Do you think President Bush should be impeached?

Youre completley wrong on that. Most republicans, Bush included, don't give 2 shits about anyone else. They care about whats in their bank account, what luxury car is in their garage, and how many square feet their mansion is. They don't care about billy bob across the street or the other people in their town. Well, I do. I have a new computer, I have an Xbox and PS2, I have a new car and so do my parents. I love those luxuries in life, but I think that everyone should have an equal opportunity at having them. The republican attitude of "Fuck the poor, as long as we're rich, we're happy" is downright selfish and it makes me sick to see people that are struggling to buy food to feed their family because the economy is in the crapper right now. I care about billy bob across the street and other people in my town. And that's why the deficit is one of the reasons I'm not voting for dubya

 

I may tell you all the time that my parents buy me things, but it doesn't really mean we have money to pay for it. Most of the things we buy are with credit cards. Under Clinton, we almost never had to use credit cards because we always had the extra (nearly) $600 a month to use. Now we're lucky if we have an extra $100 a month. My dad's job was outsourced to Mexico and he was forced to find a new job. Granted the company he works for now pays him more, but that doesn't really mean anything. It's only an extra $2 an hour. My mom lost over $4 an hour when Bush went into office.

Also, I read in an early post by you that Bush's deficit really meant nothing because most wars have brought upon deficits. That's true, I won't argue with you there, but Bush's deficit is the biggest in US history and it isn't even a full-scale war. That's just a little absurd, to me. The deficit wasn't even that big in WWII.

I'm also not trying to sway anyone's opinion because I know I can't, but I can at least present my arguments like everyone else is doing. So you saying that I should just sit back and watch because I can't vote is absurd. Just because I can't vote doesn't mean I can't partake in discussions such as this and voice my opinion. There's a little thing called "freedom of speech" here in the US, a right that I'm entitled to, whether I can vote or not. I don't have the right to complain since I didn't vote, that's true, but telling me that I should just sit back and watch isn't very fair at all. [/b][/quote]
That's a horribly incorrect statement. According to an EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM over 320 billion dollars was spent on World War 2. That's a lot more than the under 200 billion figure that's being tossed around right now. So no, we haven't spent more money than WW2 for this war.

Despite a dollar being worth a lot more back then, even in today's economy I'm sure it'd be more then what Bush spent on Iraq so far. 320+ Billion dollars isn't pocket change.

Well I certainly hope your family never gets really well off then because I'm sure you're aware of the democratic ideal to tax the upper class. I find it great that all these celebrities and rich people are supporting Kerry and yet if he's elected, they'll be taxed harder than the lower and middle class people of the United States.

I certainly hope my family stays middle class if Kerry's elected. I'd hate to work my ass off and earn a lot of money from my hard work, only to know that I'll be taxed harder than everyone else because I'm rich.

 

Derek, my family's never going to be rich enough for those kinds of taxes. The democrats want to tax like $200,000 and up, my family is nowhere near then $100,000 mark...probably around the 50s if I had to guess

 

Point taken. But considering that by many reports the economy started going downhill during Clinton's second term (don't forget that stock market crash of 2000), it leaves a sour taste in my mouth. If Clinton messed up the economy, who's to say another democrat (especially one that loves Clinton's work) won't do the same thing?

You cant lie that Clinton didn't make mistakes with the economy. Something has to be wrong if people who were poor during Clinton are just starting to get wealthy under Bush. We're supposed to be 'poor' under Bush and yet many Bush supporters I talk to have reported being much wealthier than they were under Clinton.

And as for the defecit? It has to do with more than just the war. It has to deal with Clinton's fuckups, that crucial stock market crash, the terrorist attack only a year later that among many targets, hit the center of our economy.

You factor all those things into the mix and how they can negatively affect an economy, and then consider how in the middle of a war some people are still getting actual pay raises, I cant see how that's a bad thing. Like you said Will, your dad even makes two dollars more than he used to make, despite having an outsourced job. We're in a war and yet many people are still able to afford 'wants' over 'needs'. If that's a problem then I'll be damned.

 

Point taken. But considering that by many reports the economy started going downhill during Clinton's second term (don't forget that stock market crash of 2000), it leaves a sour taste in my mouth. If Clinton messed up the economy, who's to say another democrat (especially one that loves Clinton's work) won't do the same thing?

You cant lie that Clinton didn't make mistakes with the economy. Something has to be wrong if people who were poor during Clinton are just starting to get wealthy under Bush. We're supposed to be 'poor' under Bush and yet many Bush supporters I talk to have reported being much wealthier than they were under Clinton.

And as for the defecit? It has to do with more than just the war. It has to deal with Clinton's fuckups, that crucial stock market crash, the terrorist attack only a year later that among many targets, hit the center of our economy.

You factor all those things into the mix and how they can negatively affect an economy, and then consider how in the middle of a war some people are still getting actual pay raises, I cant see how that's a bad thing. Like you said Will, your dad even makes two dollars more than he used to make, despite having an outsourced job. We're in a war and yet many people are still able to afford 'wants' over 'needs'. If that's a problem then I'll be damned. [/b][/quote]
Well, for one thing, Clinton led the largest uninterrupted economic expansion, spanning ten years, breaking the record in February 2000. His surplus was $5.4 trillion in 1997.

Clinton also opposed tax cuts proposed by Republican-ran houses of Congress, led by Newt Gingrich. These tax cuts were proposed every day in the congress. Clinton said they favoured the very rich and would return the country to rising budget defecits. Clinton also passed a budget package that expanded their earned income tax credit (EITC), thus aiding low-income families by reducing the amount of federal income tax they owed. The EITC put $21 billion into the pockets of 15 million low-income families over the span of 1993-1998.

Clinton helped out lower to middle class people alot more than Bush has. You may have been in that small margin of people who actually did see an upturn during Bush's presidency, but many many others were doing fine pre-2000 during Clinton's first seven and a half years.

The main reason the stock market fell into a recession in 2000 was your dependance on new technologies and dot com ventures in the stock markets. Many dot com places went bust in 2000, which can be attributed to the Y2K scare. Not Clinton's fault. He doesn't control the stock market.

The only explanation I can give is the old addage "what goes up must come down." And believe me, economic expansion went up very high under Clinton, thus why a downturn in the ecnomy made such an impact.

 

It runs in the family