Erhm, just because I disagree with some fiscal policies, it doesn't mean I'm anti-globalist.ToxicAdam said:If you were such a an anti-globalist, you wouldn't be supporting Obama. You are only aware of these issues because of this current election and your favored candidate.
Why do you hang your hat on that brief moment of a budget surplus as some kind of ultimate talking point. Much of those windfalls were due to Clinton "sliding the scale" on tax increases that Bush Sr. passed in the previous administration. Then couple that with the revenues brought in on capital gains during the tech stock explosion and the spending restrictions brought upon by the recently passed BBA of 97 and it's no surprise that money was coming in hand over fist.
We'll just ignore the hemmoraging of jobs in the inner cities and the median wage of the manufacturing worker that was still declining. No, no, no. THERE WAS A BUDGET SURPLUS, BITCHES! Singlehandedly created by the will of Bubba's charm and policies.
DEMOCRATS WIN. OUR TEAM WON! RAH RAH
But hey, me being a European born, naturalized US citizen obviously must mean I am an anti-globalist. Yeah. That's exactly it.
Do you think a country like Germany [one of the top exporters in the world] would allow a company like Braun or Bayer to take their headquarters and jobs to another country?
"Brief budget surplus?" Really? That's like saying Reagan, Bush Sr, and Bush Jr had a "brief budget deficit."
Hemorrhaging of jobs? 22mil new jobs created during his presidency is HEMORRHAGING of jobs?
But of course, keep hanging on to your bullshit "anything positive a democrat does, is because of the great policies of the previous republican president. Anything negative a republican president does, is because of the shitty policies of the previous democratic president."
Then again, intellectual dishonesty and ToxicAdam go hand in hand. Keep telling yourself that all of the fuck-ups over the past eight years can be equally blamed on democrats.