| REVIEWER | RATING & REVIEW |
 | Drummond (58)
03/05/2006 | Ehhhh, that's a stretch, although it was certainly a fringe benefit for the administration. And because of the debt (as well as the weak manufacturing base) we have the weakest recovery in four decades. That won't do us very well for the next cycle, especially if credit debt is soaring and people are losing their shirts because the bankruptcy laws no longer protect most ordinary people.
(2 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | middlefinger (4)
12/04/2004 | This is the #1b reason for NOT going to war. Loss of life = #1a. NO evidence of WMD = #1c.
(1 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | abichara (62)
06/20/2003 | A war isn't going to take away attention from a fairly weak economy. If anything, wars have had a history of driving up deficits, which in the final analysis create a burden on the economy. Considering the way modern warfare is conducted, it really does not affect the economy very much. The only distraction that occurs are among the pundits in the media who speculate constantly about the political landscape and how it will affect the Republican and Democratic parties.
(1 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | gmanod (3)
04/24/2003 | First off this is definetly to distract Americans from the economy; a complete wag the dog. Remember when all this drum beating started? August of last year, conveniently right after Bush was getting scrutiny for is past business dealings as well as scrutiny for not prosecuting Ken Lay. Has Ken Lay been prosecuted yet? Don't think so. The economy is still in the crapper and Bush is only going to make things worse with this tax cut. Most States are so terribly underfunded that they are having to begin unprecedented measures to fight it. Why doesn't congress help them out? Because we need to fight Iraq so that we can liberate all the oil wells and let's not forget that millionaires like Ken Lay really need a tax cut so that they can another pool. Look around at our nations schools than ask if this war was necessary right now, then when you come up with no give Bush a dirty look.
(0 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | President -X-D (6)
04/24/2003 | Again, it is not the proper role of a government to interfere with the economy. When the govt controls your economy, it's called Communism. If you allow "some" secors of your economy to be controlled by the govt, it only opens the door for MORE control by the govt, ultimately leading to state control of EVERY aspect of your economy. as stated above, that is Communism. It's that simple. Be careful what you wish for.
(3 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | reeny (4)
04/21/2003 | It is definitely possible, of course with thousands of people having already been laid off and continuing to get laid off. I don't think the distraction worked. Bush can talk about it all he wants. Talking is not doing.
(1 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | Redoedo (40)
04/20/2003 | OK, this makes more sense than a few of the others on this list. I wholeheartedly think that this is a blind attempt to distract the American people from the faltering economy. Remember Bush Sr. during the Gulf War. His approval ratings went from 50% to 90% when the Gulf War began, and then he was down in the 40's when it was all over. Why? Because after all the war and excitement, the people realized that they did not have jobs.
(4 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | BIGBABY (10)
04/20/2003 | Bush hasent been distracted from the economy. He's been talking about it daily.
(1 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
| 1-8 OF 8 | View All |
