Funny, something that almost never seems to be mentioned anymore is that when Bill Clinton left the Presidency, the United States had a surplus and was not in debt. Bill Clinton did that in eight years and that is monumental. Now look where we are.
The money that was spent going to war in Iraq to fight terrorism could have been used here in the United States to hire more police, border patrols, airport security, more F.B.I., etc. Thousands of soldiers lives would have been spared.
I’m posting this redundent rehash, mainly because Republicans are always slamming anything and everything that President Obama and/or the Democrats in Congress try to do. Especially annoying is their hypocritically slanted schtick about President Obama’s deficit spending and big government control and socialism.
Lately, I’m always hearing about Ronald Reagan and what a wonderful Republican President he was, some kind of role model, they say. Wasn’t he the one who first dipped into and depleted a large portion of the 80 billion dollar surplus of Social Security funds? Didn’t he, also, deregulate the savings and loans and then later they required a 121 billion dollar and plus bailout? I’d call that bailout, big government involvement. Conservatives want to use big government when it suits them but otherwise, they want to call it socialism. I call it hypocracy. Too bad Al Gore so-called lost the election. It might have saved the U.S. from the unraveling of Bill Clinton’s success and progress.
And so now look where we are. We should be examining how Bill Clinton left the U.S. with a surplus in just eight years time. How did he do it and can we do it again. Why isn’t that mentioned anymore?
Republicans need to look to the recent past Republican Presidents for the reason for the deficit and quit trying to pull the wool over everyone’s eyes about who’s doing the deficit spending. The Republican Party stands for nothing-no thing. No-No-No. Being conservative fiscally only applies to money when its being spent on something that they don’t want it being spent on, so their conservative fiscally stance is B.S. Their idea of small government, also, only applies when they want it to be small, so that stance is also B.S. When big government suits them, such as in bailouts, then they gobble it up and it’s a different story. And their family values schtick and Bible thumping heterosexual stance also has been debunked by the behavior of multitudes of Republicans.
It’s pretty scary to think that about 50% of the population goes for their B.S. I know the Democrats haven’t been perfect, but to me they are the best option we have. Especially this President and this administration (Bill Clinton was great, though, also).
How is Sarah Palin qualified to be President in 2012 if that’s what she’s going to do? Everyone thought she was totally unqualified to be Vice President. They lost the election. So how did she go from that loss to even imagining that she could be President? Because it looks like that is where she is headed. She’s another one of those who espouses these fake values yet does something different in real life. Drawing a crowd, energizing the base, having ooh-la-la, that special something, has to do with nothing more than looks, sex appeal physical charisma and seemingly good speaking ability. She’s not even
a lawyer nor has she had much foreign relations experience. Scary.