The economy is strong, just as or even stronger than when Clinton was in office. The unemployment rate is as low as when Clinton took office the second time around. The liberals just like to cry like a bunch of babies because no one listens.
I see some people don't like my response, I really don't care. But how do you think the debt will go down, by RAISING TAXES, b.s. that is what Carter did in the seventy's and interest rates for a house was 20% or higher, and the unemployment was in the double digits.
The deficit was paid off, only because it happened on Clinton's watch, it was Reagan-anomics that paid the deficit off, and all of the investments into dot.com's and computer technology certainly had a major part in it.
2006-12-27 10:30:49
·
answer #1
·
answered by HAGAR!!! 6
·
1⤊
5⤋
Debt did go down under Clinton, and it has gone through the roof under Bush. If you believe the opposite than you believe a lie.
Clinton was bashed by the right for firing cruise missiles at Bin Laden. He also fully briefed the incoming Bush administration on the threat of Bin Laden, and Bush's failure to read the crucial warnings is well documented.
Kerry's plans were published in a book during his campaign.
Clinton created 5 times as many jobs in his 8 years than Bush. Home values have been falling steadily, yes we have some growth in productivity, but how much is "war profits?"
2006-12-27 10:31:35
·
answer #2
·
answered by vertical732 4
·
2⤊
0⤋
woah, woah, woah. Sure our economy is doing great... but that's only if you like being in debt over 8 trillion dollars. I've never heard that Kerry had a secret plan for Iraq and don't know anyone who believes that. There was always a war on terror, terrorism is simply the act of trying to influence politics through fear or violence. The only reason it was never declared as a "war on terror" is because war is a conflict between two nations. There is no "terror" nation. A war on terrorism is also an oximoron. Clinton balanced the budget, he also set a plan to get us out of debt. We were actually making money before Bush.
2006-12-27 10:34:28
·
answer #3
·
answered by delacroix192 2
·
3⤊
1⤋
Well your last paragraph could qualify as a lie. I quess I could create a few jobs if you gave me 3 1/2 TRILLION dollars (all that we have to repay so they ain't real) and make a millionaire every 2 days off, or 5 1/2 US deaths, off the money earmarked for war! Blood money!
Bush has increased the National debt by more than every president combined since the early 1980's! Clinton came close to a balanced budget, something that Bush has never done!
Quit twisting the truth!
Random, ever hear of Operation Desert Fox where Clinton attacked Iraqi Military targets that during 4 days saw 650 aircraft missions and 325 Tomahawk missles launched. WE didn't lose one man!! And we didn't kill 150,000 civilians!
2006-12-27 10:25:20
·
answer #4
·
answered by cantcu 7
·
3⤊
1⤋
Well, since Clinton left office with a huge surplus in the kitty, that one is true.
I think the war on terrorism under Clinton was pretty well reported and the information that Berger et al collected was passed on the Rice et al and was pretty much ignored.
Kerry needed a secret plan to tie his shoes. This is a new one for me.
The economy seems to be fairly robust. We worry about the huge national debt, something conservatives screamed about 25 years ago but now embrace.
2006-12-27 10:24:27
·
answer #5
·
answered by iwasnotanazipolka 7
·
5⤊
1⤋
probably that the debt went down under Clinton. Even a lot of non liberals believe that's true.
I don't see how anyone can think that Clinton carried on a war on terrorism of any kind, secret or otherwise.
I also don't see how anyone can think Kerry had a secret plan for Iraq. BTW, funny story, I was listening to talk radio today and there was a soldier on, who was in Iraq when Kerry just visited a few weeks ago, and he said that all the soldiers completely shunned him! lol. you sure didn't hear that reported in the main stream media.
I think libs like to claim that the economy is bad, but I can't accept that they really believe that. There is so much evidence to the contrary.
2006-12-27 10:26:42
·
answer #6
·
answered by FrederickS 6
·
0⤊
4⤋
That Bush ever had a plan for Iraq?
That Iraq was a bigger threat to America than Iran or North Korea?
That the strong economy can't survive an increase in the minimum wage or a decent health care plan?
2006-12-27 10:27:39
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
1⤋
That the economy is bad and that the values of homes are going down as there is a glut in the housing market, most are saddled with credit card debt, real wages are stagnant, people with ARMs are going into foreclosure, foreclosures on homes are going up.
But OUR President and COmmander in Chief has a PLAN!
Wait, a NEW PLAN. wait for it.....
2006-12-27 10:22:57
·
answer #8
·
answered by Timothy M 5
·
4⤊
1⤋
Bush has been in charge for 7 years. It indicates how desperate you are to bring up this old stuff. You can't find anything positive to say about him, so lets look back and relive the old smears of the past. They were exciting weren't they! Face reality, friend.
2006-12-27 10:25:38
·
answer #9
·
answered by AmigaJoe 3
·
4⤊
1⤋
umm first of all Clinton was a far better Candidate then President dumb *****(George .W)-which lie do you believe?:Weapons of Mass destruction?Or the smoking gun B.S or that we are winning the war on terror????HMMMM DO you believe that total BULLSH.IT
2006-12-27 10:24:32
·
answer #10
·
answered by Art 4
·
3⤊
0⤋