Key economic statistics: Clinton Years VS. Bush Years

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
INDY500 said:
How could he be all that they claim? After all, then Bush would have to:

Be both Idiot-in-Chief AND clever enough to steal two elections, hoodwink mentally superior Democratic Senators into voting for his misbegotten war and cover-up 9/11.

Be both a Fascist AND a pawn of Big-Oil, Big-Pharma and Big-Telecom.

Be anti-science BUT develop cutting-edge technology like anti-satellite missiles and African-American-seeking hurricanes.

And somehow be a war criminal in a war that doesn't even exist.

In addition to being the world's biggest liar, the world's biggest terrorist and the world's biggest polluter. Pretty impressive really when you consider that he left the White House every summer to ride ponies on his ranch and play golf. Unfortunately, he will be considered a failed president because he never shredded the constitution to establish a Christian theocracy like he promised. :wink:

What the hell are you even talking about? How does this have to do with anything? How does this portray liberal arguments? Have you ever seen or read about politics before, really? I'm pretty sure you made all of that up.
 
phillyfan26 said:


What the hell are you even talking about? How does this have to do with anything? How does this portray liberal arguments? Have you ever seen or read about politics before, really? I'm pretty sure you made all of that up.

It is of coarse composed entirely of what has sadly passed for liberal argument these past 7 years. Pejoratives, unhinged paranoia and contradictory talking points. Now, I can't blame you for trying to distance yourself from the buffoonish statements of your brethren, but they all have been said or implied.
 
INDY500 said:


It is of coarse composed entirely of what has sadly passed for liberal argument these past 7 years. Pejoratives, unhinged paranoia and contradictory talking points. Now, I can't blame you for trying to distance yourself from the buffoonish statements of your brethren, but they all have been said or implied.

Please... some of the liberal arguments are just as childish, uninformed and simplistic as some of the conservative arguments.
The way in which US politics is divided is frightening. It is as if there was some very deep moat between the two stances.
You are arguing here as poorly as some of the liberals you are trying to blame.
Shit has sadly passed for liberal argument, and other shit has sadly passed for conservative argument.
How about engaging in some educated stuff?
 
INDY500 said:
It is of coarse composed entirely of what has sadly passed for liberal argument these past 7 years. Pejoratives, unhinged paranoia and contradictory talking points. Now, I can't blame you for trying to distance yourself from the buffoonish statements of your brethren, but they all have been said or implied.

As Vincent said, only the argument of a vocal minority.

Should the views of Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh box in every conservative?
 
Vincent Vega said:


Your presumptions form the world according to how you want it. One could say:
"Some people are too invested in "Bush is the greatest thing to ever happen to the United States" to admit when faced with some basic facts that things are not nearly as great as they, some pundits and politicians would claim.", and quite frankly, equally as wrong.


I was talking about peoples view points here in FYM which is overwhelmingly anti-Bush to the point that the majority would never admit to Bush doing something right or admit that things are not as bad as their beloved pundits and politicians might claim.

Thats precisely why I presented the above economic indicators, not really to show that Bush is great on the economy, but to show that things are not as bad as so many in here claim it to be.


I say it again: Just by taking these figures you cannot that easily say that Clinton was the greatest, or Bush was the greatest.

That was never really the point. The point was to emphasize that the economy for Americans over the past 7 years has actually been very good from a historical standpoint, even when compared with the economy of the 1990s.




Economic indicators show you trends and give you a hint whether economic policies have been rather good or bad. But to make actual claims you need much more than just those figures. For example, not everything that happens in the economy can directly be awarded to Clinton's or Bush's policies. The US is engaging in a world market which means that there are influences from the outside of the domestic economy.

I've already pointed out that the above economic indicators were meant more to compare the two time periods rather than specific administration policies. Both administrations play a significant role, but there are obviously many other factors, some out of control of either administration, that play a role as well. Regardless, the economic indicators show that life during the Bush years has actually been pretty good when compared to the Clinton years especially when you look at the percentage of people who lived in poverty during each respective time period. The Bush years have some of the lowest poverty rates in US history.


The poverty rate is certainly an important indicator, but it's not telling you the whole picture: Income inequality is still rising and upward social mobility still not experienced by millions of people, or it is the step from being unemployed to working poor. Only a few make the way out of their situation, and often by joining the military.

No one here is claiming that things in the United States are perfect. But their certainly very good by US historical standards, and place the United States high up on the Human Development Index, higher I might add than your own country.
 
Last edited:
Strongbow said:

No one here is claiming that things in the United States are perfect. But their certainly very good by US historical standards, and place the United States high up on the Human Development Index, higher I might add than your own country.

Hey, STING, what's it like down there on that list? Somewhere in the double digits or sumpin?
 
anitram said:


Hey, STING, what's it like down there on that list? Somewhere in the double digits or sumpin?

The United States is at #12 ahead of countries like Spain, Denmark, Austria, United Kingdom, Belgium, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Italy, and yes Germany which is currently at #22 on the list do to lower scores in education and wealth than the United States.

Most of the countries that are ahead of the United States are countries that are small and spend little to nothing on the defense compared to the United States.
 
Last edited:
phillyfan26 said:


As Vincent said, only the argument of a vocal minority.

Should the views of Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh box in every conservative?

Yes, but do you defend Bush against the "childish, uninformed and simplistic" insinuations of the "vocal minority" with the same vigor as you defend those who are the targets of Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter? We can disagree about issues and policies but meritless claims and personal attacks should be rejected out of hand by both sides. Don't ya think?
 
Strongbow said:


Most of the countries that are ahead of the United States are countries that are small and spend little to nothing on the defense compared to the United States.

:wave: from the Top 5. The view is nice up here.
 
INDY500 said:
Yes, but do you defend Bush against the "childish, uninformed and simplistic" insinuations of the "vocal minority" with the same vigor as you defend those who are the targets of Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter? We can disagree about issues and policies but meritless claims and personal attacks should be rejected out of hand by both sides. Don't ya think?

Calling George Bush childish and uninformed is incomparable to Ann Coulter calling John Edwards a faggot.
 
phillyfan26 said:


Calling George Bush childish and uninformed is incomparable to Ann Coulter calling John Edwards a faggot.

The "childish and uninformed" insinuations would be "Bush is a Nazi" or "Bush is the worlds biggest terrorist." Actually worse than faggot in every sense except possibly political correctness.

Excuse me for remembering what the airheads and conspiracy nuts that criticize GWB from the political Left actually say.
 
anitram said:


:wave: from the Top 5. The view is nice up here.

I'm sure it is, and you can thank the United Sates for it. In addition to everything the United States provides other countries including yours on security and defense issues, the United States buys 80% of what Canada exports. Exports account for a third of Canadian GDP.
 
INDY500 said:


The "childish and uninformed" insinuations would be "Bush is a Nazi" or "Bush is the worlds biggest terrorist."

Absolutely not! If you are seriously suggesting that calling him childish and uninformed is the same as calling him a Nazi or the world's biggest terrorist, then you, sir, are childish and uninformed. :|

Excuse me for remembering what the airheads and conspiracy nuts that criticize GWB from the political Left actually say.

And for the last fucking time, those calling him a Nazi and the world's biggest terrorist are NOT representative of the general political Left. These individuals hold an extreme view. You don't claim Ann Coulter as your political voice, do you?

You really should know better.
 
INDY500 said:
The "childish and uninformed" insinuations would be "Bush is a Nazi" or "Bush is the worlds biggest terrorist." Actually worse than faggot in every sense except possibly political correctness.

Excuse me for remembering what the airheads and conspiracy nuts that criticize GWB from the political Left actually say.

No, I meant people calling him, literally, childish and uninformed.

I don't understand your point any longer, as you seem to be flipping between topics: criticisms and name-calling.
 
INDY500 said:


The "childish and uninformed" insinuations would be "Bush is a Nazi" or "Bush is the worlds biggest terrorist." Actually worse than faggot in every sense except possibly political correctness.

Excuse me for remembering what the airheads and conspiracy nuts that criticize GWB from the political Left actually say.

Yes, and every now and then the odd far left comes in here and spouts that crap. And yes, those on the left have usually spoken out, or tried to ignore him so that the person leaves. I've never seen applause for those.

However, you don't read it from the regulars here, so why bringing this up all the time? Do we make even a single step of progress when we just start again to take the argument of those on the extremes to disregard the political views entirely? Would anyone of us look clever by doing so? No.

Those Nazi comparisons of each and everything get tiresome. I don't know in how many contexts I'm a Nazi, because, after all, I'm a German. Even my own Minister of the Interior compared me to the fascists, alongside 34,443 others because we signed a warrant to file an amparo with the German Federal Constitutional Court in order to stop the data retention act.
This man is insane. (On the other hand, I admit, we just call him wheelchair-Goebbels. :shifty: )

But in discussions like this I see no place for those arguments, as the participants are far from those left-wing nuts.
 
INDY500 said:
Yes, but do you defend Bush against the "childish, uninformed and simplistic" insinuations of the "vocal minority" with the same vigor as you defend those who are the targets of Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter? We can disagree about issues and policies but meritless claims and personal attacks should be rejected out of hand by both sides. Don't ya think?
I sincerely appreciate your frustration, but in real life I think it generally works better to ignore the hot air balloons and focus on people who seem to want a respectful and constructive exchange. As often as not, those people are just as disenchanted with lower calibers of dialogue as you are. Unfortunately, in a public setting like this--and especially when the topic is US politics--you're just not going to achieve a no-hyperbole,-no-taunting-and-no-snideness,-EVER standard without choking all the social dynamism out of it...even people who are usually thoughtful and constructive get ornery sometimes, and oftentimes people who really do want substantial argument don't grasp how badly they hurt their own chances of getting just that when they start out with an impatient or sarcastic tone.
 
phillyfan26 said:


No, I meant people calling him, literally, childish and uninformed.

I don't understand your point any longer, as you seem to be flipping between topics: criticisms and name-calling.

You and Diemen have taken Vincent's labeling of liberal arguments as "just as childish, uninformed and simplistic as some of the conservative arguments" and somehow turned it into an example of levelheaded criticism of Bush. Confusing me as well.
But let's see which is more common in FYM when it comes to addressing the performance of president Bush.

On this very page of FYM there is a thread entitled: Bush Doesn't Realize Gas Could Reach $4 Gallon

Which quote does not appear? Does not appear.

1) Bush is uninformed.
2) Bush is an idiot. (Period)
3) bush is an idiot and out-of-touch
4) I used to think that the President of the United States should be required to have just a teensy bit of intelligence, but apparently that is not the case. What I can't understand is how that dunce got elected once, much less twice!
5) all the Bush lovers and Bush himself will realize that he and they are all pieces of shit.

Ah, the academic depth of those critiques is truly impressive. By they way, if you chose the non-pejorative (1) you would be correct.
 
INDY500 said:
You and Diemen have taken Vincent's labeling of liberal arguments as "just as childish, uninformed and simplistic as some of the conservative arguments" and somehow turned it into an example of levelheaded criticism of Bush. Confusing me as well.
But let's see which is more common in FYM when it comes to addressing the performance of president Bush.

On this very page of FYM there is a thread entitled: Bush Doesn't Realize Gas Could Reach $4 Gallon

Which quote does not appear? Does not appear.

1) Bush is uninformed.
2) Bush is an idiot. (Period)
3) bush is an idiot and out-of-touch
4) I used to think that the President of the United States should be required to have just a teensy bit of intelligence, but apparently that is not the case. What I can't understand is how that dunce got elected once, much less twice!
5) all the Bush lovers and Bush himself will realize that he and they are all pieces of shit.

Ah, the academic depth of those critiques is truly impressive. By they way, if you chose the non-pejorative (1) you would be correct.

That, first of all, is my mistake, as I thought you were complaining about people calling Bush childish and uninformed.

I think people are so sick and tired of writing the same things about Bush that they simplify their arguments to generalized insults after a while, specifically in reaction to statements or actions that they perceive to be "typical" of Bush. Is it intellectual? No. Does it bring good debate around? No. Is it understandable? Yes.

I do not think Bush is a Nazi or a war criminal, and I think he honestly believes in the war. I do not think he is a particularly bright man, for he lets his weaknesses (stubborness and intellectual laziness) constantly enter play in his decision making. I think he strongly believes, as most people do, that Saddam Hussein was an evil man.

The problem, and I find this to be a problem with a lot of people who deduce things like George Bush does, is that you cannot go against the designed system in place just because you believe strongly in something. George Bush didn't go into Iraq because he believed there were WMDs. He went into Iraq because he was sure that Saddam was a bad person, and he used WMDs as the reasoning in the public forum.

I think an analysis like this one, that I have typed, is much more along the lines of something you want to see, for it analyzes what he has done, avoids name-calling, and puts discussion points out there.
 
INDY500 said:


You and Diemen have taken Vincent's labeling of liberal arguments as "just as childish, uninformed and simplistic as some of the conservative arguments" and somehow turned it into an example of levelheaded criticism of Bush. Confusing me as well.

I apologize for the previous post - I didn't catch the entire context of your response.


On this very page of FYM there is a thread entitled: Bush Doesn't Realize Gas Could Reach $4 Gallon

Which quote does not appear? Does not appear.

1) Bush is uninformed.
2) Bush is an idiot. (Period)
3) bush is an idiot and out-of-touch
4) I used to think that the President of the United States should be required to have just a teensy bit of intelligence, but apparently that is not the case. What I can't understand is how that dunce got elected once, much less twice!
5) all the Bush lovers and Bush himself will realize that he and they are all pieces of shit.

Ah, the academic depth of those critiques is truly impressive. By they way, if you chose the non-pejorative (1) you would be correct.

First of all, none of the quotes you are using came from people participating in this thread. Secondly, most of those quotes are from people who rarely post in FYM and can hardly be considered representative of the general tone from the left. And lastly, of the ones who do post in here fairly regularly, I can personally attest to confronting one of those posters about his over-the-top Bush bashing.

Do we all still turn a blind eye?
 
Last edited:
Diemen said:

Do we all still turn a blind eye?

No, in actuality I've noticed that most all of the Bushitler, 9/11 truthers stuff and ad homonym attacks get swatted down pretty quickly by regular posters, most of whom don't support Bush.

But to get back to the point of strongbows thread. Bush gets no credit here for two things that he really should; economic growth/ job creation with low inflation and no terrorist attacks since 9/11. Instead he is attacked, isn't he, for the policies that made those feats possible...tax cuts and increased intelligence efforts. Anything is fair game for criticism of coarse, but one must also be willing to acknowledge positive results.

Let me ask you a question. If you'd lived through a president being assassinated, the hell-in-a-basket year of 1968, widespread race riots, a war in which 65,000 Americans were killed, wage & price controls, an oil embargo, a president resigning in disgrace, 4 years in which inflation was over 10%, a deep recession, a savings & loan bailout, an actual presidential impeachment and disco.

Would you honestly think George W Bush was our worst president in history?
 
INDY500 said:


But to get back to the point of strongbows thread. Bush gets no credit here for two things that he really should; economic growth/ job creation with low inflation and no terrorist attacks since 9/11. Instead he is attacked, isn't he, for the policies that made those feats possible...tax cuts and increased intelligence efforts.

Wow, you and Strongbow both love your fuzzy math. The conclusions you come up with given the facts are hilarious...

Your president congress theory was paticular funny because it just over looked MAJOR OBVIOUS faults of theory.

Just like this statement that I quoted does... This whole "we haven't been attacked since, due to Bush policy", is just bullshit. This cannot be proven, and the fact that adults fall for this type of logic cracks me up.
 
phillyfan26 said:


That, first of all, is my mistake, as I thought you were complaining about people calling Bush childish and uninformed.

I think people are so sick and tired of writing the same things about Bush that they simplify their arguments to generalized insults after a while, specifically in reaction to statements or actions that they perceive to be "typical" of Bush. Is it intellectual? No. Does it bring good debate around? No. Is it understandable? Yes.

I do not think Bush is a Nazi or a war criminal, and I think he honestly believes in the war. I do not think he is a particularly bright man, for he lets his weaknesses (stubborness and intellectual laziness) constantly enter play in his decision making. I think he strongly believes, as most people do, that Saddam Hussein was an evil man.

The problem, and I find this to be a problem with a lot of people who deduce things like George Bush does, is that you cannot go against the designed system in place just because you believe strongly in something. George Bush didn't go into Iraq because he believed there were WMDs. He went into Iraq because he was sure that Saddam was a bad person, and he used WMDs as the reasoning in the public forum.

I think an analysis like this one, that I have typed, is much more along the lines of something you want to see, for it analyzes what he has done, avoids name-calling, and puts discussion points out there.

Very well said.

Look, I don't expect, and wouldn't want, this to turn into the Yale Debating Club. Flippancy, style, a hint of button-pushing with just a twist of hyperbole can actually make discussing politics fun. But I think we agree that it needs to remain at least partially grounded in civility and reality.
Should I stray, I hope I can count on you Philly to call me on it. :wink:
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


Wow, you and Strongbow both love your fuzzy math. The conclusions you come up with given the facts are hilarious...

Your president congress theory was paticular funny because it just over looked MAJOR OBVIOUS faults of theory.

Just like this statement that I quoted does... This whole "we haven't been attacked since, due to Bush policy", is just bullshit. This cannot be proven, and the fact that adults fall for this type of logic cracks me up.

And here's BVS, as if on cue, here to test me.

Well, I never did mind about the little things.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:
The conclusions you come up with given the facts are hilarious...

This whole "we haven't been attacked since, due to Bush policy", is just bullshit. This cannot be proven, and the fact that adults fall for this type of logic cracks me up.
Is this the way you'd want people to address you if they thought you were drawing completely invalid conclusions from whatever alleged evidence? What's the matter with just asking, "Where's your proof that 'Bush's policy' is the reason there haven't been more terrorist attacks?", or simply saying "I don't think that's a valid conclusion at all" then explaining why?
 
yolland said:

Is this the way you'd want people to address you if they thought you were drawing completely invalid conclusions from whatever alleged evidence? What's the matter with just asking, "Where's your proof that 'Bush's policy' is the reason there haven't been more terrorist attacks?", or simply saying "I don't think that's a valid conclusion at all" then explaining why?

I apologize. I constantly wrestle with this... But I feel like I constantly ask this poster to provide more and he doesn't. Usually when I ask him direct questions he leaves the thread. So I'm not sure what to do. He often speaks in vague attacks towards the forum or conspiracy theory type attacks towards "the left" in general.

I'll try and find a way to deal directly in the futrure.
 
Back
Top Bottom