What are Republicans so "scared" of?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I wouild add to the above reposne the fact that Clinton left behind the largest budget surplus in history. Bush left behind the largest deficit. Democrats have been more fiscally conservative in recent decades. They also support capitalism (despite the riduculous "socialsim" rhetoric comeing from some fear-mongering corners of the Republican party. A recent study by a Johns Hopkins Univ professor demonstrates that even Wall Street grows faster under the Democrats (there is a thread, started by me, a couple of weeks ago ont his forum: http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/30410.page#193535). It is time that the Republicans take a hard look at the economic facts over thepast few decades. If it is fiscal conservatism and growing markets that you want, vote Democratic!

The above bears emphasis. I think people tend to gloss over facts that they disagree with.

A lot of Republicans have been saying the same thing (including my husband). I think it was Bill Bennett on CNN who said on election night that Republicans used to be known for national security and being fiscally conservative, but that Bush basically blew that away and the left the party in a shambles. In order to make the party strong again, they need to get back to that again.

But isn't comparing the two administrations almost like comparing apples & oranges?

I mean the international issues completely changed during the time. Clinton wasn't paying for troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, but Bush is. Clinton didn't have to create and pay for a Homeland Security Dept. and Bush did. The TSA has been much more effective and vigilant. Clinton didn't have to use money for that , but Bush sure did. Although it will never be publicaly disclosed, I am sure surveillance in other countries has heightened so yet another bill to pay for.

So, it just seems like Bush got stuck with a bill (no pun intended) for "inevitable" things.

[Anonymous]

So, it just seems like Bush got stuck with a bill (no pun intended) for "inevitable" things.

We are paying $10+ billion/month for the war in Iraq. I think it is hard to argue that was inevitable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

So, it just seems like Bush got stuck with a bill (no pun intended) for "inevitable" things.

We are paying $10+ billion/month for the war in Iraq. I think it is hard to argue that was inevitable.

To be or not to be in Iraq is another post in itself. But whether you agree or disagree with the $10B Iraqi price tag, it is still a price tag.

[Anonymous]

To be or not to be in Iraq is another post in itself. But whether you agree or disagree with the $10B Iraqi price tag, it is still a price tag.

Obviously it is still a price tag, but you can hardly dismiss it as an "inevitable" expense for which Bush "got stuck with a bill" (direct quote from PP).

[Anonymous]

Where are some of you getting the fact that the bottom 50% of wealth holders will pay ZERO income tax?

Thanks.

[Anonymous]

"So, it just seems like Bush got stuck with a bill (no pun intended) for "inevitable" things.

We are paying $10+ billion/month for the war in Iraq. I think it is hard to argue that was inevitable. "

Bush is a social conservative not a fiscal conservative. He went into Iraq because he gave too much power to Cheney who was playing by a soviet era playbook and IMO his belief that God would have wanted him to do it. A fiscal conservative would have been beating down his cabinet and military staff to define what it would cost before they went in, this group was very unconcerned with cost.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

So, it just seems like Bush got stuck with a bill (no pun intended) for "inevitable" things.

No, Bush got stuck reaping what he and his war mongering advisors sowed.

Clinton wasn't "just lucky" I guess. He was actually a competent Chief Exec. Bush and more accurately his puppeteers are not.

And yes Clinton was a seriously flawed jerk for the whole Lewinsky thing, but that's not relevant to his performance on the economy, international relations, and avoiding war while keeping America safe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
We are paying $10+ billion/month for the war in Iraq. I think it is hard to argue that was inevitable. "

Bush is a social conservative not a fiscal conservative. He went into Iraq because he gave too much power to Cheney who was playing by a soviet era playbook and IMO his belief that God would have wanted him to do it. A fiscal conservative would have been beating down his cabinet and military staff to define what it would cost before they went in, this group was very unconcerned with cost.

It was their arrogance because they expected to be in and out of Iraq within a few months due to the superior military technology of the US. Rumsfeld scoffed at the idea that it would even cost $50 -$100 million.

[Anonymous]

The internet bubble formed during the Clinton years which also accounts for the healthy economy he left behind. It wasn't Clinton policies, it was technological advances. I lost half my savings after the internet bubble, gained it back plus a little more, and now I have lost it all again due to the housing market. The President does not control the economy and both parties are to blame for the terrible economy now. After all, greed is bipartisan.

[Anonymous]

"It was their arrogance because they expected to be in and out of Iraq within a few months due to the superior military technology of the US. Rumsfeld scoffed at the idea that it would even cost $50 -$100 million."

Right and a real fiscal conservative (Dem or Republican) would not have accepted that answer from a political appointee. The president has a profound affect on the economy. The deficit affects the economy. Imagine if that money spent on Iraq had been spent on retooling the auto industry plants to build more fuel efficient cars. Perhaps we would not be so dependent on foreign oil, the auto industry would not be collasping, and massive job loss in the midwest would have mitigated. This would have cost a fraction of what they spent in Iraq.

[Anonymous]

The auto industry should have pursued more fuel efficient cars starting twenty years ago. Instead, they built bigger and bigger SUVs. I don't feel sorry for them and I hope to God they receive nothing from the government. It's bad enough that our tax dollars are being used to bailout the banks.

[Anonymous]

I agree. American cars have been sub-standard for years. We tried to buy American; we bought a Windstar in 1995 and less than a year later the sliding door slid right off. We are now confirmed Toyota car buyers. We have a Sienna and a Prius, both of which we love. I'm afraid the American car companies should be left to die the death they deserve.

[Anonymous]

what is scary is people comparing this man to God and calling anyone that did not vote for him a racist. I think that is very scary.

[Anonymous]

It appears that the greatest fear of many is already being realized-- Obama is not walking his talk--he's already chosen Emanuel--who as a congressman supported the war! Adamantly! Fought tooth and nail with other Dems. who voted against it! Great Start ! It really was all just rhetoric, as many of us presumed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The auto industry should have pursued more fuel efficient cars starting twenty years ago. Instead, they built bigger and bigger SUVs. I don't feel sorry for them and I hope to God they receive nothing from the government. It's bad enough that our tax dollars are being used to bailout the banks.

Even 1.5 years ago, the auto industry was fighting Congress tooth and nail about instituting 35 mph fuel efficiency in their cars 10 years from now! It's survival of the fittest and they are not fit and refuse to be fit. If an unhealthy person continues to lead an unhealthy lifestyle and refuses to modify the way they live, then let them do a quick exit to their grave.