush done to the constitution of the united states? How has his administration changed the rules set forth in the constitution?

The Patriot Act and it's looming successor, deny American citizens their civil rights to due process in the name of protecting us from terror.

Patriot creates a broadly defined new crime of domestic terrorism. We oppose this definition of terrorism because it is unnecessary and could be used to prosecute dissidents.

Under federal law there are already three definitions of terrorism - international terrorism, terrorism transcending national borders and federal terrorism. The September 11th attacks violated all three of these laws.

Under Section 802 of the USA PATRIOT Act, a person commits the crime of domestic terrorism if within the U.S. they engage in activity that involves acts dangerous to human life that violate the laws of the United States or any State and appear to be intended: (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping.

The Administration has not adequately explained why this new crime should be created or why the definitions in existing anti-terrorism laws are insufficient. This over-broad terrorism definition would sweep in people who engage in acts of political protest if those acts were dangerous to human life. People associated with organizations such as Operation Rescue and the Environmental Liberation Front, and the World Trade Organization protesters, have engaged in activities that could subject them to prosecution as terrorists.

Under the USA PATRIOT Act, once the government decides that conduct is "domestic terrorism," law enforcement agents have the authority to charge anyone who provides assistance to that person, even if the assistance is an act as minor as providing lodging. They would have the authority to wiretap the home of anyone who is providing assistance. Also, the government could prosecute the person who provided their home under a new crime of "harboring" a terrorist (Section 803) or for "providing material support" to "terrorists."

We do not oppose the criminal prosecution of people who commit acts of civil disobedience if those acts result in property damage or place people in danger. That type of behavior is already illegal and perpetrators of these crimes can be prosecuted and subjected to serious penalties. However, such crimes often are not "terrorism." The legislative response to terrorism should not turn ordinary citizens into terrorists <hr /></blockquote>

Qtec
10-10-2003, 02:44 AM
What kind of guy would identify a CIA agent, possibly putting into danger other agents, contacts in other countries,for political spite?

This is big but again it disapears behind the Rep smokescreen.
Q

Sid_Vicious
10-10-2003, 05:18 AM
" I always have blamed W for the debt. He is a big government big spender and I have said that is what I do not like about him. I am not desperate at all. You are so quick to tell everyone that Clinton was the reason for his economy, so is he not the reason for the bust?

eg8r"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ed Ed Ed, desperate is your middle name. Bill C. will go down in history(His-sto-reeee)with the BEST economy EVER under his belt and GW the WORST! It is a fact friend, and that's all.

I am happy for you that you love your corporate job, but I myself looked forward to some security of retirement, and ol' George has about guaranteed me that I am looking at far less down my road,,,maybe even nothing.

For as you call it "a big government big spender", the man ended his tenure in complete opposite from what GW will his, case closed, get over it Will ya...sid

eg8r
10-10-2003, 06:01 AM
[ QUOTE ]
but I myself looked forward to some security of retirement, and ol' George has about guaranteed me that I am looking at far less down my road,,,maybe even nothing.
<hr /></blockquote>

Really you need to get over it. I am sorry you are finding out now that you did not plan well for your retirement, but that is not GW's fault.

eg8r

eg8r
10-10-2003, 06:07 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Ok, I,m way off subject but <hr /></blockquote>Yes you are. You make no attempt at discussing the subject matter so I am sure you understand me not responding...

[ QUOTE ]
Why wasn't Bush brought to justice for the Harken perjuries before he was elected president?
<hr /></blockquote> LOL, isn't this hilarious. Since you once again do not give the source of your quote (along with your 3 guns/person stat) I am going to guess this was quoted from either A. Liberal media, or B. Some group that hates W. Am I right????
Going on what I am guessing here, this being liberally biased, don't you find it hypocritical that they would be suggesting perjury is a bad thing when they fought to protect Clinton from perjury for 8 years.

eg8r

eg8r
10-10-2003, 06:09 AM
[ QUOTE ]
What kind of guy would identify a CIA agent <hr /></blockquote> Do you think you can handle the answer...I am sure this will all die down, but I bet it was her husband. That fool does not like not being in the spotlight. He does not like Bush, I am bet he did it.

I have been wrong before.

Oh yeah, what does this have to do with the original subject matter?????????????????????????????

eg8r

Qtec
10-10-2003, 09:18 AM
Sorry, I meant to say 3 bullets.

I checked and the official estimate is round about 700,000,000 small arms in circulation.

The biggest exporters are the US and the UK.

Who cares about Clinton.Its GW who is power and the time is now.

When a Dem becomes President, all the Reps do is try and get him out, any way they can.

When a Rep becomes President, all they do is ask for unity, for the sake of the country.

Also, how is it possible for an ex CIA director to even run for office. He has the 'dirty' on everyone.

It is now the state of affairs that the Govt only has to say 'Terrorist'and that gives them the right to do anything they want.

The Constitution is IMO what makes America special. It has been refined slowly over the centuries. [ You yourself often use it to justify your right to a weapon.]
GW thinks he knows better. He is re-writing to dictionary[ Terrorism ] and now he is doing the same thing with peoples rights .

Peace protestors are now being arrested under these terrorism laws. Where will it end?

Q

eg8r
10-10-2003, 09:43 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, I meant to say 3 bullets.
<hr /></blockquote> No problem, bulletts are mistaken as guns all the time. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Who cares about Clinton.Its GW who is power and the time is now. <hr /></blockquote> Then I guess you are just trying to use up bandwidth. If you have no intention of discussing the subject matter originally presented, then don't waste my time with a reply.

eg8r

Qtec
10-11-2003, 01:20 AM
It is already a fact that it came from the WH. Its only a matter of from whom.

Q

Qtec
10-15-2003, 08:41 AM
Whole article.

http://news4florida.tripod.com/index.financial.html

[ QUOTE ]
This whole grab-bag of issues surrounding pension plans is going to blow up Wall Street in ways which people barely understand at this point in time. When the truth comes out, it's going to make the Enron and Worldcom scandals look like the antics of 4th graders hopped up on Hershey bars.

Companies guilty of the practice of estimating pension plan gains runs the gamut from financials to manufacturers to services. Looking for the worst offenders, start with the 30 companies which comprise the Dow Jones Industrials. Alcoa, IBM, GE, JP Morgan, 3M, Johnson and Johnson, Eastman Kodak, Du Pont, et. al., all have enormous pension plans and most of them - probably all of them - overestimated returns from 2000-2002. One can likely assume that these companies will also only revise their estimates slightly for 2003, awaiting the new rules from the FASB.

What this is going to do to the market is potentially devastating. Take, for instance, the Dow Jones Industrial Average, whose component companies carry an average price/earnings ratio of about 21, at current prices. Investors considering a possible investment in any of these companies might be well advised to simply double the p/e, based on the potential that these companies may have to restate earnings two or three years back and will be pressured to make estimates going forward.

The problem doesn't stop there, however, it has a cyclical effect and feeds upon itself. As more and more companies 'fess up, stocks will trade lower and lower, and the pension funds, heavily invested in stocks, will further deteriorate. Some companies will default on their plans, some will lower their payouts to retirees, others will simply go belly up completely due to the enormous amount of underfunding and the pressure to pay into the plans becomes simply unbearable.

When this begins to happen, the stock markets will go into a tailspin of unprecedented proportions as huge, supposedly stable companies variously restate earnings, cut benefits and declare bankruptcy.

By now, you're probably thinking that this is a doom and gloom scenario and that I'm being alarmist, but I assure you that this problem is real, it is looming and it will be devastating. Forewarned, as they say, is forearmed
<hr /></blockquote>

Some things are out of your control.

What happens if your pension Comp goes bust or hasnt got enough cash to pay the agreed amount?

It doesnt have to be sid,s fault.

Q

eg8r
10-15-2003, 09:14 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Some things are out of your control.

What happens if your pension Comp goes bust or hasnt got enough cash to pay the agreed amount?

It doesnt have to be sid,s fault. <hr /></blockquote> BS. Who tells you to rely 100% on your pension for retirement. LOL There are a million other options that should be utilized in addition to a pension.

eg8r

Qtec
10-15-2003, 09:32 AM
Are you talking about yourself or most people?

You just cannot comprehend the fact that not everyone is in your situation.
Most people live on a budget with very little room for manoeuvre.

Q

eg8r
10-15-2003, 10:29 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Are you talking about yourself or most people?

You just cannot comprehend the fact that not everyone is in your situation.
Most people live on a budget with very little room for manoeuvre. <hr /></blockquote> I am talking about everyone. What situation do you think I am in. Are you referring to the fact that I work anywhere from 60 to 80 hours a week? The fact that I do not waste extra money on cigs and beer? Cmon, what situation am I in. I work hard and pay my bills just like everyone else.

eg8r

cheesemouse
10-15-2003, 12:01 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
Are you talking about yourself or most people?

You just cannot comprehend the fact that not everyone is in your situation.
Most people live on a budget with very little room for manoeuvre. <hr /></blockquote> I am talking about everyone. What situation do you think I am in. Are you referring to the fact that I work anywhere from 60 to 80 hours a week? The fact that I do not waste extra money on cigs and beer? Cmon, what situation am I in. I work hard and pay my bills just like everyone else.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>


eg8r,

Why don't you help us poor ignanant folks out and tell us how you have your future finances set up to avoid all these pitfalls. Help your ccb buddies avoid finiancial ruin. It sounds like you have the answer...come on spill it....

eg8r
10-15-2003, 01:16 PM
I doubt I have all the answers, but I can guarantee you I don't have it all in one place.

eg8r

nhp
10-18-2003, 07:03 AM
When Bush invaded Iraq he basically gave the middle finger to the rest of our allies who objected to his decision. After coming up short on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, US troops, and money, he is now asking other countries for help. In the meanwhile, at least one or two US soldiers are dying on a daily basis, enduring a living hell, with home nowhere in sight. In my opinion, I don't think our country has a very good leader right now.

cheesemouse
10-18-2003, 08:40 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nhp:</font><hr> When Bush invaded Iraq he basically gave the middle finger to the rest of our allies who objected to his decision. After coming up short on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, US troops, and money, he is now asking other countries for help. In the meanwhile, at least one or two US soldiers are dying on a daily basis, enduring a living hell, with home nowhere in sight. In my opinion, I don't think our country has a very good leader right now. <hr /></blockquote>

nhp,

Your observation is very astute, sir. I could not find
one wasted word...we may need to fight terrorists but we do not have to troop our conventional army all over the world to do it. It is not like terrorism just started, it has and will be present in this world forever. We do not need Bushes 100 year war.