How unfortunate. I really do not think Mel is an sm

• The Other Side of Mel Gibson...sm - Democrat
  • How unfortunate. I really do not think Mel is an sm - LVMT
  • Arresting officer, who is Jewish, took no offense. sm - MT
    • what 2 things - bbh
      • Those were the arresting officer's words, not mine. nm - MT
        • "second thing" remains a mystery - bbh
    • Good for him...sm - Democrat
      • I never ever judge people by their families. sm - MT
        • LOL. I see that now...nm - Democrat
  • Alcoholism is a terrible disease. sm - MT

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

for Democrats regarding the Clinton presidency:  President Reagan's policies worked.  Reaganomics -- which posited and proved that cutting taxes made more money available to the private sector to increase employment, thus increasing the total wages available to be taxed, even at a lower rate -- did increase absolute funding.  And -- through a strong defensive posture that does not back down, the top heavy controlling political systems of the enemies of freedom will finally collapse because of the waste of resources that such a tightly-controlled economy (through the subsequent increase in bureaucrats (who, by there very nature, produce nothing in the economy)) leads to.  Having said that, the following series of events actually have resulted in what you accurately described, but have misapplied cause and effect.  To wit --

Reaganomics resulted in an increase in capital investment which provided jobs, which allowed more citizens to have more disposable income and the government to have more monies available, which the Republican president spent on common causes -- defense of the homeland from belligerent nations, infrastructure repair and increasing resource availability.  This resulted in a surplus of moving capital in the economy and the government coffers.  Some of this was spent on the Gulf War where Bush 41 turned back an aggressive nation from attacking another one (consider Germany rolling over Poland and Western Europe for a similar situation).  Having accepted terms of cease fire we settled into a period of time relatively free of conflict.  Then we changed horses in mid stream and Bill Clinton took office, failed to pursue terrorist organizations, dismantled our spy network, withdrew our support from rebels in Iraq and ignored a growing terrorist threat that we knew little about because he had dismantled our spy network by issuing orders that no CIA agent was to enlist the aid of unsavory characters.  However, anyone a spy agency turned to spy for them is, by definitition, an unsavory character.  So, when Clinton turned his attention to the domestic front (as liberals prefer to do) and ignoring the foreign front (as liberals also prefer to do) he proceeded to spend what was left from the Reagan coffers.  Not going into the 1992 slap Clinton was given for pushing his brand of socialism down America's collective throat, essentially, left George Bush with an enemy which had a blank check for 8 years to do what they wanted without being watched.  We should not be so surprised by 9/11 as it would at first appear.  Following 9/11 and the hunt for bin Laden in Afghanistan, Bush 43 went to war with Iraq.  There has been much discussion about this, but the way I see it is there were three factors that made this war completely justified -- 1) Saddam Hussein had already used WMD in his war with Iran and his suppression of the Kurds; 2) He was a known financial supporter for terrorists worldwide, especially in Israel and 3) what I believe to be the most important one -- the Gulf War was not legally over in that Hussein had never surrendered, he had merely accepted terms for a cease fire.  However, he did not live up to his agreement, so the war had to be restarted. 

In summary, then, republicans watching the foreign front (and I will grant you, ignoring the domestic front, mostly) increased the public coffers; democrats (focusing on the domestic front and ignoring the foreign front) pursued policies that left us blind to foreign intrigue while spending the largesse from the previous administration's more fiscally responsible domestic program which left the next conservative President without good intelligence and with depleted public coffers.  There is so much money going into Washington that the delay between the policies that increase or diminish and the development of the actual increase or depletion can be 4 to 8 years.  That's how I see it.