- Joined
- Jan 12, 2012
- Messages
- 5,939
- Reaction score
- 2,795
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Thanks for your expert tesimony on that. The military and intelligence services were downsized at the end of the Cold War as the long-awaited "Peace Dividend" was harvested. The start and rather a large chunk of that came under Bush-41, not Clinton. The military was not left in disarray or underequipped by Clinton, as the war in Afghanistan and invasion of Iraq would each speedily demonstrate.You are correct. However the difference was in how the cuts were applied and carried out. G.H. Bush was instituting stepped planed out reductions. Clinton just did a massive cut and that was carried out piecemeal because it had not been planed out.
Of course they were. Your personal reports and anecdotes will certainly be given all the weight they are due.No we did not use "the same military" that Clinton left Bush in both wars, or even one of them. What you apparently are not aware of is that the reports of readiness and training status were complete fabrications.
Correct. The Russian and Asian financial crises were not Bush's fault. These were however mere background -- parts of the the terrain on which the Great Bush Recession would come to play out. Assigning actual blame to them -- or to things like GLB or CFMA -- would be like blaming bank robberies on the paving of downtown streets that made escape easier for potential get-away vehicles. Life could have gone on after those two crises. But it didn't. Thanks to Bush and his pals.Wow, an actual admission that it wasn't all "Bush's Fault".
First of all, the debt has increased since January 20, 2009, by $5.7 trillion. Second of all, the debt is actively managed by Treasury, meaning that things other than deficits contribute to its ups and downs. There is no necessary connection between the debt and deficits. As for the deficits themselves, those for the past four years (2009-2012) have in total been just under $5.1 trillion, $1.2 trillion of which was already on the books by the time Obama was sworn in. That leaves deficits of $3.9 trillion, 40-45% of which have resulted from federal revenues lost due to the Great Bush Recession, 40-45% of which have resulted from automatic stabilizers and other emergency income support measures made necessary by the Great Bush Recession, and 15-20% of which have resulted from the underlying budget positions, although Republican efforts to gum up the works and engage in terrorist hostage-taking have made passage of actual budget bills all but impossible, resulting in one omnibus spending bill after another.The rest of the nearly $7 trillion dollars that Obama and the dems have spent and added to the debt since Bush left office.
I don't think you understand how any of this works. You seem to have TARP and the various Fed/Treasury asset-exchange facilities all balled up and not to understand that there is no connection between any expenditure and any particular General Fund cash balance or borrowing.You blamed it all on Bush. I admit that some of it was for issues that came up under Bush, but that only account for a minority of the money spent by Obama and the dems. So where it the rest of it? Where is the money that was borrowed and given out as loans during the bailout that financial institutions have been repaying?
Nonsense. Those who have not paid into the unemployment insurance pool are not eligible for UI benefits under any federal law or under any state law that I am aware of. This includes for instance recently graduated students and self-employed persons who elected not to make regular payments into the pool.Not really. The biggest problem with what was offered up was the mandate that states pay unemployment to not only those who had paid into the system, or their employers did, but to everyone unemployed...
Also complete nonsense. This happens all the time. Interstate claims are all billable to the state in which you worked and thereby contributed to the UI pool. You must go to the local unemployment office in your new state and fill out a form to register your interstate claim. That is all....and also that the state had to cover unemployment from other states when people moved looking for work.
Yes, and I gave you the particulars of an individual situation that (not surprisingly) you have refused to address. To summarize, these were people denied credit when they had more assets in the bank that they were trying to borrow from than the amount that they were trying to borrow. Meanwhile, similarly situated borrowers in other parts of town were being routinely approved for loans. Want to give it a second shot?That would depend totally on the individual situation.
Last edited: