Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: greenspirit who wrote (281623)	7/30/2002 12:57:45 AM
From: Mr. Whist	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769668

CHARLESTON, S.C. -- President Bush insisted Monday that welfare recipients put in a 40-hour work week and said a Senate bill requiring less is riddled with "so many exceptions, so many loopholes" that it would reverse six years of welfare progress. (WSJ 7/29/02) Mike: Since you're in the business of business quality, correct me if I'm wrong. My question is this: Isn't it extremely difficult for many welfare recipients to put in a 40-hour week on one job because their places of employment limit their hours to less than 30 a week in order to avoid paying health-care benefits and the like? Thanks

To: greenspirit who wrote (281623)	7/30/2002 1:04:36 AM
From: Dr. Doktor	Respond to of 769668

<He claims to be a multimillionaire many times over> LOL Yeah right! If he is then money doesn't care who has it. DOC

To: greenspirit who wrote (281623)	7/31/2002 6:34:00 PM
From: ecommerceman	Respond to of 769668

Michael--I didn't say that YOUR buddies are rich, just that Bush's are, and that's who he mainly responds to. Second point: you couldn't be more wrong about Clinton having nothing to do with the budget being balanced. His 1993 budget--which conservatives in Congress whined incessantly was going to lead to recession (!)--was responsible for bringing in increased revenues to the federal government, thus ending the deficit spending of the Reagan and Bush Administrations (although, in fairness, "Read My Lips" Bush did sign a tax increase, too, that helped do the same thing). It's completely fair to criticize Clinton's many moral failings, but unfair and inaccurate to say that he had nothing to do with the balanced budgets during his terms in office. Third, your point about the balanced budget amendment is wrong-headed. It was proved during Clinton's terms that we don't need to have a balanced budget amendment in order to have a balanced budget, what you need to do is have elected officials who balance spending with revenues, and a President who has the guts to lead them in that direction. Bush Jr., who talks a good game, doesn't do it when it matters--when it's time to submit a budget that's balanced to Congress. I'll admit that everything changed last September--we truly DID need to spend more money on fighting terrorism--but when conditions changed, why didn't Bush change his ridiculous tax cut to reflect that new reality? We're gushing red ink now thanks to his unwillingness to be flexible in the face of new facts. Oh, and one other thing: the Farm Bill ($85 billion, not $170, by the way) was signed by your boy Bush, and in fact he's pranced all around the midwest bragging about how wonderful it is. Sure, Daschle helped pass it, but it's funny how you guys are critical of him for passing it, forgetting (conveniently, wouldn't you say) who the hell it was who signed it into law... ____________ ecommerceman, first of all. My buddies aren't rich. Most of my closest friends are middle income Americans. My best friend is a local homebuilder, my other close friends are electricians, stockbrocker, doctors, pharmacists and sailors in the Navy. Granted, they all do pretty well, especially since most own their own business, but I would never describe them as rich. If you want to talk to a rich person. Save your posts for Rich4Eagle. He claims to be a multimillionaire many times over. As to the rest of your post. Clinton had nothing to do with the budget being balanced. He whined incessantly about how much the Republicans were going to starve the elderly, starve children, and on and on if we even attempted to balance the budget. He also fought against conservatives in congress trying to pass a balanced budget amendment for years. The primary reason the budget numbers came close to being balanced, was because economic growth surprised even the spendaholics in congress...for a time that is. If the liberal Democrats truly love a balanced budget. Why don't they get onboard the balanced budget amendment train with conservatives and ride it to the next station? Thirdly, Bush is clearly putting the defense of the nation ahead of budgetary concerns. He believes we are at war, and desires most of all to bridge political divisiveness for the safety of the nation. Getting embroiled in an ugly partisan budget battle is not something he believes is in the long term best interest of the nation. It remains to be seen whether it's the smart move. His strategy is similar to Reagan's in that he saw the dismantling of the Soviet Union's sphere of influence as our top priority. We reaped the rewards of his vision in the 90's, when vast business opportunities opened up in Europe, heretofore locked behind the wall of the iron curtain. Reagan was right. I believe George W. Bush will be shown to be right as time passes. When our threats to liberty have been severely reduced. Political battles over the budget will continue. When they do, we will once again see who the tax-and-spend-aholics of the left are. I happen to remember them rather well. Hint...They start with Dashle (170 billion dollar farm subsidy leader) and end with billion dollar spendaholic Ted Kennedy. Lastly, statistics can be manipulated in all kinds of ways. But ignoring the statistics I posted and pretending they don't matter a wit, is the height of imprudence.