Commander-in-fear?Follow

I'll give you two: Ronald Reagan and George Bush.

1. I borrow a million dollars and spend it on lasers from space that don't really exist, pew pew pew!!! which leads to the fall of a totalitarian state and shortly thereafter the rise of um, a totalitarian state OR I use it to prosecute a war against a powerless enemy that results in thousands of dead Americans, hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi's and tens of thousands of twenty something vets maimed and crippled for life

2. I borrow half a million dollars and spend it on hookers and blow.


Yeah, honestly, I'm going to have to go with the hookers on this one.

Except that was how she was actually using the term. Did you read her list?



The result has nothing to do with the design or intent. Reagan's economic policies produced an amazing economic turn around for the US. When you compare key economic statistics between say 1979 and 1987, it's night and day.

Amusingly the *only* economic measurement which got worse was debt. Every other single indicator improved by absolutely massive amounts. Any guesses why debt and deficit are the one thing Liberals always attack Republicans about?


Bush did the same thing. He turned a recession around by lowering taxes and freezing spending (as much as possible with two wars going on). It's amazing that one again, the *only* economic indicator liberals look at is deficit (not even debt this time, since it doesn't work well as an argument). They compare the last couple years deficits during Clinton's term to the deficits during Bush's term and make massive hay over it. Meanwhile ignoring that Bush inherited and economy headed into recession. The dotcom bubble had burst and there were record bankruptcies occuring. The market was falling. Inflation and Interest rates were rising, and unemployment was rising (although it was still quite good and remained good through all of Bush's term as well). Then 9/11 hit and the markets went into full crash mode.

Bush's policies turned that around as well. Impressively. Oddly, he never gets credit for that because once again, the only indicator the liberals look at is deficit. Let's ignore that right up until the last year and a half of his administration, the economy was booming. Oh no. Let's just look at the amount he borrowed while creating that boom, and then lets focus on a market crash at the end caused by factors that were utterly beyond his control.



I'd toss in the argument about how the economic collapse we're in was caused by liberal economic policies put in place before Bush took office and rabidly defended by Democrats (with some really nasty attacks), not just once, but twice during bush's terms when he and Republican members of congress attempted to fix the problems with the investment banking laws which would very likely have avoided this crisis. I happen to place the blame for what's going on squarely at the feet of the Democrats, so forgive me if I don't take your comment that seriously...

He's also stated its a goal to reduce the deficit by half by the end of his first term.

Bush never made any kind of statement like that. In fact, he tried to hide how much the war in Iraq was costing us by never including it in the actual budget.

I smell a rat.

I'm still waiting to see if anyone knows whether President Obama was talking about the deficit as it was when he was elected, inagurated, 6 months into his presidency.

Incidentally I heard him talking about not basing policy on the fluctuations in the market and had a good laugh; especially considering the market has not had one positive day since he's taken over as president. Usually fluctuations include ups and downs.



Edited, Mar 4th 2009 9:57am by bluffratt

No it's not

I seem to see some ups and some downs. Perhaps you're unfamiliar with spatial orientation terms?

You're retarded. I mean that in the literal sense. You have serious physical limitations to your learning ability.

Edited, Mar 4th 2009 9:24am by AshOnMyTomatoes