TBH im Aussie and i dont give a fork. However, you yanks needs someone who will do what errrmmmm Ragen ( think it was him; i CBF googling it ) did and balance the budget, simply slash the shizit out of government spending. For thoes who dont know what recession is its bassicaly and dont quote me on this but its when the countries debt and interest exceeds its income or turn over. This effectivly forces the leaders of the country into recession. I believe South Korea has been in recession for 6 years, however a country cant stay in recession forever, and one like America wont stay there for long. Lets face it, the U.S government and the economy rely on BOMBS, war fare ect to keep the money ticking over. The majority of the U.S turnover is and has been, " oh well that wars over, lets make another bomb" Its the same reason everyone went to Iraq looking for weapons of mass distruction. The U.S main arguement was " We know you have weapons of mass distruction, we have the recipts to proove it. " After Ragen was elected they sold weapons the the Iraqies ( Saddam ). Im not going into a huge political speek here, at the end of the day; the U.S will make another bomb, start another conflict and the country proberly wont even go into recession atleast not while Bush is running it anyways, too much pride too many names to uphold from two legacys of the same trade ( senior and now JR. )
TBH im Aussie and i dont give a fork. However, you yanks needs someone who will do what errrmmmm Ragen ( think it was him; i CBF googling it ) did and balance the budget, simply slash the shizit out of government spending. For thoes who dont know what recession is its bassicaly and dont quote me on this but its when the countries debt and interest exceeds its income or turn over. This effectivly forces the leaders of the country into recession. I believe South Korea has been in recession for 6 years, however a country cant stay in recession forever, and one like America wont stay there for long. Lets face it, the U.S government and the economy rely on BOMBS, war fare ect to keep the money ticking over. The majority of the U.S turnover is and has been, " oh well that wars over, lets make another bomb" Its the same reason everyone went to Iraq looking for weapons of mass distruction. The U.S main arguement was " We know you have weapons of mass distruction, we have the recipts to proove it. " After Ragen was elected they sold weapons the the Iraqies ( Saddam ). Im not going into a huge political speek here, at the end of the day; the U.S will make another bomb, start another conflict and the country proberly wont even go into recession atleast not while Bush is running it anyways, too much pride too many names to uphold from two legacys of the same trade ( senior and now JR. )
FYI reagan was the inventor of borrow and spend there are a lot of things he did which I liked but others... well
^ Agree with the things he did were good and bad but in this time some one needs to balance the budget.
More like what Clinton did, in the way he was the closest president in decades to getting us out of debt.
Yep Hes for sure the best president in my life. Maybe his wife would do the same since shes doing what hes saying. Also it feels like a recession when GDP growth slows, businesses stop expanding, employment falls, unemployment rises, and housing prices decline. For those reasons, many experts say the U.S. is actually in a recession now because GDP is slowing, businesses are expanding more slowly, employment is falling, and housing prices are down 10%. The only good thing about a recession is that it will cure inflation.
Of course the US is heading into a recession. Bush made a lot of mistakes over the last 8 years to lead us here. Obviously, there is the issue of the war and how much we waisted there, but it goes beyond that. Job production has been at a stand still, we are spending too much money on private banks and foreign investments, we are lending too much to other countries, and we are producing too much money to keep out dollar from going inflated. I woulnd't be surprised if we hit another 1930/80 economic crisis.
You also forgot to mention that you can't blame Bush for the war. The President of the US can only suggest going to war. Congress must approve it. So all the people saying "It's Bush's fault we are in the war". It's really not.
^yep hillary has more blame than bush in that regard also the president cannot appropriate funds for war so hillary and barack BOTH are more responsible.
funny jokes! this isn't a "war." it's still a conflict. it was NEVER approved by Congress. besides. it would be more mccain's and hillary's faults. barack wouldn't have had the chance to vote on it.
Please find the proof and I'll believe you. Because right now I think you're extremely naive and ignorant.
