The forum discussion centers on the impact of tax policies from the 1990s and 2000s, specifically comparing the tax cuts under President George W. Bush and the tax increases during President Bill Clinton's administration. Participants debate the definition of the middle class, with income brackets cited as $30,000 to $80,000 annually. The conversation highlights concerns about the long-term effects of tax cuts, including potential increases in state taxes and the disproportionate benefits received by the wealthiest Americans. A proposal for a fixed sales tax system is also presented as a solution to simplify taxation and reduce government spending.
PREREQUISITESPolitical analysts, economists, tax policy advocates, and anyone interested in understanding the historical impact of tax legislation on different income groups in the United States.
The Republicans wouldn't have been there at all, if it were up to them. Yes, he could have done more, but it is not something that a Republican can use against Clinton.Originally posted by kat
Spending on people? Did you forget Mogadishu? When Les Aspin and his staff refused armor for the forces operating there? Is that how clinton "cared a bit more"?
That's true, and the Clinton admin. left Bush a lot of intelligence on al quada terrorists that Bush & co. simply ignored for the first 8 months, including plans to use passenger airliners for attacks on cities.
And to say that it is somehow Clinton's fault for the terrorist attacks is illogical- the terrorists hate america regardless of the President in charge. Training videos show them shooting at images of Clinton as well as Bush. The terrorists in Iraq are obviously not afraid of our massive stockpile of nuclear weapons, f-117's, b-52's, any of our hardware, or they wouldn't be whacking our guys.
That's funny...Clinton DID stop a scheme to fly a plane into the CIA headquarters. Bush had a year to prepare, Clinton had laid the groundwork for a "Homeland Security Agency"...Bush had another idea.Originally posted by Shadow
I did not say it was clinton's fault, I basically said it wasnt bush's and that although he got the blame, clinton had received the same warnings and did nothing. He could have at least tried to something instead of handing everything to Bush. And we don't know what our CIA/FBI people were doing about it at the time, maybe they couldn't stop it. how do you stop a plane from crashing into a building. Blow it up of course. But then there's the good ol human instincts. You would hesitate to fire for at least a second, if you knew that this plane was full of your own people, adn that second could have meant anything. Then there is the fact that when it became clear that it was no accident, it was too late to dispatch fighters to shoot the planes down...how would clinton have done better?
?? Check again. The troops were sent there by Bush. Their mission was changed (mission requirements went up and their support slashed) by Clinton. Les Aspen took the fall for it (he resigned) but it was Clinton who really made the decisions.Originally posted by Zero
The Republicans wouldn't have been there at all, if it were up to them. Yes, he could have done more, but it is not something that a Republican can use against Clinton.
Clinton gave a lot of advice, studies, etc to Bush. But think about it objectively: If someone gives you a plan to do something that he didn't do himself, what's the first thing to come to your mind? (A: Well if this is so important, why didn't HE do it? (A2: LEADERSHIP - or rather lack thereof)).Clinton had laid the groundwork for...
Missed this one before. Thats a crime called THEFT. You are accusing the US gov't of stealing Iraq's oil. Maybe you are wondering why the UN isn't raising hell over it, but then maybe not - you're smart enough to know that's not what is happening. So that leaves another possibility.America can take whatever it wants from you, occupy your country, give your natural resources to American companies, etc.
Originally posted by russ_watters
Clinton gave a lot of advice, studies, etc to Bush. But think about it objectively: If someone gives you a plan to do something that he didn't do himself, what's the first thing to come to your mind? (A: Well if this is so important, why didn't HE do it? (A2: LEADERSHIP - or rather lack thereof)).
Neither president did more then "planning" on homeland security prior to 9-11 because, quite frankly, neither of them had enough public support to be able to do more then "plan" such a controversial dept. until after Americans got the UNOWHAT scared out of them. Silly to even argue that point. As for fighting terrorism, isn't the CIA, and wasn't the head of (then and now) the CIA a clinton apointee? With the failures of cia under clinton against terrorist during his term, why the heck would Bush retain the same leadership?Originally posted by Zero
Let's take this one...I don't defend Clinton on your first point, and your last one is right-wing spin, not worth bothering with. If a president spends 7 years fighting terrorism sucessfully, as Clinton did, and comes to the conclusion that radical measures need to be taken, what should he do? Obviously he should act on those radical plans...except in this instance. The planning for the next phase in the war on terror, the creation of a 'Homeland Security Agency' and other actions, was done in the last months of the Clinton administration. Rather than hand Bush a war in progress, he turned the plan over to Bush, with the hopes that HE would act on it, with his own ideas and staff involved. Instead, Bush went on vacation.
The Vietnam War was a war where we won virtually every battle, but the media spun everything as a loss. I guess Clinton's term is the corrolary: a success despite being hit numerous times by terrorists.Originally posted by Zero
If a president spends 7 years fighting terrorism sucessfully, as Clinton did...
The first WTC bombing was in 1993. Are you saying it took Clinton FIVE YEARS to decide something needed to be done about it (accepting for now that Clinton DID finally decide something should be done - which I'm not convinced of)? And when he made his decision, it STILL wasn't important enough to do himself? Thats pathetic. Thats weak. Thats dereliction of duty.Rather than hand Bush a war in progress, he turned the plan over to Bush, with the hopes that HE would act on it, with his own ideas and staff involved. Instead, Bush went on vacation.
Originally posted by kat
Neither president did more then "planning" on homeland security prior to 9-11 because, quite frankly, neither of them had enough public support to be able to do more then "plan" such a controversial dept. until after Americans got the UNOWHAT scared out of them. Silly to even argue that point. As for fighting terrorism, isn't the CIA, and wasn't the head of (then and now) the CIA a clinton apointee? With the failures of cia under clinton against terrorist during his term, why the heck would Bush retain the same leadership?
Originally posted by russ_watters
The Vietnam War was a war where we won virtually every battle, but the media spun everything as a loss. I guess Clinton's term is the corrolary: a success despite being hit numerous times by terrorists. The first WTC bombing was in 1993. Are you saying it took Clinton FIVE YEARS to decide something needed to be done about it (accepting for now that Clinton DID finally decide something should be done - which I'm not convinced of)? And when he made his decision, it STILL wasn't important enough to do himself? Thats pathetic. Thats weak. Thats dereliction of duty.
FOUR times (during Clinton's term). Embassies, military bases, and ships are soverieign US territory.Originally posted by Zero
This is nonsense...as you are smart enough to know. How many times did Islamic terrorists hit America after 1993?
Ok, enough about this...my poiint was never to say how perfect Clinton was...but weren't the 90s great, compared to the 80s, and compared to now?Originally posted by russ_watters
FOUR times (during Clinton's term). Embassies, military bases, and ships are soverieign US territory.