"Dammit, Bill. take out the trash, mow the lawn and get your lazy ass over to Pyongyang... AND NO STOPPING OFF IN THAILAND FOR LADYBOYS!!!!!"xaosDo you know something about Bubba that I don't?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
Do you know something about Bubba that I don't? Is it just me or does Bill Clinton have some of the coolest nicknames since Randy Johnson was nicknamed "The Big Unit"? Slick Willy...Bubba...[QUOTE="xaos"]"Dammit, Bill. take out the trash, mow the lawn and get your lazy ass over to Pyongyang... AND NO STOPPING OFF IN THAILAND FOR LADYBOYS!!!!!"-Sun_Tzu-
[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]Do you know something about Bubba that I don't? Is it just me or does Bill Clinton have some of the coolest nicknames since Randy Johnson was nicknamed "The Big Unit"? Slick Willy...Bubba... Well how else would he be able to put teh moves on teh ladiez?[QUOTE="xaos"]"Dammit, Bill. take out the trash, mow the lawn and get your lazy ass over to Pyongyang... AND NO STOPPING OFF IN THAILAND FOR LADYBOYS!!!!!"nocoolnamejim
[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] Do you know something about Bubba that I don't?-Sun_Tzu-Is it just me or does Bill Clinton have some of the coolest nicknames since Randy Johnson was nicknamed "The Big Unit"? Slick Willy...Bubba... Well how else would he be able to put teh moves on teh ladiez? "Hello, I'm a former President of the United States. I'm rich and powerful and successful. Oh, and I have a LOT of experience with sex and have gotten pretty good at it." Something like that?
The only question is what concessions the US will give North Korea.
sonicare
We already gave them a visit with Bill Clinton, what more could they want?
[QUOTE="sonicare"]
The only question is what concessions the US will give North Korea.
metroidfood
We already gave them a visit with Bill Clinton, what more could they want?
Countrywide tests for STDs? ;) :PI think we can all thank good ol' Bill. Good ol' Bill who got us into the recession we are in today die to his massive spending and massive taxing during the 90's. Yup, Bill is a crisis dodging super hero who takes part in the whole "blame Bush for everything bad that happened in the 21st and 20st century mentality". What a hero that guy, I hope all the unemployed love him as well, because that's all his fault as is everything economically.sacredtext62It's all his fault? Really? Bill deserves some blame for repealing Glass-Steagal, but Bill's fiscal policy really had nothing to do with this recession. I am not the biggest Clinton fan, but the last thing you can criticize him for is his fiscal policy. He was the first president to balance the budget since LBJ in the late 60's.
I think we can all thank good ol' Bill. Good ol' Bill who got us into the recession we are in today die to his massive spending and massive taxing during the 90's. Yup, Bill is a crisis dodging super hero who takes part in the whole "blame Bush for everything bad that happened in the 21st and 20st century mentality". What a hero that guy, I hope all the unemployed love him as well, because that's all his fault as is everything economically.sacredtext62I've always wondered why it is that all the folks who come in and make tons of unsupported accusations towards Democrats are low-level and low post count. *sighs* I shouldn't respond since I know it is going to be a waste of time...but here goes. "Good ol' Bill who got us into the recession we are in today die to his massive spending and massive taxing during the 90's. " That's quite a lag time for a recession. So you're saying that the policies Clinton pursued (which led to the longest period of economic expansion in U.S. history, record stock market levels, extremely low unemployment and inflation) and were the complete opposite in many cases of the Bush policies...lead to a recession EIGHT YEARS later? That's quite a lag time for the other shoe to drop. "Yup, Bill is a crisis dodging super hero who takes part in the whole "blame Bush for everything bad that happened in the 21st and 20st century mentality" Aren't you doing the exact same thing? Just substitute Clinton's name for Bush's in that sentence. "What a hero that guy, I hope all the unemployed love him as well, because that's all his fault as is everything economically." Nothing that the Republicans did for the last eight years, including controlling most of the levers of power during that time, starting two foreign wars, failing to prevent the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil in our entire history, deregulating the financial services industry had anything to do at all with our present economic woes? That's....quite a leap of faith.
[QUOTE="sacredtext62"]I think we can all thank good ol' Bill. Good ol' Bill who got us into the recession we are in today die to his massive spending and massive taxing during the 90's. Yup, Bill is a crisis dodging super hero who takes part in the whole "blame Bush for everything bad that happened in the 21st and 20st century mentality". What a hero that guy, I hope all the unemployed love him as well, because that's all his fault as is everything economically.nocoolnamejimI've always wondered why it is that all the folks who come in and make tons of unsupported accusations towards Democrats are low-level and low post count. *sighs* I shouldn't respond since I know it is going to be a waste of time...but here goes. "Good ol' Bill who got us into the recession we are in today die to his massive spending and massive taxing during the 90's. " That's quite a lag time for a recession. So you're saying that the policies Clinton pursued (which led to the longest period of economic expansion in U.S. history, record stock market levels, extremely low unemployment and inflation) and were the complete opposite in many cases of the Bush policies...lead to a recession EIGHT YEARS later? That's quite a lag time for the other shoe to drop. "Yup, Bill is a crisis dodging super hero who takes part in the whole "blame Bush for everything bad that happened in the 21st and 20st century mentality" Aren't you doing the exact same thing? Just substitute Clinton's name for Bush's in that sentence. "What a hero that guy, I hope all the unemployed love him as well, because that's all his fault as is everything economically." Nothing that the Republicans did for the last eight years, including controlling most of the levers of power during that time, starting two foreign wars, failing to prevent the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil in our entire history, deregulating the financial services industry had anything to do at all with our present economic woes? That's....quite a leap of faith. Blaming Clinton isn't as bad as some people I've seen who've blamed Carter.
[QUOTE="sacredtext62"]I think we can all thank good ol' Bill. Good ol' Bill who got us into the recession we are in today die to his massive spending and massive taxing during the 90's. Yup, Bill is a crisis dodging super hero who takes part in the whole "blame Bush for everything bad that happened in the 21st and 20st century mentality". What a hero that guy, I hope all the unemployed love him as well, because that's all his fault as is everything economically.nocoolnamejimI've always wondered why it is that all the folks who come in and make tons of unsupported accusations towards Democrats are low-level and low post count. *sighs* I shouldn't respond since I know it is going to be a waste of time...but here goes. "Good ol' Bill who got us into the recession we are in today die to his massive spending and massive taxing during the 90's. " That's quite a lag time for a recession. So you're saying that the policies Clinton pursued (which led to the longest period of economic expansion in U.S. history, record stock market levels, extremely low unemployment and inflation) and were the complete opposite in many cases of the Bush policies...lead to a recession EIGHT YEARS later? That's quite a lag time for the other shoe to drop. "Yup, Bill is a crisis dodging super hero who takes part in the whole "blame Bush for everything bad that happened in the 21st and 20st century mentality" Aren't you doing the exact same thing? Just substitute Clinton's name for Bush's in that sentence. "What a hero that guy, I hope all the unemployed love him as well, because that's all his fault as is everything economically." Nothing that the Republicans did for the last eight years, including controlling most of the levers of power during that time, starting two foreign wars, failing to prevent the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil in our entire history, deregulating the financial services industry had anything to do at all with our present economic woes? That's....quite a leap of faith. Hah, nice try but you inevitably lose with your pathetic use of liberal rhetoric to dodge the real question at hand. Yes, you are right it is quite a lag time for a recession, if you knew anything about how an economy worked you would know that massive deficit spending results in a glorious few years where the effect of that spending is taking place. Sadly, inflation and the heavy taxes gets the best of our citizens and leads to their downfall, i.e. housing and stock market crash of the 21st century. Yes the republicans failed to prevent 911 and got us into two wars, I will give you that, but isn't it your dear Obama who advocates MORE troops in Afghanistan and still has yet to show any significant signs of troops removal in Iraq? This whole misconception that republicans are war mongers is completely unjustified. Wasn't it Truman that got us into Korea and Eisenhower who got us out? Wasn't it Johnson that got us into nam and Nixon who got us out? But back to Bill, it may have seemed that he was combating unemployment and inflation, but massive spending and massive taxing almost indefinitely leads to economic downfall which was experienced during the Bush years and formally blamed on Bush by the economically uneducated.
[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="sacredtext62"]I think we can all thank good ol' Bill. Good ol' Bill who got us into the recession we are in today die to his massive spending and massive taxing during the 90's. Yup, Bill is a crisis dodging super hero who takes part in the whole "blame Bush for everything bad that happened in the 21st and 20st century mentality". What a hero that guy, I hope all the unemployed love him as well, because that's all his fault as is everything economically.sacredtext62I've always wondered why it is that all the folks who come in and make tons of unsupported accusations towards Democrats are low-level and low post count. *sighs* I shouldn't respond since I know it is going to be a waste of time...but here goes. "Good ol' Bill who got us into the recession we are in today die to his massive spending and massive taxing during the 90's. " That's quite a lag time for a recession. So you're saying that the policies Clinton pursued (which led to the longest period of economic expansion in U.S. history, record stock market levels, extremely low unemployment and inflation) and were the complete opposite in many cases of the Bush policies...lead to a recession EIGHT YEARS later? That's quite a lag time for the other shoe to drop. "Yup, Bill is a crisis dodging super hero who takes part in the whole "blame Bush for everything bad that happened in the 21st and 20st century mentality" Aren't you doing the exact same thing? Just substitute Clinton's name for Bush's in that sentence. "What a hero that guy, I hope all the unemployed love him as well, because that's all his fault as is everything economically." Nothing that the Republicans did for the last eight years, including controlling most of the levers of power during that time, starting two foreign wars, failing to prevent the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil in our entire history, deregulating the financial services industry had anything to do at all with our present economic woes? That's....quite a leap of faith. Hah, nice try but you inevitably lose with your pathetic use of liberal rhetoric to dodge the real question at hand. Yes, you are right it is quite a lag time for a recession, if you knew anything about how an economy worked you would know that massive deficit spending results in a glorious few years where the effect of that spending is taking place. Sadly, inflation and the heavy taxes gets the best of our citizens and leads to their downfall, i.e. housing and stock market crash of the 21st century. Yes the republicans failed to prevent 911 and got us into two wars, I will give you that, but isn't it your dear Obama who advocates MORE troops in Afghanistan and still has yet to show any significant signs of troops removal in Iraq? This whole misconception that republicans are war mongers is completely unjustified. Wasn't it Truman that got us into Korea and Eisenhower who got us out? Wasn't it Johnson that got us into nam and Nixon who got us out? But back to Bill, it may have seemed that he was combating unemployment and inflation, but massive spending and massive taxing almost indefinitely leads to economic downfall which was experienced during the Bush years and formally blamed on Bush by the economically uneducated. What are you talking about? What massive deficit spending? He left office with a HUGE surplus. The only presidents who have done massive deficit spending in the past 20-30 years have been Reagan, H.W., and Dubya.
[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="sacredtext62"]I think we can all thank good ol' Bill. Good ol' Bill who got us into the recession we are in today die to his massive spending and massive taxing during the 90's. Yup, Bill is a crisis dodging super hero who takes part in the whole "blame Bush for everything bad that happened in the 21st and 20st century mentality". What a hero that guy, I hope all the unemployed love him as well, because that's all his fault as is everything economically.sacredtext62I've always wondered why it is that all the folks who come in and make tons of unsupported accusations towards Democrats are low-level and low post count. *sighs* I shouldn't respond since I know it is going to be a waste of time...but here goes. "Good ol' Bill who got us into the recession we are in today die to his massive spending and massive taxing during the 90's. " That's quite a lag time for a recession. So you're saying that the policies Clinton pursued (which led to the longest period of economic expansion in U.S. history, record stock market levels, extremely low unemployment and inflation) and were the complete opposite in many cases of the Bush policies...lead to a recession EIGHT YEARS later? That's quite a lag time for the other shoe to drop. "Yup, Bill is a crisis dodging super hero who takes part in the whole "blame Bush for everything bad that happened in the 21st and 20st century mentality" Aren't you doing the exact same thing? Just substitute Clinton's name for Bush's in that sentence. "What a hero that guy, I hope all the unemployed love him as well, because that's all his fault as is everything economically." Nothing that the Republicans did for the last eight years, including controlling most of the levers of power during that time, starting two foreign wars, failing to prevent the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil in our entire history, deregulating the financial services industry had anything to do at all with our present economic woes? That's....quite a leap of faith. Hah, nice try but you inevitably lose with your pathetic use of liberal rhetoric to dodge the real question at hand. Yes, you are right it is quite a lag time for a recession, if you knew anything about how an economy worked you would know that massive deficit spending results in a glorious few years where the effect of that spending is taking place. Sadly, inflation and the heavy taxes gets the best of our citizens and leads to their downfall, i.e. housing and stock market crash of the 21st century. Yes the republicans failed to prevent 911 and got us into two wars, I will give you that, but isn't it your dear Obama who advocates MORE troops in Afghanistan and still has yet to show any significant signs of troops removal in Iraq? This whole misconception that republicans are war mongers is completely unjustified. Wasn't it Truman that got us into Korea and Eisenhower who got us out? Wasn't it Johnson that got us into nam and Nixon who got us out? But back to Bill, it may have seemed that he was combating unemployment and inflation, but massive spending and massive taxing almost indefinitely leads to economic downfall which was experienced during the Bush years and formally blamed on Bush by the economically uneducated. "Yes, you are right it is quite a lag time for a recession, if you knew anything about how an economy worked you would know that massive deficit spending results in a glorious few years where the effect of that spending is taking place. Sadly, inflation and the heavy taxes gets the best of our citizens and leads to their downfall, i.e. housing and stock market crash of the 21st century." I have a Masters degree in business administration, which includes plenty of macro economic class requirements. The Clinton years produced massive SURPLUSES actually. Not deficits. In fact, he's the only president during my lifetime to run a surplus. That kind of shoots a huge hole in your theory. The BUSH years produced massive deficits. So, by your own logic, Bush is responsible for the current problems. But don't let the facts get in the way of your patronizing me. :P "Yes the republicans failed to prevent 911 and got us into two wars, I will give you that, but isn't it your dear Obama who advocates MORE troops in Afghanistan and still has yet to show any significant signs of troops removal in Iraq? This whole misconception that republicans are war mongers is completely unjustified. Wasn't it Truman that got us into Korea and Eisenhower who got us out? Wasn't it Johnson that got us into nam and Nixon who got us out?" Number of wars started and not finished during the Clinton years = 0. Number started and not finished during the Bush years = 2. Obama's stated intention is a gradual drawdown of troops in both countries so we can leave in a responsible manner. He INHERITED those wars. Just like he inherited an economy on the verge of total collapse. "But back to Bill, it may have seemed that he was combating unemployment and inflation, but massive spending and massive taxing almost indefinitely leads to economic downfall which was experienced during the Bush years and formally blamed on Bush by the economically uneducated." Clinton passed a couple of tax cuts on the middle class during his time. In fact, taxes were lower during the Clinton years than the Reagan years. So, by your logic, REAGAN is to blame for the current economic downturn.
[QUOTE="sacredtext62"][QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] I've always wondered why it is that all the folks who come in and make tons of unsupported accusations towards Democrats are low-level and low post count. *sighs* I shouldn't respond since I know it is going to be a waste of time...but here goes. "Good ol' Bill who got us into the recession we are in today die to his massive spending and massive taxing during the 90's. " That's quite a lag time for a recession. So you're saying that the policies Clinton pursued (which led to the longest period of economic expansion in U.S. history, record stock market levels, extremely low unemployment and inflation) and were the complete opposite in many cases of the Bush policies...lead to a recession EIGHT YEARS later? That's quite a lag time for the other shoe to drop. "Yup, Bill is a crisis dodging super hero who takes part in the whole "blame Bush for everything bad that happened in the 21st and 20st century mentality" Aren't you doing the exact same thing? Just substitute Clinton's name for Bush's in that sentence. "What a hero that guy, I hope all the unemployed love him as well, because that's all his fault as is everything economically." Nothing that the Republicans did for the last eight years, including controlling most of the levers of power during that time, starting two foreign wars, failing to prevent the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil in our entire history, deregulating the financial services industry had anything to do at all with our present economic woes? That's....quite a leap of faith.-Sun_Tzu-Hah, nice try but you inevitably lose with your pathetic use of liberal rhetoric to dodge the real question at hand. Yes, you are right it is quite a lag time for a recession, if you knew anything about how an economy worked you would know that massive deficit spending results in a glorious few years where the effect of that spending is taking place. Sadly, inflation and the heavy taxes gets the best of our citizens and leads to their downfall, i.e. housing and stock market crash of the 21st century. Yes the republicans failed to prevent 911 and got us into two wars, I will give you that, but isn't it your dear Obama who advocates MORE troops in Afghanistan and still has yet to show any significant signs of troops removal in Iraq? This whole misconception that republicans are war mongers is completely unjustified. Wasn't it Truman that got us into Korea and Eisenhower who got us out? Wasn't it Johnson that got us into nam and Nixon who got us out? But back to Bill, it may have seemed that he was combating unemployment and inflation, but massive spending and massive taxing almost indefinitely leads to economic downfall which was experienced during the Bush years and formally blamed on Bush by the economically uneducated. What are you talking about? What massive deficit spending? He left office with a HUGE surplus. The only presidents who have done massive deficit spending in the past 20-30 years have been Reagan, H.W., and Dubya.
Are you trying to make a jone or something?
Reagan? Deficit spending? I'm not going to get into it, but look up Reaganomics, you will hopefully understand.
H.W. worked rigorously to make sure tazes weren't raised, but in the light of the Gulf war a little raise was necessary, but not desired by him.
And Bush? He vetoed multiple spending programs proposed by the democratic congress in the last two years of the presidency, I don't know what you are smoking.
As for Clinton, you failed to address the question. Yes he left with the surplus, but the surplus was short lived due to INFLATION.
Inflation was quite low during the majority of the Clinton years. You're entitled to your own interpretation of the facts, but not entitled to your own brand new set of facts.As for Clinton, you failed to address the question. Yes he left with the surplus, but the surplus was short lived due to INFLATION.
sacredtext62
[QUOTE="sacredtext62"][QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] I've always wondered why it is that all the folks who come in and make tons of unsupported accusations towards Democrats are low-level and low post count. *sighs* I shouldn't respond since I know it is going to be a waste of time...but here goes. "Good ol' Bill who got us into the recession we are in today die to his massive spending and massive taxing during the 90's. " That's quite a lag time for a recession. So you're saying that the policies Clinton pursued (which led to the longest period of economic expansion in U.S. history, record stock market levels, extremely low unemployment and inflation) and were the complete opposite in many cases of the Bush policies...lead to a recession EIGHT YEARS later? That's quite a lag time for the other shoe to drop. "Yup, Bill is a crisis dodging super hero who takes part in the whole "blame Bush for everything bad that happened in the 21st and 20st century mentality" Aren't you doing the exact same thing? Just substitute Clinton's name for Bush's in that sentence. "What a hero that guy, I hope all the unemployed love him as well, because that's all his fault as is everything economically." Nothing that the Republicans did for the last eight years, including controlling most of the levers of power during that time, starting two foreign wars, failing to prevent the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil in our entire history, deregulating the financial services industry had anything to do at all with our present economic woes? That's....quite a leap of faith.nocoolnamejimHah, nice try but you inevitably lose with your pathetic use of liberal rhetoric to dodge the real question at hand. Yes, you are right it is quite a lag time for a recession, if you knew anything about how an economy worked you would know that massive deficit spending results in a glorious few years where the effect of that spending is taking place. Sadly, inflation and the heavy taxes gets the best of our citizens and leads to their downfall, i.e. housing and stock market crash of the 21st century. Yes the republicans failed to prevent 911 and got us into two wars, I will give you that, but isn't it your dear Obama who advocates MORE troops in Afghanistan and still has yet to show any significant signs of troops removal in Iraq? This whole misconception that republicans are war mongers is completely unjustified. Wasn't it Truman that got us into Korea and Eisenhower who got us out? Wasn't it Johnson that got us into nam and Nixon who got us out? But back to Bill, it may have seemed that he was combating unemployment and inflation, but massive spending and massive taxing almost indefinitely leads to economic downfall which was experienced during the Bush years and formally blamed on Bush by the economically uneducated. "Yes, you are right it is quite a lag time for a recession, if you knew anything about how an economy worked you would know that massive deficit spending results in a glorious few years where the effect of that spending is taking place. Sadly, inflation and the heavy taxes gets the best of our citizens and leads to their downfall, i.e. housing and stock market crash of the 21st century." I have a Masters degree in business administration, which includes plenty of macro economic class requirements. The Clinton years produced massive SURPLUSES actually. Not deficits. In fact, he's the only president during my lifetime to run a surplus. That kind of shoots a huge hole in your theory. The BUSH years produced massive deficits. So, by your own logic, Bush is responsible for the current problems. But don't let the facts get in the way of your patronizing me. :P "Yes the republicans failed to prevent 911 and got us into two wars, I will give you that, but isn't it your dear Obama who advocates MORE troops in Afghanistan and still has yet to show any significant signs of troops removal in Iraq? This whole misconception that republicans are war mongers is completely unjustified. Wasn't it Truman that got us into Korea and Eisenhower who got us out? Wasn't it Johnson that got us into nam and Nixon who got us out?" Number of wars started and not finished during the Clinton years = 0. Number started and not finished during the Bush years = 2. Obama's stated intention is a gradual drawdown of troops in both countries so we can leave in a responsible manner. He INHERITED those wars. Just like he inherited an economy on the verge of total collapse. "But back to Bill, it may have seemed that he was combating unemployment and inflation, but massive spending and massive taxing almost indefinitely leads to economic downfall which was experienced during the Bush years and formally blamed on Bush by the economically uneducated." Clinton passed a couple of tax cuts on the middle class during his time. In fact, taxes were lower during the Clinton years than the Reagan years. So, by your logic, REAGAN is to blame for the current economic downturn.
The reason the Clinton years ended in the surplus was because of inflation buddy, he devalued the dollar, but in the process printed billions out if not trillions to make the illusion that there was a surplus, and guess you has to pick up the pieces of the inflation? The very middle class who he decided to aleviate on taxes, the reality is inflation is a hidden tax on the people and Clinton knew damn well of it and did nothing to prevent it knowing that the price to pay for it wouldn't come in his administration.
Reagon did tax just like any other president, but Reaganomics definetly taxed less than the Clinton administration. How else was clinton going to fund all those government programs he created?
... wow.... Saying something nutso in a patronizing tone doesn't make it true...Are you trying to make a jone or something?
Reagan? Deficit spending? I'm not going to get into it, but look up Reaganomics, you will hopefully understand.
sacredtext62
Government spending under Bush was higher than under Clinton. During the Clinton years, the inflation rate was 2.6%, 2.8%, 3.0%, 2.3%, 1.6%, 3.2%, 3.4% and 2.8%, respectively. Those eight years average an inflation rate of 2.7%.The reason the Clinton years ended in the surplus was because of inflation buddy, he devalued the dollar, but in the process printed billions out if not trillions to make the illusion that there was a surplus, and guess you has to pick up the pieces of the inflation? The very middle class who he decided to aleviate on taxes, the reality is inflation is a hidden tax on the people and Clinton knew damn well of it and did nothing to prevent it knowing that the price to pay for it wouldn't come in his administration.
Reagon did tax just like any other president, but Reaganomics definetly taxed less than the Clinton administration. How else was clinton going to fund all those government programs he created?
sacredtext62
[QUOTE="sacredtext62"]I think we can all thank good ol' Bill. Good ol' Bill who got us into the recession we are in today die to his massive spending and massive taxing during the 90's. Yup, Bill is a crisis dodging super hero who takes part in the whole "blame Bush for everything bad that happened in the 21st and 20st century mentality". What a hero that guy, I hope all the unemployed love him as well, because that's all his fault as is everything economically.Maniacc1To completely discredit Bush era economic policies as a fundamental reason for the current economic crisis is not only stupid, but ignorant. Of course, some of Clinton's domestic economic policies can be put to blame for the most recent recession, but Bush and especially his puppeteer Dick should be held to the same regard. Let's not forget that Clinton also left office with a surplus after having balanced the budget for the first time since the 1960's, something Bush's unstable war efforts prevented him from ever accomplishing. Yes I will agree with you that the Wars funding also hurt our dollars value. I just don't support the whole Clinton was an infallible president and we should blame Bush for everything bad that happened since Jesus was crucified argument.
What are you talking about? What massive deficit spending? He left office with a HUGE surplus. The only presidents who have done massive deficit spending in the past 20-30 years have been Reagan, H.W., and Dubya.[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="sacredtext62"] Hah, nice try but you inevitably lose with your pathetic use of liberal rhetoric to dodge the real question at hand. Yes, you are right it is quite a lag time for a recession, if you knew anything about how an economy worked you would know that massive deficit spending results in a glorious few years where the effect of that spending is taking place. Sadly, inflation and the heavy taxes gets the best of our citizens and leads to their downfall, i.e. housing and stock market crash of the 21st century. Yes the republicans failed to prevent 911 and got us into two wars, I will give you that, but isn't it your dear Obama who advocates MORE troops in Afghanistan and still has yet to show any significant signs of troops removal in Iraq? This whole misconception that republicans are war mongers is completely unjustified. Wasn't it Truman that got us into Korea and Eisenhower who got us out? Wasn't it Johnson that got us into nam and Nixon who got us out? But back to Bill, it may have seemed that he was combating unemployment and inflation, but massive spending and massive taxing almost indefinitely leads to economic downfall which was experienced during the Bush years and formally blamed on Bush by the economically uneducated.sacredtext62
Are you trying to make a jone or something?
Reagan? Deficit spending? I'm not going to get into it, but look up Reaganomics, you will hopefully understand.
H.W. worked rigorously to make sure tazes weren't raised, but in the light of the Gulf war a little raise was necessary, but not desired by him.
And Bush? He vetoed multiple spending programs proposed by the democratic congress in the last two years of the presidency, I don't know what you are smoking.
As for Clinton, you failed to address the question. Yes he left with the surplus, but the surplus was short lived due to INFLATION.
Dude, what are you talking about?As you can see, Reagan ran the largest deficits since WWII at the time. H.W. Followed suit. Clinton was the one who brought down the deficit and actually ran a surplus, the first time since the late 60's. And W. ran the biggest deficits of them all, trumping even his father.
And the surplus wasn't short lived due to inflation; it was because of Bush's tax cuts. At least Reagan raised taxes a number of times to reduce the deficit; the same can't be said for W.
[QUOTE="sacredtext62"]Government spending under Bush was been higher than under Clinton. During the Clinton years, the inflation rate was 2.6%, 2.8%, 3.0%, 2.3%, 1.6%, 3.2%, 3.4% and 2.8%, respectively. Those eight years average an inflation rate of 2.7%. Cut out the war in Iraq and you will see that Clinton's domestic government spending trumps Bush's in every regard. I will admit that Iraq wasn't a necessary war, but once Bush got in there he was pretty much forced to constantly fund it.The reason the Clinton years ended in the surplus was because of inflation buddy, he devalued the dollar, but in the process printed billions out if not trillions to make the illusion that there was a surplus, and guess you has to pick up the pieces of the inflation? The very middle class who he decided to aleviate on taxes, the reality is inflation is a hidden tax on the people and Clinton knew damn well of it and did nothing to prevent it knowing that the price to pay for it wouldn't come in his administration.
Reagon did tax just like any other president, but Reaganomics definetly taxed less than the Clinton administration. How else was clinton going to fund all those government programs he created?
nocoolnamejim
[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="sacredtext62"]Government spending under Bush was been higher than under Clinton. During the Clinton years, the inflation rate was 2.6%, 2.8%, 3.0%, 2.3%, 1.6%, 3.2%, 3.4% and 2.8%, respectively. Those eight years average an inflation rate of 2.7%. Cut out the war in Iraq and you will see that Clinton's domestic government spending trumps Bush's in every regard. I will admit that Iraq wasn't a necessary war, but once Bush got in there he was pretty much forced to constantly fund it. Sorry, you don't get to pick and choose what gets included under the government spending umbrella. The Iraq war isn't being paid for by Monopoly money. It counts. And the proper response when your point about Clinton running high rates of inflation being shown to be factually wrong is to acknowledge the point.The reason the Clinton years ended in the surplus was because of inflation buddy, he devalued the dollar, but in the process printed billions out if not trillions to make the illusion that there was a surplus, and guess you has to pick up the pieces of the inflation? The very middle class who he decided to aleviate on taxes, the reality is inflation is a hidden tax on the people and Clinton knew damn well of it and did nothing to prevent it knowing that the price to pay for it wouldn't come in his administration.
Reagon did tax just like any other president, but Reaganomics definetly taxed less than the Clinton administration. How else was clinton going to fund all those government programs he created?
sacredtext62
I'll say this once and I'll say it again, Reagan wanted to fix the economy by using the money already in the economy to create jobs and limit government involvement in the economy. A surplus was seen during Clinton's administration due to the massive amounts of money flowing into the economy, that's why it seems on a broad scale that Clinton barely did any spending and tampering with the economy due to the pseudo-surplus which was seen.sacredtext62Wow, umm, ok, well you have a nice time there on Counter-Earth... or Earth-2... or wherever
I'll say this once and I'll say it again, Reagan wanted to fix the economy by using the money already in the economy to create jobs and limit government involvement in the economy. A surplus was seen during Clinton's administration due to the massive amounts of money flowing into the economy, that's why it seems on a broad scale that Clinton barely did any spending and tampering with the economy due to the pseudo-surplus which was seen.sacredtext62I look over that paragraph and see the following: "Reagan wanted to fix the economy by using the money already in the economy to create jobs and limit government involvement in the economy" The mission statement for the Fortune 100 company I work for is more specific than this. The same thing could be said of pretty much every single modern U.S. president. "A surplus was seen during Clinton's administration due to the massive amounts of money flowing into the economy," And where did that massive amount of money flowing into the economy come from? If you want to credit the Reagan years, then you have to acknowledge that the revenue came from a higher tax rate than the Clinton years had...which shoots a hole in the "higher taxes always = death for the economy". As is historical fact: Reagan RAISED TAXES (which INCREASES the "money already in the economy") and had higher tax rates across the board than the Clinton years had. So if you're going to credit Reagan, then you need to credit Reagan's higher taxes and passed tax increases. Otherwise, you kind of need to credit Clinton. "that's why it seems on a broad scale that Clinton barely did any spending and tampering with the economy due to the pseudo-surplus which was seen." Nobody is claiming that Clinton barely did any spending. What people are saying is that he balanced the budget and ran surpluses. In other words, his government raised more money than it spent. No other president in my lifetime can claim that. If you're going to credit Reagan for that, then you have to acknowledge that tax increases aren't always bad for the economy. If you're not going to credit Reagan for that, then you need to acknowledge that Clinton didn't wreck the economy when he had it. The Clinton economy had, (historical fact): 1. Low inflation 2. Budget surpluses 3. Lower taxes than the Reagan or Bush SR. years 4. Low unemployment 5. The longest period of uninterrupted economic expansion in U.S. history. This isn't my opinion. This is verifiable fact.
In related news it looks like they had a rock'n time.
duxup
I think a few beers could have helped. It worked for Obama.:P
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment