Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2008 03:22:39 +0000 From: "Jim Fernandes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Just ask yourself two basic questions: > > 1. Am I better off today (in Bush years), or was I better off during the > Clinton years? > > 2. Is the US better off today or was it better off during the Clinton > years? > > As far as I am concerned, there's no question that the Republican party > (along with the Texas Oil Mafia) screwed up this country big time in the > last eight years. I am hopeful that Barack and his Democratic party > would change the course of this nation, for a better America and for a > peaceful world.
Mario responds: > Jim, > I wish you wouldn't go around calling people "stupid" while living in what may be a glass house. > You say, "...there's no question..."? Of course there is a question, if you use cold facts and not pure emotion. To begin with there is no such thing as a Texas oil mafia. Perhaps you are unaware that it is the Democrats that have blocked all new oil exploration and drilling in and around the continental USA, have opposed new oil refineries from being built since 1976, have opposed coal fired power plants, have opposed oil shale mining, have opposed building new nuclear power plants. > In addition, the US economy grew for seven of the last eight years after Clinton left office and handed Bush an economic slowdown, and had weakened our defense and intelligence capabilities which enabled 9/11 to take place. > It also depends on which facts are important to you. > Bill Clinton's first budget proposal in 1993 showed $200 BILLION in deficits for every year in the budget period, which proves he had no clue as to how to control deficits, even with his increased taxes. > He was bailed out by a) the revolution in computer and communications technology and the dot.com phenomenon, which the government had nothing to do with, and b) The Contract with America when the Republicans took control of both houses of Congress and implemented balanced budget proposals after the debacle of Hillary Clinton's health care proposals. > By the end of the Clinton presidency the economy was in decline leaving President Bush with a recession to deal with. > In addition, the Clinton presidency, by failing to respond to the series of attacks on the US and US interests throughout the 90's emboldened Osama Bin Laden to ostentatiously declare was on the US, and call the US a "weak horse" who would be unable to defend itself against Al Qaeda, which he called the "strong horse". > The Clinton administration also refused to take Bin Laden after he was offered up by Sudan THREE times, because Clinton said he did not have legal probable cause to hold him even though Bin Laden had taken credit for several attacks by then. This has been documented by Pakistani businessman and the go-between, Mansoor Ijaz. > The Clinton administration also refused to give the CIA permission to shoot when they had Bin Laden in their sights in Afghanistan THIRTEEN times. This has been documented by the CIA agent in charge of the operation, Michael Scheuer. > The Clinton administration also banned the CIA and FBI from sharing information on terrorist movements and banned the CIA from gathering information from people they considered "unsavory" characters. > All this led directly to the attack on 9/11/2001 right in your backyard in NY. I doubt you or anyone else on 9/15/2001 believed that Al Qaeda would not attack the US again, but they have been unable to do so now for over seven years, mainly because the Clintons and the Democrats were no longer running the country in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. > After the Bush tax rate cuts in 2002 - 2003 the US economy had seven years of moderate growth with low inflation, until the house of cards that Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton had built by forcing the banks to lower lending standards in order to "spread the wealth" to low income Americans who would normally rent their houses, came tumbling down bringing the stock market with it. > This may be a good point to remind readers that the financial mess extends to several major countries in Europe and the Far East, which have far more stringent controls over their economies, which has led to a resurgence in the value of the US$. > Jim Fernandes wrote: > We need to end this stupid war in Iraq quickly and raise taxes on the rich. If Obama wins, these two things are guaranteed to happen. > Please take a moment and check out what the below graph tells you: > http://zfacts.com/p/318.html > Mario responds: > The war was only "stupid" from the point of view of a small number of Islamic radicals in Afghanistan and Iraq, and their allies in Syria and Iran, and from the point of view of political critics of America. It was hardly "stupid" from the point of view of the 50 million Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq who were previously brutalized by Muslim tyrants, and now have a real chance at freedom and democracy. > If not for the radicals they would have been well on their way to peace and prosperity by now. > Perhaps you should ask yourself why a small number of Islamic radicals are fighting so desperately to deny these countries the freedom and democracy they have voted for, and why the entire left wing seems to stand on the sidelines and cheer for the liberation of these countries to fail. > Regarding the US debt you seem to be concerned about, perhaps the following information may show you a different and more balanced perspective on the financial condition of the US national debt. > http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/09/28/165539.php > Regarding the US annual deficits, perhaps you are unaware the deficit as a percentage of GDP DECLINED from 3.5% in 2001 to 1.9% in 2006, and is expected to go no higher than about 3 to 4% if McCain wins, and who knows what if Obama wins. > Also, perhaps you need to think about what Obama's policy of soaking "the rich" is going to do for job creation in the US and the impact that the inevitable slowdown in the economy from these higher taxes will have on the demand from the US for the products and services from India. In addition, he has promised the labor unions that support him that he will implement massive trade protectionist policies, which will also negatively affect outsourcing of jobs and services to places like India. >
