Baby Bush's Record

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Baby Bush's Record
7
Fri, 08-08-2003 - 2:32pm
Here's a very interesting article about Baby Bush's record on the economy and other topics. It's not a rosy picture. I'm sure some of you will attempt to blame Clinton!


http://www.democrats.org/news/200209240004.html

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Fri, 08-08-2003 - 2:53pm
Ah yes, a nice, objective, unbiased assessment from the *Democratic National Committee*. Thanks for the laugh Ashley. You want me to start pointing out the misrepresentations in that article now, or wait for someone else to do it? Ah, what the heck, here we go...

>"After inheriting a strong economy and a sizable surplus from the Clinton Administration,..." Hmmm, they seem to have left a few things out here.

For instance, the economy was already in the early stages of it's drop during the last year to 15 months of the Clinton presidency. It may have been fundamentally healthy, but to say it was "strong" misrepresents the facts of the matter. For another, something practically everyone on both sides of the aisle forgets is that that much-lauded "sizable surplus" was a figment of everyones imagination. It was a PROJECTION, an ESTIMATE based on what they thought revenues would be in the future. With the weakening economy and the falling stock market even during the Clinton administration, that projection was worthless before Bush ever took office.

Now, before you go getting yourself all frazzled, I'm not saying that any of the above was Clintons fault. As president there are distinct limits to just how much control (or more accurately influence) they have over such matters, a reality which applied to Wild Bill then as much as to Wild George now. BUT, that little article does nothing less than deliberately misrepresent the economic situation then and now. It's a political piece, written for political purposes... in other words, the truth is less important than (erroneous) perception.


~mark~

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Sat, 08-09-2003 - 2:39pm
HAH...using the DNC and Terry McCaullife as a source.

I wonder why McCaullife still has not answered questions regarding his profits in Global Crossing, where he turned a $100,000 investment into $13,000,000. inside of 16 months.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Sun, 08-10-2003 - 2:54am
Ashley!!! I'm a Democrat you crack me up, but you CAN NOT use democrats.org,,,That's like calling up Rush and giving him info from this site,, Ain't gunna work...



iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Sun, 08-10-2003 - 9:53am
Thanks, Ashley. I enjoyed reading it. Of course our Resident Experts here from the conservative side will bash it (and you) as usual, but seems to me this is no more or less one-sided and politically motivated than some of the stuff they have posted or will post from the other view. Truth is usually somewhere in the middle.
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Sun, 08-10-2003 - 9:53am
Well, in all honesty, while sites such as this one for the DNC are quite definately, inarguably biased, they *can* sometimes get things correct. That of course isn't the case in this instance as I pointed out above. (grin)

Information or claims from sites like this one, which *are* overtly biased makes the information found there more suspect and worthy of closer inspection, but not necessarily automatically inaccurate because of their bias.

Just a point I thought needed to be brought up.


~mark~

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Sun, 08-10-2003 - 10:00am
Yes, the post was bashed and reasonably so. Not only was the site rather overtly biased (which of course in and of itself *doesn't* make the claims inaccurate) but the claims put forth there deliberately misrepresented the issues and their underlying realities. Bias is one thing, obvious misrepresentation is another.

And BTW, you don't have to be a "resident expert" in order to be able to read and comprehend

reports. It's been reliably reported for years from a large number of non-partisan sources just when the economy began to slide (the last year or so of Clintons presidency), just as the reality about the so-called "surplus" (it was a projection, an estimate, not an in-the-bank reality) has been elaborated on. Expertise isn't required to understand those facts, merely some shred of objectivity and intellectual honesty.


~mark~


Edited 8/10/2003 10:19:56 AM ET by mirage83

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 08-11-2003 - 8:07pm
Yeah...right.

The DNC....a good source of factual information....that would be like citing the RNC to refute it.