posted on June 17, 2001 11:06:04 AM new
Several of you have pointed our excellent articles and events that should make a Conservative wonder what's what. Again, several of you have debated professionally and pointedly.
In order for me to learn from you and your thinking, because as you may know, I am a Conservative (been called a Moderate on this board, but I prefer a Common-Sense Republican) I'd like for you to answer two questions.
First, few can argue the economic prosperity seen during the Clinton years. Can you assign a general percentage that you feel it was due to the Republican Congress? Is it none; simply none of this prosperity was due to the Conservatives, and Clinton should bask in the sun for all of it? Maybe 15%, half? Who knows? Reason I ask is I saw someone claim that the recent reduction at the gas pump was due to the Democrats taking over the Senate.
posted on June 17, 2001 12:01:51 PM new
Deuce-I would have considered myself what you are 'common sense Republican' but from these boards, I've learned so much from the many posters here.
So I would have to say that *maybe* just *maybe* the GOP are due 1% to none.
I think that it was mostly President Clinton.
Damn good President we'll ever see in our lifetime.
And have a great Fathers Day, (not sure your a father or not but have a great one )
posted on June 17, 2001 12:41:57 PM new
I wonder how prosperous we'd have been able to become had Clinton been able to carry through his prorams without the roadblocks persistently placed by the republican congress. The man laid it all out during his first campaign in solid understandable terms. He proceeded to prove his ideas throughout his administration in spite of being hounded and confronted with resistance at every turn.
I remember listening to him on late night CNN interviews. My initial reaction was to think that this young governor of a poor state could not know what he's talking about, but as I listened I realized that he really did know, and that he had a depth of understanding of the mechanics of our economy like no politician I'd ever heard. I thought, 'well,..yeah, but he'll never be able to do it. Yet he did.
He allowed the market to run with the ball, helping where he could. He meant it when he made the now famous statement that "It's about the economy, stupid". And it is.
There were ups and downs. There always are. But the trend stayed up until early in 2000 when the market started to realize that the end may be near. You could watch the rise and fall almost daily during the last campaign. Bush scores--market declines. Gore scores--market picks up. The republican nigglers always say 'this started before bush was elected--how can it be his fault?'.
They're right, it did start before the election. It started with the possibility that bush MIGHT be elected. That was a rocky market, and it's possible to see the declines after each debate, after the initial count, back up when it seemed that Gore had a chance, and down again when his chance dissolved. And here we are.
I don't think that Al Gore is the genius that Bill Clinton is and I don't know if he could have maintained growth, but if he could have just kept following Clinton's scheme this catastrophe would not be upon us now.
As to CA--I'm in California, in case you didn't know that, Deuce, and it wasn't the government's fault per se. The voters of CA were sold a bill of goods. The plan as presented promised lower prices for everyone by allowing for the free trading of energy across the national market. It was to be an equalizer. No one, perhaps not even then Governor Wilson knew that the plan was designed by certain energy czar types to create these [supposed] shortages and thereby increase prices.
I won't have time for this, but thought you ought to have at least the beginnings of an answer. (you asked so nice ) Hopefully KatyD will happen along as she's got a deeper grasp of the ins and outs of this energy fiasco than I have.
posted on June 17, 2001 01:41:57 PM new
I do not have a complete grasp of the ins and outs what happened politically with the economy in the 1990's, nor do I live in California. It is my understanding that Bill Clinton, a Rhodes Scholar, BTW, got his biggest break in his astute choice of who to hire to run the economic plans that he tried to put forth. I also clearly recall the New Republican Congress that took over the Congress and jumped up and stomped on the legislative brakes as hard as they could for six years, causing practically nothing of value to squeak through! Moreover, through that odious and un-American and totally unproductive behavior, I distinctly recall when the Republican Doomsayers railed at the Democrats about how to "DO NOT include us in any credit for this one" or some such wording that completely absolved the Republicans of any credit for the economic recovery. In light of that insolent remark and their disastrous way of handling the necessary business of our government, I'm inclined not to give them any credit whatsoever, whether any of them deserved it or not.
KRS is right - we've seen here in the RT links and discussions alike that point to a conspiracy by a company Enron and its VERY close ties to Georgey-boy and his ilk. I think that many Americans are aware of this too and are, understandably, quite angry.
At first I actually thought that Dubya was right with his "Hands Off" approach to helping the poor customers of California's energy needs. After all, what could possibly spur the state and the nation to find alternative means of creating energy than making the ready supply hideously and impossibly expensive? That was indeed the "Hand of Capitalism" in the working!
But, as quickly as this notion was in my mind, analysts in the media had to go destroy it. Our twelve-year-old President did not see fit to fund alternative energy resources, and the idea of a $50,000 homeowner tax credit that could be spread out over five years to allow every home in America to convert to Solar Electricity and Solar Water Heating was brushed away as "unthinkable". It is NOT a "fair market" and by the President making sure that no alternatives will become available, or at least helped along, whatever part Governor Davis may or may not have played certainly pales by this outright betrayal of the American people.
So, what am I to think? Should I give positive credit to Republicans where they adamantly refused to be associated with any credit whatsoever - their own words, to the economic recovery? Should I feel that the Governor of California has a hand in what Enron is doing, compared to what president Bush and the Republican politicians are refusing to help with? You tell me.
P.S. if it writes like a Moderate keeps insisting that it is the exception to the rule for conservatives, and isn't slapping people around about how "morally superior" that it is, then it likely isn't a conservative Republican.
posted on June 17, 2001 02:15:39 PM new...by the President making sure that no alternatives will become available, or at least helped along, whatever part Governor Davis may or may not have played certainly pales by this outright betrayal of the American people.
Would Californians be at this point if SoCalEd & PG&E had not gone under? While he (Gov Davis) could not have foreseen the aftermath of not raising rates, could he have not stepped in at some point prior to insolvency? From afar, I see no accountability for the Gov's inactions, only mud-slinging at DC for the outcome.
..outright betrayal of the people. So what is the answer? DC stepping in and re-regulating power in CA?
v/r
Deuce
spelling
[ edited by deuce on Jun 17, 2001 02:16 PM ]
posted on June 17, 2001 02:32:02 PM new
I believe the government should step in and do something about the rates and outages in CA, and for all the states. And I don't mean that President we have.... sheeeeesh, dyslexic, pitiful..... a real embarrasement to the U.S. We need more government help....in just about everything.
And those Republicans, they think they are so morally superior..... eeeeeek. Its stomach turning.
If there was only some way we could bring back Clinton, or impeach what we have and put the rightful winner of the Presidential race there-President Gore. He might be a Rhodes Scholar too?
posted on June 17, 2001 03:16:56 PM new
I don't have anymore information than what I have already posted. Certainly, there have been enough recent threads here in the RT to cover the California issues, the energy funding fiasco in the federal budget, and numerous threads and URLs all pointing to Enron. I haven't had the time to read up on it yet. I'm to busy being horrified by our Republican State legislature's constant attempts to Privatize the Bonnevillle Administration and open the energy Markets, just like in California. With all of the publicity about how California was taken, our Republicans are having a harder time going behind our backs (the voters still remember Republican promises of lower costs for shutting down Trojan Nuclear Plant).
Is it still forbidden for a driver to pump their own gas in Ore? I remember the funny looks I got when I pulled up and tried to pump gas myself. Employee ran over screaming "NO! NO!" I had absolutely no idea what was going on at the time.
posted on June 17, 2001 05:50:08 PM new
Its still illegal for a vehicle driver to pump gas down there. I was down that way, passing thru, and it was still the same.
Some older guy had a small store with pumps, he has to do both the store and the gas, so its like; shut the store down while pumping gas.
That law probably had a lot of small business owners irate.
Here, I just stick my card in at the pump, pump my own gas, and go.
I don't even think we have a full service gas station anymore here.
)
