Is The President Looking Better Economically Than Bill Clinton?

[obvious Child]

Race had a lot to do with Obama's election.

Not really.

The Democrats could have run a dead zebra (oh look, a very not subtle black and white joke) and won. The Republican brand was so tarnished from 8 years of Bush that frankly ANYONE with an R after their name would have faced a huge challenge. McCain sealed his fate though by picking Palin who UTTERLY destroyed support among independents. The Biden-Palin debate aftermath polls showed a massive slide towards Obama-Biden. McCain had a real problem before he picked Palin. After picking Palin, it was virtually assured he would lose.

The fact that Obama won has really nothing to do with him, it has everything to do with the fact that the GOP as a brand in 2008 was badly damaged.

 

[obvious Child]

Don't be ridiculous. The first half black man to be nominated by a major party won two elections. I contend that being half black helped him because of a number of factors. How many of our past presidents ran against a person of color who had the nomination of a major party? You may need some help with the answer and I am here to help you. The answer would be none. Barry O is the only frame of reference you have and citing past presidents is meaningless.

Don't misunderstand me, I'm totally fine with any president based on race, ethnicity and gender just as long as they aren't liberal.

Most of the Presidents in US history didn't have to run against a party that was being declared "badly tarnished" by own members.

You are putting way too much emphasis on race and not enough on the GOP's destruction of their own brand. The Democrats could have won with virtually anyone.

 

[Campbell]

There is so much you don't know I really doubt that it's worth my time and energy to bring you up to speed. You've demonstrated that you don't know about tax policy. You don't understand that the economy is zero sum. Trust me. Your graph is meaningless. Capitalism promotes growth and opportunity. Socialism strives for shared misery. You seem to think that because there are successful people in the world someone has to lose. nothing could be further from the truth. Your outlook is sad and I'm sorry I can't help you.

Learn about tax policy and then come back and talk to me. Until you do, you are out of your depth.

Trust you?

How's this for facts:

Total U S Debt


09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)

09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accomodate Tens of Trillions)

09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32

09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)


09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16

09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)


09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)

09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)

09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32

09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38(Tax Rates Slashed To Depression Levels) Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)

09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42
09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00
09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00
09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00

09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)

09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00

 

[sawdust]

I agree with you to a certain extent. McCain was and is a poor choice for President. While I respect his service, I wish he'd retire. He annoys me almost as much as Obama. Everyone keeps on ragging on Palin. She was barBQued by the media and gets credit for saying lots of things that were actually said on Saturday Night Live. She was an accomplished and popular governor in Alaska prior to the election. Was she the ideal choice, probably not as it turned out but if you look at the top of the ticket McCain was old and slow and Obama was young and cool by comparison. Obama got nearly all of the black vote, liberals, guilt ridden whites and college age voters who believed that the oceans would stop rising if Obama was elected.

Following Bush didn't necessarily help either.

 

[sawdust]

Most of the Presidents in US history didn't have to run against a party that was being declared "badly tarnished" by own members.

You are putting way too much emphasis on race and not enough on the GOP's destruction of their own brand. The Democrats could have won with virtually anyone.

Again, the Republicans assembled a poor ticket. We'll never know what the outcome might have been if Republicans had run someone young, vibrant, articulate and cool. I don't think that race can be understated in the coalition that the democrats put together.

 

[sawdust]

Trust you?

How's this for facts:

That's a very nice copy paste. I don't know what you think it proves though. Do you know the difference between revenue and spending?

 

[jonny5]

Bull****! The common denominator for debt in the last 30 years in this country is tax cuts for the wealthy. When do you expect your check from Trickle Down??

Look closely at the drop of the upper 1% which began during Reagan years as Bill Clinton left office. Bill Clinton raised tax rates for the wealthiest and things were beginning to show a little more equality when he left office. Guess what? After assuming a balanced budget with surpluses projected all the way to the debt being completely settled Bush used reconciliation to cut tax rates for his oil buddies not just once but two times, 2001 and 2003. Then the rich got richer and the poorer sucked wind:

Rediculous. Debt is caused by SPENDING more than you have, not earning less than you spend. Meanwhile, the rich are paying more taxes than ever, and a greater share of taxes, and a greater share of taxes than what they earn. And GDP keeps going up. So what if the rich get richer. So does everyone else.

 

[jonny5]

Most of the Presidents in US history didn't have to run against a party that was being declared "badly tarnished" by own members.

You are putting way too much emphasis on race and not enough on the GOP's destruction of their own brand. The Democrats could have won with virtually anyone.

The GOP got the same number of votes in 2012 as in 2008, nearly 60 million votes. Meanwhile Obama got 2 million less. Democrats lost the house. That doesnt point to a brand thats under destruction.

 

[jonny5]

Trust you?

How's this for facts:

Total U S Debt


09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)

09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accomodate Tens of Trillions)

09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32

09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)


09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16

09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)


09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)

09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)

09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32

09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38(Tax Rates Slashed To Depression Levels) Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)

09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42
09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00
09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00
09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00

09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)

09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00

Correlation does not mean causation. Other than during the reccession, taxes remained the same no matter what rate. Meanwhile spending kept increasing.

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

Race had a lot to do with Obama's election. I know, although not well, Herman Cain. I wanted to work for him when he ran for the Senate in Georgia but couldn't spare the time. It's about ideology for me, not race, but you will never convince me that an overwhelming number of blacks only see Obama's race and support him even though his presidency has been disastrous for the black community. I do sense a very disagreeable racial bias in what you've posted however.

There were about 600K blacks who likely voted based on race. Obama won by almost 5 million.

 

[sawdust]

There were about 600K blacks who likely voted based on race. Obama won by almost 5 million.

Don't know where you got your number. Seems low.

There are around 43 million African Americans and we accounted for a large block of the votes that got Obama a second term in office. According to ABC polls, 96 percent of African American voters were predicted to vote for Obama.

Freeway Rick Ross: How African-Americans Shaped the Reelection of Barack Obama and What Happens Next

 

[Campbell]

That's a very nice copy paste. I don't know what you think it proves though. Do you know the difference between revenue and spending?

I know the difference between tax cuts for the wealthy, continued spending and borrowing to cover the difference which is exactly what the Republicans have been doing since January 1981. The facts prove it and trying to rewrite history is something that's very popular among the Fox News anchors and Republicans these days.

 

[sawdust]

I know the difference between tax cuts for the wealthy, continued spending and borrowing to cover the difference which is exactly what the Republicans have been doing since January 1981. The facts prove it and trying to rewrite history is something that's very popular among the Fox News anchors and Republicans these days.

Why aren't you just the little talking point repeater. If you ever have anything of substance, feel free to get back to me.

 

[CRUE CAB]

No.....but Bill Clinton was the best since Franklin Roosevelt.

You mean Erskine Bowles and Leon Panetta. Clinton just signed the paperwork.

 

[jonny5]

I know the difference between tax cuts for the wealthy, continued spending and borrowing to cover the difference which is exactly what the Republicans have been doing since January 1981. The facts prove it and trying to rewrite history is something that's very popular among the Fox News anchors and Republicans these days.

Republicans AND Democrats. But at least your admitting that spending is the problem now. If you want people to stop supporting politicans who deficit spend, then you should lead by example and stop doing it yourself.

 

[Campbell]

Why aren't you just the little talking point repeater. If you ever have anything of substance, feel free to get back to me.

Hold that attitude. It'll get your asses kicked again.

Obama.....332
Romney...206

 

[Fisher]

Not sure about economically, but Obama's hair is looking as white as Bill Clinton's these days. I guess getting re-elected allowed him to drop the pretense of youth provided by Just For Men.

 

[sawdust]

Hold that attitude. It'll get your asses kicked again.

Obama.....332
Romney...206

Just to be clear, I voted for anyone but Obama and I didn't get my ass kicked, America did.

 

[Mycroft]

No.....but Bill Clinton was the best since Franklin Roosevelt.

This is like saying a **** sandwich is better than a poop pie...which was better than a diarrhea milkshake.

(I'll leave it to you to decide who is what)

 

[Campbell]

Republicans AND Democrats. But at least your admitting that spending is the problem now. If you want people to stop supporting politicans who deficit spend, then you should lead by example and stop doing it yourself.

You keep on fooling yourself. You want to wait till the interest on the Reagan/Bushes debt is massive then blame Obama for having to borrow it. The end of Bush's last budget left a payment of $451 billion which was due and payable. It's not Obama's responsibility to be blamed for a debt he did not make. If we don't pay the interest on what we owe, on time each year we go into default and even the Republican house isn't going to see that. You folks just laugh and make jokes about it but this nation still had a middle class when the debt was less than $1 trillion. Reagan slashed tax rates, kept on spending and borrowed $3 trillion by the time he and Bush41 left office. You never even look at it but I'm going to post it every time the subject comes up. These figures are exact and can be checked by those at the bureau of U S debt:

Total U S Debt


09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)

09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accomodate Tens of Trillions)

09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32

09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)


09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16

09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)


09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)

09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)

09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32

09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38(After Tax Rates Were Slashed To Depression Levels) Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)

09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42
09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00
09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00
09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00

09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)

09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00

 

[obvious Child]

I agree with you to a certain extent. McCain was and is a poor choice for President. While I respect his service, I wish he'd retire. He annoys me almost as much as Obama. Everyone keeps on ragging on Palin. She was barBQued by the media and gets credit for saying lots of things that were actually said on Saturday Night Live.

Palin destroyed the ticket the night of the Vice Presidential debate. Without independents, you cannot win the election. And she utterly destroyed their support. Palin couldn't even name a magazine she reads. That sent the sign she's uninformed.

She was an accomplished and popular governor in Alaska prior to the election.

That's not what Alaskans say. Especially after she screwed the infrastructure budget over. Of all the states that require large expenditures on things like roads, Alaska is the #1 due to sheer size.

Was she the ideal choice, probably not as it turned out but if you look at the top of the ticket McCain was old and slow and Obama was young and cool by comparison. Obama got nearly all of the black vote, liberals, guilt ridden whites and college age voters who believed that the oceans would stop rising if Obama was elected.

Talk like that ensures you're never going to understand why your party lost. Blaming the other side and refusing to examine your own party's missteps ensures you'll make them again and again and again.

Following Bush didn't necessarily help either.

As I said, the Dems could have run a dead zebra and won.

Again, the Republicans assembled a poor ticket. We'll never know what the outcome might have been if Republicans had run someone young, vibrant, articulate and cool. I don't think that race can be understated in the coalition that the democrats put together.

Still unlikely. The GOP brand was tarnished. Simply being a Republican would have made it extremely hard to win.

 

[Perotista]

No.....but Bill Clinton was the best since Franklin Roosevelt.

FDR's economy was in the pits, remember the great depression. It took WWII to pull us out of that depression. Now IKE's and JFK's economy was great, I can personally remember them. LBJ, Nixon, Ford and Carter, theirs were not so hot, although LBJ probably had the best economy of the 4. Reagan's after 1982 took off. Bush the 1st ended up being so, so. Clinton's was good after 1994, but how much of that was due to the GOP congress? Bush the 2nd, ended up sucking and Obama economy is still bad, although improving very slowly.

my opinion.

 

[polgara]

FDR's economy was in the pits, remember the great depression. It took WWII to pull us out of that depression. Now IKE's and JFK's economy was great, I can personally remember them. LBJ, Nixon, Ford and Carter, theirs were not so hot, although LBJ probably had the best economy of the 4. Reagan's after 1982 took off. Bush the 1st ended up being so, so. Clinton's was good after 1994, but how much of that was due to the GOP congress? Bush the 2nd, ended up sucking and Obama economy is still bad, although improving very slowly.

my opinion.

Most of my family are Dems. We do have some lively discussions at our get-togethers, but they all rank the Clinton years as one of the best. "because we had a lot of work then." When I remind them how busy they seemed to be during the Bush years, they agree, "but not as good as during Clinton." They aren't saying much about the BHO years, but they are grousing about how bad the economy is for their businesses, and how their phones aren't ringing because their customers just don'tseem to have the money to spend like they used to. :2mad:

 

[sawdust]

Palin destroyed the ticket the night of the Vice Presidential debate. Without independents, you cannot win the election. And she utterly destroyed their support. Palin couldn't even name a magazine she reads. That sent the sign she's uninformed.



That's not what Alaskans say. Especially after she screwed the infrastructure budget over. Of all the states that require large expenditures on things like roads, Alaska is the #1 due to sheer size.



Talk like that ensures you're never going to understand why your party lost. Blaming the other side and refusing to examine your own party's missteps ensures you'll make them again and again and again.



As I said, the Dems could have run a dead zebra and won.



Still unlikely. The GOP brand was tarnished. Simply being a Republican would have made it extremely hard to win.

Did you just take a lot of time to repeat yourself?

 

[obvious Child]

Did you just take a lot of time to repeat yourself?

Reiterating points because you seem unwilling to actually look at why the Republicans lost.

It had little to do with who was running on the Democrat Ticket. It had virtually everything to do with the fact that the GOP essentially sucked in 2008.