Clinton's virtue with respect to prosperity was that he didn't
interfere with economic growth. That cannot be said of Mr. Obama.
Yes, happy2bhere, Clinton's time in office produced a wonderful economy, no
thanks to "Conservatives" however.Clinton's famous
budget balancing feats coincided with the dot com boom. You remember the dot
com boom, don't you.It all started in 1993, when the Internet
as we know it, was deployed and made available to the masses. The Clinton
administration, recognizing the Internet's vast potential, assigned Vice
President Al Gore to promote it as a business conduit, and it caught on fast.
Remember the "Information Superhighway?" The Dot Com Boom was on and the
economy thrived.In conjunction with the tax increase for high
earners that Clinton had already pushed through Congress, to the din of
squawking Republicans, a considerable portion of those vast dot com profits
poured into the Federal Treasury . . . and thus we had balanced budgets and
budget surpluses for the first time in decades.The Clinton
administration made its own luck in SPITE of the obstructions laid down by
"Conservatives." Those balanced budgets never would have happened with a
"Conservative" Republican President in office.BTW,
Esquire's observations are accurate.Facts are facts.
GaryOActually I really didn't disagree with NAFTA. Ultimately
whatever is good for the American economy is good for Americans, as I subscribe
to the theory that a rising tide float all boats.Clinton by the way is
considered a hero of the Democrat Party right now. So, if he did follow the
conservatives, it was to his benefit. His is considered a good economy, one
that Hillary will undoubtedly campaign on going back to to get elected. She
certainly won't try to sell us on continuing with Obamanomics.Which brings us to EsquireYour pejorative attacks only prove that
you have no substance to counter my arguments. Thanks for the win, but then I
usually do as I am intellectual not emotional (like most liberals) in my
analysis. See you later on another subject.
@ Mountanman, the oil is intended for export. The pipeline will deliver to a
U.S. port. The benefits for the U.S. are overstated and relatively minimal. I
respect your views on using less imported oil, but this project won't
change that.@ happy2bhere, dude, you are all over the map. How
about a focused argument with some substance instead of cobbling together Fox
talking points. (Even when the GOP agrees, or when it is their idea, they
refuse to act. They are playing a game of election maneuvering, not acting in
the interests of the nation.) But hey, if it's just about the obsessive
hate for Obama, I guess you are getting your way.
gary oJust for your information, barry is running the government by
reading polls. surprized you didn't know that.
Esquire - your comments are right on.happy2bhere -You
say, “. . . polls show [Global Warming] is not even on the top 20 issues
American care about . . .”So you want to run the government
via polls? Kind of like “Dancing with the Stars” huh?Do you
believe that opinion is shared by most “Conservatives?”And you criticize Bill Clinton for approving NAFTA? Me too.Clinton resisted at first, but then he succumbed to “Conservative”
pressure and approved of NAFTA. He let “Conservatives” get their
way again. Bad move in retrospect.But what’s the moral of that
story? . . . NEVER let “Conservatives” get their way.
EsquireYou seem to forget that the environmental impact study does
not show any real danger or damage to the pipeline. And you can't argue
that it is not safer than transporting it by other means that more often have
spills. Also, a do nothing Congress is merely in the eye of the beholder. Our
constitutional system was set up for just that type of government. Too me when
our Congress does nothing, and therefore is blocking what I see as bad
legislation coming from a bad President, they are not doing nothing, they are
doing what I elected them to do. That is why many, even on the left, are
calling Obamas recent overreaching executive orders the real danger to the
country. I'll bet you don't want a 2016 Republican president to use
that power. Well, it might happen. Then what will you say?
@ Esquire. I never said we are not an oil exporter but we still do import a lot
of oil. The Keystone would be good for everyone in America! It would create lots
@ happy2bhere, nice try. The numbers show that the current U.S. House of
Representatives (is that clear enough for you?) is the most ineffective,
do-nothing Congress in modern U.S. history. Truman's "Do-Nothing"
Congress was much more effective.The Keystone is all about
transporting Canadian tar sand oil to U.S. ports for export. The jobs boost is
temporary. It's not a win for the U.S. Nebraska farmers/landowners are
losers, and they sued and just won in blocking the pipeline. It's not
necessarily the Obama Administration blocking the pipeline. The decisionmaking
process is proceeding - it is premature to attack there. The non-oil company
folks in the heartland are the ones pushing back. Your argument
about the House not switching (I agree) and not running for re-election are
irrelevant. The Administration can make a decision based on the merits, and the
impact of fossil fuel, watersheds, eminent domain and other issues can be
considered rather than political gamesmanship. In the end, the pipeline will
NOT have benefits for the U.S. of any significant degree other than we are the
conduit for Canada's exports.
EsquireYou left out the word "White" when you mentioned the
House.And, the Keystone is a much safer way to transport oil than
ship, railcar, or truck. Also, it means more jobs and growth in GNP. Plus, if
we in America make ourselves energy independent and always an exporter of oil,
then we can ween ourselves off of caring what happens in the Middle East and
that oil mess, which has caused us to go to war over there, as I sure your would
agree. To me it's a win/win all around, and would be for Obama. And if
there is a President that needs a win right now it is him. He doesn't have
to run for re-election again, and even if he keeps the Senate in 2014, no one
believes the House is going Democrat. So, this would be about the best Obama
could do for the country. Real progress. Not trying to sell the country on
global warming, which polls show is not even on the top 20 issues American care
about. Jobs and economy are number 1.
@ Mountanman, we are a net exporter of oil. And the Keystone product is
destined for export outside North America. Let's not exagerate the
Congress is a drag on everything. Worst Congress ever, especially the House.
Obama is wrong about Keystone, totally wrong! He would rather us buy oil from
our enemies abroad and ship it in tankers than buy oil from our neighbors and
transfer it in a pipeline in order to create jobs and improve our economy!
It's always so interesting that Democrat politicians in Congress don't
want the trade agreements with places like Mexico because it might cost domestic
jobs, especially union ones. Yet when a Democrat like Clinton or Obama becomes
President, they seem to be all for it. It occurs to me that if more of the
manufacturing jobs that are currently being done by illegals and low wage
immigrant workers were kept in places like Mexico, then there would be less of
the illegal immigration problem coming to America. That of course would not be
good for future Democrat votes. I understand why both Clinton and Obama face
opposition from their own party on this issue. Ironic. The Republicans should
get together and go all on for Obama, thus not looking like the
"perceived" party of "NO."
barry's agenda is a drag.....on everything and everyone.