posted on February 11, 2001 01:07:45 AM newWould you rather that I didn't so that you can spend your time here acting like an idiot fawning over other people's cats?
krs
Your comments directed to sgtmike are insulting and violate the AW Community Guidelines. I am issuing an informal warning and remind you to address the issue at hand, not the individual.
If you wish to appeal this moderation decision, you are welcome to email [email protected].
posted on February 11, 2001 01:13:39 AM new
Regarding your statement:
"When you become vehemently hostile towards ME because of what I've posted from news…"
You will have to show me where this occurred, I am at a loss.
As for you question regarding my statement,
"Clinton's political PR debacle."
Sorry, I am again at a loss.
If you were to (simply) post an article or supply a link and say nothing, your claim that that is all you are doing would be somewhat valid.
However, when you introduce comments that indicate you support or do not support something, or indicate that the information is being introduced to support your belief or opinion, you are inviting comments of agreement or disagreement.
Such as:
" Well now! Bush wants to chop Police funding….to finance his precious tax cut." and
"Has big business, the blue chips, threatened his life, or what? No matter what, dumbya has got to pay back his benefactors, I guess.
posted on February 11, 2001 01:19:20 AM new
Should I wait for more edits?
I don't see anything in that budget that would take much time to ponder. It's a fairly simple line item budget request that dumbya can redpencil as he sees fit. If he doesn't know what those programs are it's somewhat surprising considering his tenure as a governor of the second largest state, but why not just turn it to someone better qualified to assess it?
"I don't see anything in that budget that would take much time to ponder. It's a fairly simple line item budget request that dumbya can redpencil as he sees fit...
posted on February 11, 2001 09:23:32 AM new
Wow. Moderations being issued because of failure to correctly parse a pretty simple sentence. I guess I'll stick to subject-verb-object from now on.
(A relief to many, I know).
-gaffan-
(Well done on the reversal. It's refreshing to see a moderator here admit to making a mistake and correct it promptly)
[ edited by gaffan on Feb 11, 2001 04:45 PM ]
posted on February 11, 2001 09:27:14 AM new
Inevitably, there is a next day acknowledgement of targeting the justice dept. and local agencies to cut one billion. Doesn't sound like a move to trim fat and waste, does it? Even Ashcroft is uncomfortable, it seems.
But then, to his credit, perhaps his interest lies in curtailing the widespread abuses by police agencies around the country, part of which is listed here:
posted on February 11, 2001 10:08:36 AM new
mybiddness - On Marc Rich....yes, isn't that interesting. I've been listening to the hearings....*very* interesting. What a pair he and Clinton are - www.msnbc.com/news/528755.asp Something stinks there.
Looks like the US has also lost the $48,000,000.00 Rich owes the US in taxes. But, hey what's $48 million dollars.
And then there's the furniture, given as gifts to the White House, that the Clinton's were having shipped out almost a year ago. But, in fairness, they are (now that it came to light) returning some of it.
Then there's the little fact about the almost $200,000.00 in gifts the Clinton's recently received.....but hey, once again since it's been brought to light, they are paying approx. $114,000.00 of it back.
But because "Most Americans approve of the job he's (President Bush) done so far..." (Newsweek poll) and the fact that he's trying to find (review) areas where the taxpayers can possibly be saved some money.......who cares about all the money we're losing because of Clinton.
[ edited by Linda_K on Feb 11, 2001 10:11 AM ]
posted on February 11, 2001 10:26:46 AM new
Rich is off topic, Linda_k, but you might also point out that bush's approval rating is lower than was clinton's for first poll in office, and that bush has achieved the HIGHEST disappoval rating in the history of such polls which were begun, I think, in 1932.
posted on February 11, 2001 10:38:02 AM new
According to Gallup, Bush's approval rating (57%) is comparabale to Clinton's first approval rating (58%). His DISapproval rating is the highest since the polls began. It is 25%, compared to Clinton's 20%.
posted on February 11, 2001 10:54:32 AM new
However, he TIES in approval rating with Clinton. Since the poll has an error of + or - 3% it is too close to say
"you might also point out that bush's approval rating is lower than was clinton's for first poll in office"
What the disapproval rating tells me is that many many people disapproved of Clinton and more disapprove of Bush -- compared to the other presidents they are both disliked by a large portion of the population.
posted on February 11, 2001 11:16:26 AM new
ACCORDING TO GALLUP polls taken at the time, John F. Kennedy had the highest approval rating early on (72 percent), followed by Dwight D. Eisenhower (68 percent), Jimmy Carter (66 percent), George Bush (63 percent), Richard M. Nixon (60 percent), and Ronald Reagan (55 percent). Only Bill Clinton scored below Bush, with a ranking of 51 percent eight years ago.
It seems that Bush is on a major quest to ensure that our money is being spent responsibly. Accountability of monies being spent should be our expectation as tax payers - instead we seem to view it as a shocking event. Maybe that is a legitimate reaction considering the last 8 years of unaccountability in so many areas of the presidency.
posted on February 11, 2001 11:17:41 AM new
krs - Well, I thought I was staying on topic by bringing up the that fact that I don't believe by President Bush reviewing the budget, any part of it, was tied into the topic.
Anyway this is what I was referring to: ACCORDING TO GALLUP polls taken at the time, John F. Kennedy had the highest approval rating early on (72 percent), followed by Dwight D. Eisenhower (68 percent), Jimmy Carter (66 percent), George Bush (63 percent), Richard M. Nixon (60 percent), and Ronald Reagan (55 percent). Only Bill Clinton scored below Bush, with a ranking of 51 percent eight years ago
(from a Newsweek Poll) Need the URL?
I'll compromise and say it's close, but there does seem to be some disagreement to what you've stated.
posted on February 11, 2001 11:38:36 AM new
Are you having a race, linda_k? You cite newsweek which cites gallup, and use George Sr. for comparison?
How about Only George Bush Jr. and Bill Clinton scored lower than George Sr.
And for all this cutting accolade for dumbya, there isn't much left to cut. Clinton set out to slash the size of the federal monstrosity in 1992 and succeeded rather well.
The federal budget expenditres are but 2/5 of what they were under Reagan/Bush....Sr.
posted on February 11, 2001 11:41:59 AM new
Bush is using a commonly used budget control tactic; forcing those involved that might be negatively affected to clean their own houses and assist in identifying areas that (can) be reduced or completely eliminated.
Clinton's 1993 tax increase is the largest tax increase in the history of the United States. He used the monies to create and subsidize programs for political purposes only. Many of the programs were purposely designed to be "short-lived," lasting just long enough to falsely justify the increase and buy him PR tickets. After the programs faded away, the taxing amounts did not.
Additionally, he designed or supported additional bills that would further (surreptitiously) increase our taxes.
Economists are now beginning to point at the 1993 tax increase to be contributory for the economy slowdown that is now occurring, and the cause for the massive layoffs, position terminations, and business closings.
Does anyone actually believe that Bush could be considered competent if he let stand the mess he inherited and push for his programs, piling the additional costs on top of what exists?
If you (personally) desire to allocate some of (your) budgeted money for new reasons or shift the amount allocated, do you add the cost on top of your budget, or do you decrease or eliminate the money allocated for eating out, movies, hobbies, etc? If you want to add expenditures without changing your present budget, you will have to earn more money, e.g., increase taxes.
Following are links to weigh against other linking.
"During debate on President Clinton's 1993 tax increase, a number of prominent economists, such as Professor Martin Feldstein of Harvard, predicted that the legislation would raise little, if any, additional revenue. People would adjust their behavior, they said, so as to minimize the tax bite, by working fewer hours, taking longer vacations, investing less and making greater use of tax shelters. Now the IRS has published the first data on tax collections in 1993 and they confirm these economists' predictions."
"And for all this cutting accolade for dumbya, there isn't much left to cut. Clinton set out to slash the size of the federal monstrosity in 1992 and succeeded rather well. The federal budget expenditres are but 2/5 of what they were under Reagan/Bush....Sr."
I just moved to Missouri so I could say, "What? Show me!"
posted on February 11, 2001 12:00:52 PM new
Good or bad, most of these cuts came from the military. Now we are howling for GW to increase expenditures in the military, as if he were the one who made the cuts in the first place.
posted on February 11, 2001 12:01:07 PM new
Clinton's 1993 tax increase is the largest tax increase in the history of the United States. He used the monies to create and subsidize programs for political purposes only. Many of the programs were purposely designed to be "short-lived," lasting just long enough to falsely justify the increase and buy him PR tickets. After the programs faded away, the taxing amounts did not.
Thats an excellent point. Because of the huge Reagan taxcuts of the 1980's the government HAD to get that money back or eliminate social security, etc. The same thing will happen if Bush's cut is passed. I would sooner pay all our debts first instead of paying more tax in the future.
I still am amazed how republicans defend bush. Every republican I personally know admits he is an idiot, but they say they need to defend their party. I dont think bush can do anything since he wasnt elected by the people. Hopefully the demos as rumored will filibuster this crazy taxcut until he is gonzo.
If you want a terrific Ronald Reagan page with his REAL legacy then visit:
posted on February 11, 2001 12:06:11 PM new
Why certainly, if I may be permitted a site no more colored than the reagan.com/hotmike site used as final authority on everything from apple pie to importation of rubber goods...
Under President Clinton's leadership, almost 6 million new jobs were created in the first two years of his Administration
-- an average of 250,000 new jobs every month.
In 1994, the economy had the lowest combination of unemployment and inflation in 25 years.
As part of the 1993 Economic Plan, President Clinton cut taxes on 15 million low-income families and made tax cuts
available to 90 percent of small businesses, while raising taxes on just 1.2 percent of the wealthiest taxpayers.
President Clinton signed into law the largest deficit reduction plan in history, [b]resulting in over $600 billion in deficit
reduction[/b]. The deficit is going down for 3 years in a row for the first time since Harry Truman was president.
More later, perhaps, but I've got to get my match ammo ready for tomorrow.
posted on February 11, 2001 12:35:36 PM newClinton's administration was not repsonsible for increase in jobs. That false claim, a farce, was exposed several years ago
As you said: Show me.
But before you do that, read through the entire list of accomplishments contained in the URL I just provided.
And be careful in what you post. The site posted and quotes within it agree with those im the sites I've posted.
krs, you (personally) stated that Clinton created millions of jobs but you did not provide your usual linking to information that would support your claim. Therefore, you need to first substantiate your claim.
As you look for the supportive info, keep the term, "Trickle down economics" in mind as as search guide.
posted on February 11, 2001 12:57:08 PM new
krs - The information I stated was taken from the URL that mybiddness so graciously posted.
And no, I was not in a "race" with her. I am very slow at typing, and was surprised she had posted the same site I took my information from, when I came back to view my last post.
The URL site is MSNBC, and the article (2-10) was about President George W. Bushs first three weeks in office, taken from a Newsweek Gallup Poll. On the same article, they show a rating list of past president's ratings. Those were the %s I shared.
It is still my belief that it refers to President George W. Bush, since that who the article is about, rather than his father.
None-the-less, I will bow to xellil's shared URL and accept it as correct. So close....
posted on February 11, 2001 01:26:22 PM new
You missed: Under President Clinton's leadership, almost 6 million new jobs were created in the first two years of his Administration?
Do I have to bold things? I don't think it adds any weight, but is often used to try to do so.
mybiddness
