Rant related to liberals, conservatives, davis & bush

darthdavid · Post by **darthdavid** » 2003-09-15 10:18pm

Some of the conservitave members of this board have taken an interesting veiw point. The presiden't can't cause the nation to have an economic collapse but a governer can. Now correct me if i'm wrong, but aren't presiden't and governer basically federal and state equivalent's? So let the rantage begin.

So it's davis's fault that california's in shambles but it's not bush's fault that the country is? A governer has less power over their sphere of influence both in actaual power and porportionatally, but his fiscal irresponsibility can be blamed for california's proplems, however there's no way that the president's fiscally irresponsible policies can be the cause of our nation's problem's? You people make me sick. Davis has been the democratic mirror of bush. He spent too much, misallocated funds and allowed special interests to bully him. The only difference is the types of programs the overspending went to and the special intrests controlling him. You people make me sick. I may be a liberal but atleast i can see when someone in my own party is an idiot. You republican's often can't. So which is it? Can the executive branch of a state or federal government crash it's economy or can it not. If so then davis ruined the california economy as bush ruined the national economy. If not then neither had a major impact in their respective economies.

*Hunkers behind ceramic flame retardant heat sheild and creates a ring of schorched earth to prevent flames getting a fire started too close to me*

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2003-09-15 10:20pm

I think it's cause California is just a state, but the United States is thousands of times bigger. As a result, everything that might take a certain amount of time to happen in California takes about ten times longer to happen in the US.

Just my two cents.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-09-15 10:29pm

Some of the conservitave members of this board have taken an interesting veiw point. The presiden't can't cause the nation to have an economic collapse but a governer can.

Actually a president can cause economic collapse far more easily. But blaming the current economy all on Bush is a mistake.

1) The economy began it's downslide under Clinton not Bush. Event beyond Bush's control such as September 11th made the situation worse.

2) The fundamental failure of the economy stemmed from Clinton-era policies and the collapse of the Dot.com House of Cards. Neither of which had anything to do with Bush's policy.

Of course Iraq and the tensions resulting from it has slowed any recovery. There's no question that the uncertainty and the sheer cost of it have put a serious damper on the recovery. But recovering we are.

Davis's mismanagement is none's fault save his own. Blaming him entirely for a generalized condition is foolish. But his policies have hurt California and cost them a lot of money.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-09-15 10:30pm

Luckily for me, I have not expressed any opinions on how good David has been as a governor, since I don't know anything about California politics. Therefore, I am not included in DD's charge of hypocrisy

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-09-15 10:43pm

There are too many factors that the President has absolutely no control over to really make him an effective factor in improving the economy. He can pass tax cuts, which always help, and make spending cuts, but that's about it. He sure as hell can pass policy that'll botch it up, though. And war is never good for the economy.

I'm not too fond of Dubya's domestic policy on anything other than tax cuts, but the factors most responsible for the recession (the dotcom bubble bursting, 9/11, the various corporate scandals and the accounting conservatism that has resulted) were things that Bush had absolutely no control over. I realize his spending increases certainly aren't helping the economy, and Iraq certainly didn't help, but I don't think it's fair to pin the state of the economy completely on him.

As for California? In reality, Gray Davis is probably no more responsible for the state of the state's finances than anyone else in the government, but he's gonna take the fall for it (welcome to politics, this is hardly the first time this has happened). I do know I don't like him, though, so I support Arnie.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-09-15 10:58pm

Durran Korr wrote:There are too many factors that the President has absolutely no control over to really make him an effective factor in improving the economy. He can pass tax cuts, which always help, and make spending cuts, but that's about it. He sure as hell can pass policy that'll botch it up, though. And war is never good for the economy.

Actually, tax cuts don't always help. Tax cuts to the middle class and poor generally help; tax cuts to the rich don't.

And President Bush et al. marketed the war as being something good for the economy, so...

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-09-15 11:14pm

Actually, tax cuts don't always help. Tax cuts to the middle class and poor generally help; tax cuts to the rich don't.

Keynesian, aggregate demand obsessed bullshit that flies in the face of common sense, rightfully relegated to the ash heap of history by most economists. Who do you think signs the paychecks of the middle class and the poor, other poor people? It's the rich who have the resources to invest and create jobs. Tax cuts for the poor and middle class may lead to increased consumption, which will only clear out current inventories and will not send signs to investors and businesses to invest in new projects. And increased savings is certainly not a bad thing for the economy either (though compared to disappearing into the federal blackhole, anything is good); savings is linked to the growth of new capital.

And President Bush et al. marketed the war as being something good for the economy, so...

Broken window fallacy on his part.

Alex Moon · Post by **Alex Moon** » 2003-09-15 11:15pm

Iceberg wrote:
Durran Korr wrote:There are too many factors that the President has absolutely no control over to really make him an effective factor in improving the economy. He can pass tax cuts, which always help, and make spending cuts, but that's about it. He sure as hell can pass policy that'll botch it up, though. And war is never good for the economy.
Actually, tax cuts don't always help. Tax cuts to the middle class and poor generally help; tax cuts to the rich don't.

And President Bush et al. marketed the war as being something good for the economy, so...

Evidence for this. I don't remember any arguement from the White House that said that.

Arthur_Tuxedo · Post by **Arthur_Tuxedo** » 2003-09-16 02:10pm

While neither Davis nor Bush caused the economic collapses in their respective domains, they both made it worse. If it weren´t for Davis´ Energy Crisis panic and the fact that he´s a political prostitue for sale to the highest bidder, California would be in better shape. If it weren´t for Bush´s ruinous policy of slashing taxes and bloating the government like nobody´s business (e.g. creating a $140 Billion Ministry of Information err... Department of Homeland Security), our situation would be just a little brighter. Not much brighter, mind you. The dot-bomb and the looming burst of the real estate bubble (which will make what we´ve been through so far look like an afternoon on the swingset) was/will be inevitable corrections to out of control manic optimism and totally beyond the control of any president. Actually, if you want to blame someone, blame Alan Greenspan. His Clinton-era policies were the exact opposite of what they should have been. Conventional macro-econ wisdom says you should contract during a boom and expand during a bust to minimize the effects of recessions. He yielded to pressure from the "new economy" idiots and expanded the the economy during the boom of the 90s, and now our recession is that much worse because of it.

Worlds Spanner · Post by **Worlds Spanner** » 2003-09-16 05:41pm

Arthur_Tuxedo wrote:Actually, if you want to blame someone, blame Alan Greenspan. His Clinton-era policies were the exact opposite of what they should have been. Conventional macro-econ wisdom says you should contract during a boom and expand during a bust to minimize the effects of recessions. He yielded to pressure from the "new economy" idiots and expanded the the economy during the boom of the 90s, and now our recession is that much worse because of it.

This is both correct and gloriously non-partisan, since Greenspan is a Bush/Clinton/Bush appointee. I saw we run him out of office!

Worlds Spanner · Post by **Worlds Spanner** » 2003-09-16 05:41pm

I SAY we run him out of office.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-09-16 06:48pm

Stormbringer wrote:1) The economy began it's downslide under Clinton not Bush. Event beyond Bush's control such as September 11th made the situation worse.

Yes, he couldn't help his campaign financiers fucking their employees up their asses and sending the trust of corporate America down the shitter and then deal those responsible little more than a slap on the wrist, driving said confidence even lower, exacerbating the economic shithole and taking money out of the stock market as the baby boomers who are getting ready to retire suddenly start fearing for their pension plans.

And I guess it was just natural for Bush to go to war on a foreign nation and then promise to rebuild it with hundreds of billions of tax payer dollars, as well.

Sure, it was all Clinton's fault that, almost 2 1/2 years after he left office, the nation's unemployment began reaching record highs. Face it, whether it was Clinton's fault or not, Bush has exacerbated the situation by fucking up the decisions that were in his control.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-09-16 06:50pm

Remember: a president cannot possibly fuck up the economy by himself ... unless he's a Democratic president who's been out of office for years.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-09-16 07:00pm

Yes, he couldn't help his campaign financiers fucking their employees up their asses and sending the trust of corporate America down the shitter and then deal those responsible little more than a slap on the wrist, driving said confidence even lower, exacerbating the economic shithole and taking money out of the stock market as the baby boomers who are getting ready to retire suddenly start fearing for their pension plans.

And what should he have done? Handed Enron and the other cheats a fat stack of cash so they didn't go under? Or should he have had them all rounded up and shot by federal marshalls? Financial crimes take a long time to prosecute and always have. They're hard cases to build and don't usually result in long prison terms. Blaming Bush for that's like getting mad at water for being wet.

As for the Stock Market, it was overblown and surging forward on nothing more than sheer wishful thinking. The dot com surge was just idiots trying to cash in. It was disaster waiting to happen.

And I guess it was just natural for Bush to go to war on a foreign nation and then promise to rebuild it with hundreds of billions of tax payer dollars, as well.

It sure as hell didn't help the economy. Of course he did make dealing with Iraq a campaign point so it's not like no one saw it coming.

Sure, it was all Clinton's fault that, almost 2 1/2 years after he left office, the nation's unemployment began reaching record highs. Face it, whether it was Clinton's fault or not, Bush has exacerbated the situation by fucking up the decisions that were in his control.

It's not all Clinton's fault. But the policies of his terms lead to a lot of the damage and it was on his watch that the crimes were committed. The economy went done and every time it's been picked up something or some one has kicked it to the floor and we've had to start all over again.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-09-16 07:02pm

deal those responsible little more than a slap on the wrist,

Sarbanes-Oxley is hardly a slap on the wrist.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-09-16 07:05pm

Darth Wong wrote:Remember: a president cannot possibly fuck up the economy by himself ... unless he's a Democratic president who's been out of office for years.

Another mindless Clintonite quip.

Of course a president can have an enormous effect on the economy. Both Clinton and Bush have. But the screwups and out and out crimes that brought the recession about ocurred on Clinton's watch. Bush some things that slowed the recovery down but the basic instability was not his fault at all.

Post by **Coyote** » 2003-09-16 09:30pm

Davis also ran California before, whereas Bush inherited the US gov. from Clinton.

Look, I'm sorry if it gives the Clintonites a pucker factor, but the truth is the economy started to tank under Bill Clinton, which is precisely why Al Gore did NOT use the economy in his campaign, remember? After all, I could ask the reverse of the Bush bashers-- how is it Bush is solely responsible if Clinton isn't?

Both presidents wanted stuff done and Congress approved it for whatever reason. A host of advisors, cabinet menmbers, special interest groups, etc assisted in the outcome, from across party lines. Face it, in a democracy, we get exactly the government we deserve.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-09-16 09:36pm

Yes, I can see it now:

"Clinton lied about sex? Start cooking the books, boys!"

Seriously, Storm, that's the lamest excuse EVER.

Keep in mind that not a single one of the so-called "scandals" that Clinton was accused of - other than the mockingly-named "blowjob-gate" - actually stuck to him.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-09-16 09:40pm

Keep in mind that not a single one of the so-called "scandals" that Clinton was accused of - other than the mockingly-named "blowjob-gate" - actually stuck to him.

Pardongate ring a bell?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-09-16 10:27pm

Stormbringer wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:Remember: a president cannot possibly fuck up the economy by himself ... unless he's a Democratic president who's been out of office for years.
Another mindless Clintonite quip.

How is it "mindless", smart-ass? I'm pointing out your knee-jerk Bush defender reactions. When Clinton's in office, everything is his fault. When Clinton's not in office, everything is still his fault. It's pathetic. If you didn't have Clinton to blame for things, you might actually have to face reality one of these days and actually examine the success or failure of Bush's various policy iniatives on their own merits.

It's so fucking typical of you idiot knee-jerk Bush defenders to simply paint anyone who criticizes Bush as a "mindless Clintonite". You can never address any criticism of Bush without some ridiculously facile diversionary tactic to shift the conversation to Clinton.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-09-16 10:40pm

Durran Korr wrote:
Keep in mind that not a single one of the so-called "scandals" that Clinton was accused of - other than the mockingly-named "blowjob-gate" - actually stuck to him.
Pardongate ring a bell?

I can't think of any economic impacts that that would've had.

Stormbringer wrote:And what should he have done? Handed Enron and the other cheats a fat stack of cash so they didn't go under? Or should he have had them all rounded up and shot by federal marshalls? Financial crimes take a long time to prosecute and always have. They're hard cases to build and don't usually result in long prison terms. Blaming Bush for that's like getting mad at water for being wet.

Well, I don't know, but something about the CEO building a $35 million home in Florida while thousands of ready-to-retire workers lose their jobs and start working at McDonald's tells me that something should have been done.

As for the Stock Market, it was overblown and surging forward on nothing more than sheer wishful thinking. The dot com surge was just idiots trying to cash in. It was disaster waiting to happen.

Thus, it's okay to exacerbate the situation. Thank you.

It sure as hell didn't help the economy. Of course he did make dealing with Iraq a campaign point so it's not like no one saw it coming.

He also made it a point during the debates that he didn't think our troops should be used for nation building. There's a big difference between promising to bomb the shit out of a country and promising to bomb the shit out of it and then rebuild it.

Even so, his outlined agenda during the debates did not take September 11th and the shitty economy into account. So let's embrace reality here and not pretend that Bush had no choice but to go to war with Iraq in spite of the highest unemployment rates in 20 years.

It's not all Clinton's fault. But the policies of his terms lead to a lot of the damage and it was on his watch that the crimes were committed. The economy went done and every time it's been picked up something or some one has kicked it to the floor and we've had to start all over again.

I'm still at a loss as to what Clinton has to do with this. Even if I grant that Clinton fucked up the economy, how does that excuse Bush fucking it up even more than it already was?

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-09-16 10:43pm

I can't think of any economic impacts that that would've had.

Neither can I. I was just responding to Iceberg's suggestion that none of Clinton's other scandals stuck.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-09-16 10:49pm

Durran Korr wrote:
I can't think of any economic impacts that that would've had.
Neither can I. I was just responding to Iceberg's suggestion that none of Clinton's other scandals stuck.

Oh, well whatever. It's not my argument.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-09-17 12:27am

Darth Wong wrote:It's so fucking typical of you idiot knee-jerk Bush defenders to simply paint anyone who criticizes Bush as a "mindless Clintonite". You can never address any criticism of Bush without some ridiculously facile diversionary tactic to shift the conversation to Clinton.

You're ignoring the very real problem's Clinton's policy lead. It's not ridiculous or unfair to note that the orginal downturn was in his presidency and because of his policy.

I'm not defending the things Bush did that kicked the economy while it's down. Iraq and his administrations spending have hurt the economy. Though I do defend the tax cuts.

Just because you think anyone that has a bad thing to say about Clinton is a knee jerk Bush defender show's your own bias. Especially since you obviously miss the fact that I acknowledged Bush made the situation worse.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-09-17 12:28am

Iceberg wrote:Yes, I can see it now:

"Clinton lied about sex? Start cooking the books, boys!" Seriously, Storm, that's the lamest excuse EVER.

What the hell did his adultry have to do with anything? And where the hell did I mention it? Seriously, put down the bong when you're posting.