I dont know man. I'm not saying it did not help, but here is what I saw where I live and you are not that far from me, shit maybe 20 miles across the water. What I saw in my town was before 9/11 I could have bought a house on my 65K year salary. After 9/11 I had to move 20 miles away as I could not afford a 2 bedroom house that was going for 350k. Interest rates where low but not at the 5 and 6% rates we saw down the line. After 9/11 my town 1 hour outside NYC saw a major influx of people leaving NYC because they were scared. Having only a 20 minute commute by boat to hit downtown they started to think. It took them 20 mins anyway by subway, bus or taxi to enter their place of work so why not move to a "safer area". People who were paying 3 and 4 k per month to live in a shoebox in NYC found out "WOW I can pay 2k and have 3, 4 bedrooms with a backyard. Raise my kids in good schools in a place where they can stay out after dark with no worries. Live 5 minutes from the beach I go to anyway on the weekends. Hey how much is that guy asking for his house? 200k? No problem call it sold." Now the people in my town freak out they did not have to hassle on the home price and word gets around threw the agents. They start recommending people put their houses up for more money, which they do. Houses reach 300K 400k 500k 600k in 6 months. My moms 5 bedroom which was bought in 75 for 35k is now worth 480k. She put it on the market last year and was offered asking price in 1 weekend. She decided she could not sell the house so passed. It's going to be interesting to see the outcome of this in 20 or 30 years as most of the people I know were taking interest only loans just to stay in the town they grew up in. My friend who does mortgages told me it was 60% of his business. Refi's being 20% and the rest were taking traditional mortgages. Those loans even tho they save you money in the short term are going to kill them in 20 or 30 years. If the interest rates go up they are going to have one hell of a time dropping those homes and paying off the loan. That's what is going to come from what Clintion did. We are going to see this country worse off then it was as bankrupsy courts are going to be flooded. Thats why they just changed that law last year. They know the bubble is going to pop. Then what do you have? You have a shit load of banks who have property they can't unload or get the loan back on and they start asking the government for help. Which means what? Taxes balloon to the point where I would not be surpised to see a 50% income tax just to fix this nightmare. I don't know if it was Clinton's trade agreement with China that did it. I like to think it was this http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/...4208_db013.htm
Oh yeah and a little bit of the 9/11 :)

I noticed that you didn't mention one good thing that Dubya has done :)

Clinton
- Created 26 Million jobs - Dubya brags about less then 15% to 20% of that and most of those are in the low paying service industry
- Decreased the number in poverty more then any other - Dubya has increased it
- Cut the size of government by almost 200,000 people - Dubya has increased the size of government more then any other (yet he still calls the dems the party of big government)
- Clinton cut the deficit more then any other - Dubya has increased it more then any other (yet the dems are called the party of big spending)
- Gave tax cuts to over 15,000,000 of the America's poorest workers (yet the dems are still called the party of tax & spend)
- Created the family and medical leave act so that parents could actually spend a few weeks with newborns
- Produced the lowest crime rate in 40 years
- Hire 100,000 police officers
- Cut gun access to violent criminals while adding a bunch of rifles to the protected list for hunters

There's no point in getting angry. We may disagree on if Iraq was still a threat or not. So far no evidence has been shown since the invasion that they were a threat to the USA in any way. Even the administration (after the election) admitted that Sadaam did not have communications with any known terrorist groups and that no weapons of mass destruction were found. These are facts stated by the administration themselves.

If you can point to some evidence then please do. If you can't, why get angry?

I know we can talk about Sadaam using the gas that we sold him but we gave it to him to use against Iran. It's shelf life had expired.

We can also bring up the old stories of the mass graves. No inspection of those graves has occurred. They've been sealed for years now. They were not brought up during Sadaam's war trial as evidence. I think if they were real that inspectors would have seen them and they would be part of the trial. Don't you?

I have a lot of respect you. We simply disagree on whether Sadaam was still a threat or not.

You asked me Clinton did and I listed it for you. You ignored my question about Dubya and I've noticed that most of his supporters do the same thing. Why is that?

One good thing he has done. I as you might know am military. An he gave me and everyone else a much needed raise. BTW Im not angry at all. I love debates even i lose them most of the time. Dam now you have me editing. I did not ignore you at all, You never posted a question to me. Maybe I did not see it as I was writing my long winded blah blah. I posted this not 2 or 3 minutes after i saw this post. My email did not go off with anything you posted towards me.

A decade ago people were emotional about politics. Today they're down right angry. Great leaders join people together. Bad leaders turn people against one another to maintain control.

Dubya's America is about hate and passing the buck. He's already stated that he will NOT get us out of Iraq, which he promised would not be a long war. He has already stated that he will NOT fix the deficit.

One thing I find funny is how weak people are. Most of all Americans. And yeah I'm one. After 9/11 everyone was "KICK TOWEL HEAD ASS! NOW!" but the fact is they want a 1, 2 punch. People in this country think that because you are told our military is the strongest and best trained in the world we should be able to kick ass in 1 day. 3 years later here we are crying about 3000 soliders who did there job. It's not wonder anyone above the age of 70 hates the younger generation. No balls for bloodshed but yet thats exactly what this country was founded on. 1 soldier dies and people all over the place start crying bring the troops home. Such bullshit. Most of the soliders I know want to go back. So now what? If they go back 2 3 or 4 times and then die it's Bushes fault? Please, how about the guy who pointed the rifle at them or the one who planted the IED. This administration is no differant then any other. They all pass the buck man. That's why they got where they are. An dude this is not a long war. A long war in the governments eyes is 10 years, if the American people have not figured that out after the ones we have been in over the last 80 years then like I said in another post. Fantisy land.

Holy shit that's a lot of reading I'm not going to do right now. But...

Let's NOT compare Clinton to Bush. Pleeeeease. Clinton did not KILL the US economy and many Americans with a war. Bush is now and will continue to do so. Some call Clinton a pussy for not going to war? That is insane. He was actually liked by MANY european people. You think Bush is? America is hated more now since Bush took over than they ever were and that's sad.

I am Canadian and proud of it but I also have a love for America but Bush is an idiot, plain and simple.

Many of the problems in the world right now started long before GWB took office. Granted he hasn't done a great job, but people do seem to turn a blind eye to the fact that many of the things that are coming to fruition now were seeds planted decades ago.

The U.S. foreign policy has basically been flawed since Harry Truman was in office. I can show how the seeds sown in each administration basically sprouted 99% of the problems we're having now.

The main problem is we've broken the golden rule of military engagement and the U.S. should have only involved itself in world politics when the issue directly effected the U.S.

The tension in the middle east existed long before Bush, the tension in the Korean pennisula was there long before Bush, al qaeda was there long before Bush, Iran was being a piss-ant little country long before Bush, and has people forgotten the gas shortages of the 70's?

I'm not saying that Bush has done a great job of it and he's made huge mistakes, but people are taking a big glass of delusion juice if they think these problems wouldn't have happened regardless of who was in office right now. They're even more deluded if they think a change in administration would do all that much to better our current situation.

Our foreign policy should return to our old way of isolationism (not talking about economic isolation though) but our military should only be used for what directly effects America and let the rest of the world deal with these problems for a bit.

Ramster, Oh I'm not even going to go at it with you. Your like a lawer here. You always get the last word and I have to say very educated word at that. lol

PS god these posts are so fast Im going to have to start quoting

Not really a comparison, but you can't really say Clinton did all that great of a job at least in the foreign policy realm. You say European leaders liked America, that's nice, but how exactly did that benefit us?

Did it stop the embassy bombings in Africa? A lot of people died and it's probably when the "war on terror" should have started. I'm sure that there was a good deal of racism mixed in that though as the media didn't really show the gravity of that attack because most of the people killed were African workers.

Did it stop the USS Cole from being attacked?

Did anything happen in regards to Saddam during that time? Yes, he was causing trouble at the time if people remember back.

N. Korea was more or less quietly breaking the agreements they signed during that time as well.

Now, do I blame Clinton? No, he's just another step in what we're currently in. So is Bush ver. 1.0, Regan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, LBJ, JFK, etc, etc...each president has failed in the arena of foreign policy and therefore has failed the American populace.

also a note on the economy

everyone knows when America is at war the economy booms

take away the war and the housing boom and throw in the national debt and what have you got
soup and bread lines :-)


Clinton had a great economy and balanced the budget

we will soon refer to that as the good ol times

the USS Cole was not a terrorist attack

a terrorist attack is an attack on innocent civilians according to bush

the USS Cole was/is a military target

When I see logic like that, that's when I can say bush is an idoit. He needs to keep his mouth shut. But as far as running this country he is no worse then anyone else. Hell the first president had slaves. Let start bashing him now lol.

Bush can't pronounce the word nuclear...I'm not going to use his definition of terrorism.

Clinton said, ""If, as it now appears, this was an act of terrorism, it was a despicable and cowardly act. We will find out who was responsible and hold them accountable""

Clinton is so savvy with words that he accurately used the definition of sexual intercourse and argue that blowjobs don't count. So, I'm going to go with his definition of terrorism on this one.

Even when I read them to myself I felt safe and secure in our country, but another part of me knew it was a lie.

If blowjobs dont count then can't the FSC use that in court against 2257?

Actually he is worse than most. I am not big on politics but from what I understand Bush has put the US in huge debt and he is running that debt up daily. Bush has killed the US dollar compared to the rest of the world and I'm sure that's gotta hurt imports and exports, hense hurting the economy.

Clinton surely had issues as does every president but they did not do what Bush is doing to the deficit, dollar and long term budget of the US.

On that note I'm going golfing for the day. hehehe ;)

In the short term it HELPS imports, which is why he did it. But in the long term it leads to galloping inflation and (eventually) a recession or even a depression.

This is one case where George W. is not actually stupid. At the moment it makes things look good in the economy, but it a few years time the shit will hit the fan. So people will look back and say "He must have been a good president because while he was in office we had a good economy, but after he left and another president took over we had galloping inflation ($10 loaf of bread anyone?) and finally went into another depression."

This is the one reason your 2 term max is not a good idea. George W. knows he cannot stand again, so to look good in history he has to make his term look better that the next. Over here, our prime minister knows that there is a risk that he will be re-elected every time (he is now on his 3rd or 4th term) so cannot afford to do the same shit George W. is doing to you guys.

Bush did not kill the US $$. The EU is killing the US $$. That's the fact. There will be roughly 30 countries in the EU by 2007 and that's how many it takes to weeken the US dollar. Foreign investors over the last 5 years have pumped more money in with the EU then the US. Reason being the countries that have and are entering the EU over the next few years have great deals at bargin basement prices. Would you like to own a 10 floor apartment building in the center of a city for 200k, hold on to it till the country is in the EU and you now own a 2 million dollar apartment building. No governemt purposly kills it' own curency I think GW is smart enough to figure that out. It's world economys that kill them.

Oh I so wish the EEC had that much power. But you are wrong. And it would be a stupid thing for the EU to do. The EU (and the Euro) was originally founded to help combat America's Economic dominance. The idea was for member countries to be able to sell more to America and other non-European countries. The weak has the OPPOSITE effect. It makes it hard to sell to the US because it means European goods are more expensive in the US (would you pay $10 for something made in Europe when you can buy an American version for $6?). It also makes it somewhat harder to sell to other countries, because they can buy the same thing from the US cheaper.

So no, I am afraid the EU is not responsible for the wear dollar, if they could change anything they would make it stronger.

Every western country spends a lot of time and money 'killing' their own currency. Bush is just doing what everyone does. It is just that he has gone too far. The system is this:

Very strong Currency - Recession Today.
Slightly weak Currency - Economic Stability.
Very weak Currency - Economic Stability, but Recession in a few years time.

Bush should be aiming for the middle one, but he is aiming for the bottom one. It makes him look good today, and even better in the future when the shit hits someone else's fan.

I'm sure your right on this Tommy Mexico just used the same tactic with their presidential election by arresting former President Luis Echeverria and some of his PRI cronies on the charges of Genocide two days before the elections, to remind voters that they had just gone through 71 years of corruption under the PRI party and it's looking like PRI still managed to grab the majority of seats in the senate to once again keep the presidents hands tied.

On a side note Mexico estimated that there are 10,000,000 million Mexicans in the United States that were eligible to vote via mail and they were counting on them to vote logically and clean the leftists and PRI out of the government, only 41,000 bothered to register. The right guy won by a narrow margin we allmost had a clone of Venezuela's president as our next door neighbor.

That's why I keep saying that we will have a difficult time around 2008 to 2010. He planned this when he took office and immediately removed pay as you go government. The huge deficit always leads to a weak currency. No debating that. Other factors may have some effects as well but the deficit is the biggest factor.

I'll say it again.

In 2008 the republicans don't want to win the Presidency because the next President doesn't have a chance of fixing the mess. The plan is to fuck things up as much as possible, blame the next President for it and then run brother Bush. That's when the Tom Delay's and Daddy's CIA friends will remove the power of the supreme court and rewrite the constitution.

2000, 7% of all tax dollar went to pay interest on loans taken when Dubya's daddy was in the administration. Today it's 15%. By the time someone gets control over it again it may be 20% to 25%.

Also our debt is currently about 30% of GDP. That will be 50% by the time it's curbed.

We're fucked but as long as there's hate the admin stays in power.

Have you ever noticed that if something good happens, it's because of Bush. If something bad happens, it's because Bush had to deal with Clinton's screw ups.

I know it's all politicians but I would love to hear a President say, "I screwed up and I entirely take the blame".

Didn't he kind of do that with Katrina?

You guys keep talking like Bush is actually doing a presidents job.

The evidence is against it.

All he does is exercise and give good old boy speeches. He intentionally does not read the information prepared for the president, so that he can claim plausible deniability if his speeches are questioned.

This has been covered in the media a number of times, most recently in the PBS frontline special about Cheney's hugely expanded role, as a vice president, in planning the war in iraq.

And in Susskinds book "The One Percent Doctrine".

Cheney and Rove are the real president.