Clintion good or bad?

[Captain America]

First you called me an a@@hole, and now J@ckoff. I guess the mods are relaxing the name calling rules around here.

Nah.....they're probably just busy.

That's gonna cost him I'm sure.

Hell, I got 2 points for just calling Navy Pride "Navy Pride." :mrgreen:

But it was well worth it indeed.

 

[mpg]

Yep. The conservatives gave us a clear choice. The nation chose; and got got it chose -- $3 trillion more debt and a mistaken war.

When the Republicans took control of Congress, the debt went down, not up.

 

[jfuh]

When the Republicans took control of Congress, the debt went down, not up.

So why is the debt going up so much now? Seems to have nothing to do with "Republican Leadership".

 

[Iriemon]

When the Republicans took control of Congress, the debt went down, not up.

I think you would mean to say that the deficits went down, not the debt. The debt did not go down when the Republicans took control of Congress in '95; the deficits continued to decline.

But the undeniable truth is, the debt -- and deficits -- skyrocketed when the Republicans took control of the government.

 

[mpg]

So why is the debt going up so much now? Seems to have nothing to do with "Republican Leadership".

I give W a lot of the blame for that, but my comment was in a 1994 context.

 

[mpg]

I think you would mean to say that the deficits went down, not the debt. The debt did not go down when the Republicans took control of Congress in '95; the deficits continued to decline.

But the undeniable truth is, the debt -- and deficits -- skyrocketed when the Republicans took control of the government.

You're correct. Gee, I'm usually anal about things like that.

I have to agree with you. I give low marks to the current handling of the deficit situation.

 

[Hoot]

the person serving as President is still just a citizen,

I'd like to start by addressing this comment, Stinger.

Once again, I ask you...if the president was scheduled to appear in civil court on the afternoon of 9/11..after our nation was attacked, or if our nation was at war, should the President be temporarily excused from attending to civil court matters?

Yes or no?

Anyone, with even a bit of common sense and patriotism, would agree that the civil court proceeding should be delayed.

Therefore...your first argument, that the president is still "just a citizen," flies in the face of any reason.

So....yes or no, Stinger? Will you admit that there may be occassions when the president is not treated just like an ordinary citizen?

If you cannot concede this one little point, then there's no reason in my continuing this discussion with you.

 

[easyt65]

just pointing out how you were whining about having to hear more discussion on Clinton WHILE IN A THREAD ABOUT CLINTON!

Wow you are persceptive. That's right, this is a thread about Clinton Wish I could have said the same for you.

 

[easyt65]

Nah.....they're probably just busy.
But it was well worth it indeed.

Yeah, it sure was!

 

[easyt65]

So why is the debt going up so much now? .

Its called a war, JFUH. Defending our nation and the lives of Americans actually costs money, which is probably why Clinton ran from Al Qaeda during his 8 years!

 

[Iriemon]

Originally Posted by jfuh
So why is the debt going up so much now? .

Its called passing the buck, JFUH. Bush and the Republicans pandered to the electorate by passing massive tax cuts he told us would not cause deficits. Then there is the massive defense spending and war games, that he is paying for by borrowing from the next generation of Americans.

Wars can be great fun, and conservatives love them. We get to kick some *** (I mean, who really cares if they are actually our enemies or not), see cool jets zooming around, and big explosions -- BOOM KABLOOEY! Body parts flying all over the place! How cool is that? It's much better than when they used to play with those little toy soldiers as kids. Conservatives are all for wars -- as long as they don't actually have to pay for them. And Bush has brilliantly figured it all out for them -- tax breaks for the rich, cools wars, neat military toys, and *we* don't have to pay a cent for any of it! Isn't that brilliant? All we have to do is just "charge it."

Bush. Leader of the pass the buck generation.

 

[easyt65]

Its called passing the buck, JFUH.

Passing the buck is when a terrorist leader declares war on your country & you ignore him, hoping he goes away.

Passing the buck is when the Islamic Extremists kill Americans in the Kobar Towers & you ignore them.....

Passing the buck is when the Islamic Extremists kill Americans on the USS Cole & you ignore them.....

Passing the buck is when the Islamic Extremists kill Americans in 2 African Embassies & you ignore them.....

Passing the buck is when the Islamic Extremists kill an American Marine Colonel & you ignore them.....

Passing the buck is when you are offered the leader of the terrorists who have been killing Americans under your watch and you refuse to accept him/take him into custody because 'he isn't that big of a threat' and it might make people in the Muslim community mad at 'me'....

Passing the buck is when you are briefed by a Special Terrorist Group called Able Danger about Al Qaeda, how they have been responsible for killing Americans, and how they are planning something bigger - ignoring it - and then lying about ever being briefed (not to mention having Sandy Berger steal and shred the classified docs that prove you lied and how you did nothing to protect America)!

Passing the buck is being a coward, taking the oath of office to defend this country, its people, and the Constitution then hide form the War brought to you that is claiming American lives while you pretend its not happening!

 

[Iriemon]

Passing the buck is when a terrorist leader declares war on your country & you ignore him, hoping he goes away.

Passing the buck is when the Islamic Extremists kill Americans in the Kobar Towers & you ignore them.....

Passing the buck is when the Islamic Extremists kill Americans on the USS Cole & you ignore them.....

Passing the buck is when the Islamic Extremists kill Americans in 2 African Embassies & you ignore them.....

Passing the buck is when the Islamic Extremists kill an American Marine Colonel & you ignore them.....

Passing the buck is when you are offered the leader of the terrorists who have been killing Americans under your watch and you refuse to accept him/take him into custody because 'he isn't that big of a threat' and it might make people in the Muslim community mad at 'me'....

Passing the buck is when you are briefed by a Special Terrorist Group called Able Danger about Al Qaeda, how they have been responsible for killing Americans, and how they are planning something bigger - ignoring it - and then lying about ever being briefed (not to mention having Sandy Berger steal and shred the classified docs that prove you lied and how you did nothing to protect America)!

Passing the buck is being a coward, taking the oath of office to defend this country, its people, and the Constitution then hide form the War brought to you that is claiming American lives while you pretend its not happening!

No that's called "hindsight" or "Monday morning quarterbacking." You know, like saying Bush should have done something more than nothing after eight months in office facing a known terrorist threat, and after receiving explicit warning that bin Laden was going to attack with aircraft, one month before 9-11.

"Passing the buck" is running the government with tax cuts and war games by borring $3 trillion dollars our kids will be burdened with, along with the boomer health care and pensions. "Passing the buck" is getting the country embroiled in a religious civil war by "mistake" and then saying it's the next president's problem to deal with. "Passing the buck" is pro-debt conservatives finding any excuse about why it's OK that this president has increased the national debt by 50% in just 5 years, after inheriting a surplus budget.

 

[easyt65]

No that's called "hindsight" or "Monday morning quarterbacking."

Hindsight is seeing you shouldn't have passed that last gas station when you thought you could make the rest of the distance after ending up on the side of the road!

'Monday Morning Quarterbacking' is a sports term for deciding you would have done something different, usually referring to a 1 time thing, like saying lying under oath and witness tampering that 1 time was a dumb mistake 'I' wouldn't have made.

In the case of bin Ladden, Al Qaeda, and all those events i mentioned earlier, it happened again and again! americans were attacked over and over! Every single time he chose to ignore it. He was told point blank by bin ladden that he was at war with us, was going to kill Americans, and then did it! If Clinton couldn't catch on after the 1st couple attacks, he was stupid...or a coward! How many people would have had to die for him to do something? It was just pure 'luck' that Clinton was not in office when 9/11 happened. There is no reason to believe he would have done anything differently when he was told terrorists were going to kill Americans during his terms and did nothing but stand by and allow it to happen! If we would have been attacked ONCE and he did nothing - THAT would have been hindsight or 'MMQBing'. what we are talking about is failing to defend Americans throughout his full 2 terms as terrorists hunted and Killed Americans abroad! Sorry, 'Hindsight' and 'MMQBing' don't cover THAT!

 

[Hoot]

Don't ask me for a link, but I heard on National Public Radio the other day that Bush's tax cuts for the rich, if continued through 2010, will cost us more than the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq combined!

So, please don't use the war against terrorism as an excuse for Bush's excesses. Bush has yet to veto a single solitary spending bill.

Clinton was far more conservative than Bush can ever dream of.

 

[Iriemon]

Don't ask me for a link, but I heard on National Public Radio the other day that Bush's tax cuts for the rich, if continued through 2010, will cost us more than the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq combined!

So, please don't use the war against terrorism as an excuse for Bush's excesses. Bush has yet to veto a single solitary spending bill.

Clinton was far more conservative than Bush can ever dream of.

The tax cuts have contributed far more to the deficits than the wars. The total cost of the wars to date is in the neighborhood of $300 billion. If you add in increased spending on defense, maybe another $400 billion.

Revenues thru 2005 would have been well over a trillion greater without the tax cuts, had income tax revenues kept up with economic growth.

 

[jfuh]

Don't ask me for a link, but I heard on National Public Radio the other day that Bush's tax cuts for the rich, if continued through 2010, will cost us more than the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq combined!

So, please don't use the war against terrorism as an excuse for Bush's excesses. Bush has yet to veto a single solitary spending bill.

Clinton was far more conservative than Bush can ever dream of.

Why veto a bill when you can use signing statment to make line vetos?

 

[Stinger]

I'd like to start by addressing this comment, Stinger.

I have answered the questions, I have posted the cites including the decissions of the courts which heard the case all the way up to the SCOTUS. They also address your questions. If you want to directly rebut those then do so.

But your side LOST, it was full adjudicated and yes Presidents are no different from you or me when it comes to obeying the law and having to appear in court if they don't.

Just as now, Plame has named Bush in her lawsuit. Bush can't beg out of it for two years as you claim he should be able to.

Do you think he should be able to tell her to take a hike until he's out of office?

Funny she hasn't name Armitage and said she wouldn't in an interview and he's the one who told Novak.

 

[Stinger]

Don't ask me for a link, but I heard on National Public Radio the other day that Bush's tax cuts for the rich, if continued through 2010, will cost us more than the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq combined!

And exactly how did they figure that, what would have happened to the economic slow down that had just started a few months before he took office?

So, please don't use the war against terrorism as an excuse for Bush's excesses.

So on the one hand your side complains about how much money it cost, but then on the otherhand don't want to hear how it effects the budget. Quite duplicious on your part wouldn't you say?

Clinton was far more conservative than Bush can ever dream of.

How so what conservative measures did he oritiginate? He delayed the recovery he inherited with his tax increases (which he even said were too high), he fought wel-fare reform and vowed to repeal it when relected (which like all his campaign promises he didn't do it), he fought for higher spending than congress would allow every year, he joined with his wife to have government take over the health care system (fortuniately they lost on that one too).

So what were his conservative measures he proposed and got passed.

 

[mpg]

Clinton was far more conservative than Bush can ever dream of.

Conservatives get laughed at when we say things like that.

 

[Iriemon]

...He delayed the recovery he inherited with his tax increases ...

Is that right? Clinton "delayed the Bush recovery" eh? Was that the Bush recovery from the Reagan rescession?

Anyway, prove it please. And make sure you show us how you factor out all other variables that affect the economy like you demand for proof on how tax rates effect the economy. Thanks.

 

[Stinger]

Is that right? Clinton "delayed the Bush recovery" eh? Was that the Bush recovery from the Reagan rescession?

No it was the recovery from the Bush recession which was deepened by the hugh tax increase the Democrats passed.

Anyway, prove it please. And make sure you show us how you factor out all other variables that affect the economy like you demand for proof on how tax rates effect the economy. Thanks.

You mean as opposed as to how you and others took revenue growth and tried to state how tax rates alone effect it but argued at the same time that tax rates don't effect the economy.

Sure, here is one study that was done

*Using the Washington University Macro Model, a computer
simulation of the economy, researchers concluded that the
recovery from the 1990-91 recession has not been as strong as
it might have been without the tax increase. Among the effects: *

* * Economic output from 1993 through 1996 was $208
billion less than it would have been -- a loss equal to
nearly $2,100 per household.

* The gross domestic product would have grown $66 billion
more over the period than it actually did.

* A total of 1.2 million more jobs would have been created.

* Potential employee wages and salaries were reduced over
the 1993-1996 period by $112 billion in today's dollars.

* The growth in real personal disposable income over the
same period was reduced by $264 million in today's dollars.
*

*The 1993 tax increase was supposed to reduce the budget
deficit, but partly due to its ill effects on the economy, it
brought in only 49 percent of the new revenues predicted by
the Congressional Budget Office. *

*The economy has been recovering from the 1990-91 recession
since March 1991; but the recovery has been weak. For example,
studies have shown that real median family income has remained
level since 1992, and since the third quarter of 1993 real
hourly compensation (which includes benefits as well as pay)
has not increased significantly. *

*During this recovery, the gross domestic product has
increased less than half as much as the average during three
previous long recoveries -- during the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s.
Industrial production and total employment have increased just
over half as much, and unemployment has declined by less than
half the number during the previous expansions. *

*Source: Scott A. Hodge, William W. Beach, et al., "Is There A
'Clinton Crunch'?: How the 1993 Budget Plan Affected the
Economy," Backgrounder No. 1078, May 1, 1996, Heritage
Foundation, 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE, Washington, DC
20002, (202) 546-4400. *

 

[Iriemon]

No it was the recovery from the Bush recession which was deepened by the hugh tax increase the Democrats passed.

Are you now trying to assert the rescession under Bush1 "deepened" after the Democrat tax increase in '93? I'll give you a chance to correct yourself.

 

[Iriemon]

You mean as opposed as to how you and others took revenue growth and tried to state how tax rates alone effect it but argued at the same time that tax rates don't effect the economy.

I never argued that. You must have me confused with someone else.

Sure, here is one study that was done

*Using the Washington University Macro Model, a computer
simulation of the economy, researchers concluded that the
recovery from the 1990-91 recession has not been as strong as
it might have been without the tax increase. Among the effects: *

* * Economic output from 1993 through 1996 was $208
billion less than it would have been -- a loss equal to
nearly $2,100 per household.

* The gross domestic product would have grown $66 billion
more over the period than it actually did.

* A total of 1.2 million more jobs would have been created.

* Potential employee wages and salaries were reduced over
the 1993-1996 period by $112 billion in today's dollars.

* The growth in real personal disposable income over the
same period was reduced by $264 million in today's dollars.
*

*The 1993 tax increase was supposed to reduce the budget
deficit, but partly due to its ill effects on the economy, it
brought in only 49 percent of the new revenues predicted by
the Congressional Budget Office. *

*The economy has been recovering from the 1990-91 recession
since March 1991; but the recovery has been weak. For example,
studies have shown that real median family income has remained
level since 1992, and since the third quarter of 1993 real
hourly compensation (which includes benefits as well as pay)
has not increased significantly. *

*During this recovery, the gross domestic product has
increased less than half as much as the average during three
previous long recoveries -- during the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s.
Industrial production and total employment have increased just
over half as much, and unemployment has declined by less than
half the number during the previous expansions. *

*Source: Scott A. Hodge, William W. Beach, et al., "Is There A
'Clinton Crunch'?: How the 1993 Budget Plan Affected the
Economy," Backgrounder No. 1078, May 1, 1996, Heritage
Foundation, 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE, Washington, DC
20002, (202) 546-4400. *

You mean the Heritage Foundation's report concluded that things would have been better with a tax cut? Wow! There's a shocker.

Great "proof".

I posted an article in an earlier thread that reported the tax cuts did nothing for the economy, except create massive deficits. Big deal. You can find articles that say anything when it comes to the economy.

 

[Iriemon]

Sure, here is one study that was done

*Using the Washington University Macro Model, a computer
simulation of the economy, researchers concluded that the
recovery from the 1990-91 recession has not been as strong as
it might have been without the tax increase. Among the effects: *

* * Economic output from 1993 through 1996 was $208
billion less than it would have been -- a loss equal to
nearly $2,100 per household.

Err, what happened in '91 when taxes were lower and there was a recession?

* The gross domestic product would have grown $66 billion
more over the period than it actually did.

* A total of 1.2 million more jobs would have been created.

Like 22 million jobs created weren't enough. Now how many jobs have been created since '01 with the create economic growth engine created by the Bush tax cuts?

* Potential employee wages and salaries were reduced over
the 1993-1996 period by $112 billion in today's dollars.

* The growth in real personal disposable income over the
same period was reduced by $264 million in today's dollars.
*

As opposed to under the Bush tax cuts, where they have stagnated, unless you are among the richest.

*The 1993 tax increase was supposed to reduce the budget
deficit, but partly due to its ill effects on the economy, it
brought in only 49 percent of the new revenues predicted by
the Congressional Budget Office. *

LMFAO! Have they checked the Bush's prediction with his tax cuts? "I'll pay down the debt by 2 trillion...." LMAO!

"Only 49% of the revenues .... compared to what? what are they smoking? Revenues after '93 grew *far* faster than they did in the 80s or 00s.

*The economy has been recovering from the 1990-91 recession
since March 1991; but the recovery has been weak. For example,
studies have shown that real median family income has remained
level since 1992, and since the third quarter of 1993 real
hourly compensation (which includes benefits as well as pay)
has not increased significantly. *

I wonder what they think of the Bush recovery, 5 years later, with poverty increasing median wages down.

*During this recovery, the gross domestic product has
increased less than half as much as the average during three
previous long recoveries -- during the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s.
Industrial production and total employment have increased just
over half as much, and unemployment has declined by less than
half the number during the previous expansions. *

Interesting, real growth during the Clinton term was better than the 70s, Reagan or Bush or Bush.

*Source: Scott A. Hodge, William W. Beach, et al., "Is There A
'Clinton Crunch'?: How the 1993 Budget Plan Affected the
Economy," Backgrounder No. 1078, May 1, 1996, Heritage
Foundation, 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE, Washington, DC
20002, (202) 546-4400. *

Maybe they wree only looking at one or two year's data. Obviously they didn't know the rest of the story.