• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama Flops at Knox

LowDown

Curmudgeon
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
14,185
Reaction score
8,768
Location
Houston
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Today’s speech at Knox College, Illinois, was supposed to be the president’s come-back moment, the first of a series of addresses aimed at retaking the initiative by the White House. Instead it was a train-wreck. In an hour-long address, which seemed to last forever (and par for course started 15 minutes late), the president spoke in deeply partisan terms, often with bitterness and anger, lambasting his political opponents, dismissing criticism of his policies, and launching into his favourite theme of class warfare, attacking the wealthy and what he calls the “winner takes all economy.” In a display of extraordinary arrogance (even by his standards), he condemned what he called “an endless parade of distractions, political posturing and phony scandals,” a direct reference to the Congressional investigations into the IRS and Benghazi scandals, which most Americans don’t see as phony. He also defended his increasingly unpopular Obamacare proposals, attacking what he calls “a politically-motivated misinformation campaign,” while failing to acknowledge that moderate Democrats are “steadily turning against Obamacare” as The Washington Post reported today.

The divisiveness and the hate in America starts at the top these days. So when you Obama supporters get slammed by the push-back you will have no right to complain.
 
He had another speech? Yawn.
 
The divisiveness and the hate in America starts at the top these days. So when you Obama supporters get slammed by the push-back you will have no right to complain.

Yep. Obama insists that while the huge federal gov't may be slow, and it may be inefficient yet it surely needs more funding is simply insane. Budgeting, as does executive control, requires that priorities be set and that funding/efforts be concentrated on those areas deemed most important, at the expense of lesser important things, not simply to try to constantly expand everything to see what may work. To say that the deaths of 4 people stationed overseas, the IRS forming targetted "hit lists" based on policitcal slant. giving special "green energy" money to cronies and having the nations intellegence agencies monitor everyone more closely are simply "phony" concerns, and are not indiciative of terrible gov't decisions, is either insane or very dishonest.

White house tours must go and yet high speed trains from nowhere to near Las Vegas seemed like good ideas. ;)

Feds halt loan review for Las Vegas-to-California high-speed train" | Las Vegas Review-Journal
 
The divisiveness and the hate in America starts at the top these days. So when you Obama supporters get slammed by the push-back you will have no right to complain.

I always laugh at his faux negating of the rich since he's one hell of a wealthy freaking bastard.
 
Obama is such a hypocrite. He kills 30 Trayvons a week with his drone strikes.

Both he and his predecessor are war criminals, but at least Bush was not a hypocrite.
 
The divisiveness and the hate in America starts at the top these days. So when you Obama supporters get slammed by the push-back you will have no right to complain.

I would also like to note this was not a Fox News piece either! This is how the world sees us.
 
The country is divided because of the right-wing ....not because of Obama ....want proof?

Obama handily won a second term ......and I like the right-wing math ..... that charge the country's 15% black population for that victory.:2wave:
 
The divisiveness and the hate in America starts at the top these days. So when you Obama supporters get slammed by the push-back you will have no right to complain.

A speech that lasted over an hour. A bit full of ourselves, are we? Here's the link to the speech: Full Text: Obama’s Remarks on Middle-Class Prosperity - Washington Wire - WSJ

Google "sequester" and you will see that Republicans are at fault for that. Google "Obamacare" and you will find President Obama telling us that Obamacare is largely responsible for creating a jobs recovery. Google "phony" and you'll find that Benghazi, the IRS controversy, the NSA goings-on are phony scandals ginned up by Republicans. Google "rebuilding our manufacturing base" and you'll see Obama advocating for more government spending in the next budget, insinuating that only government spending can train workers and upgrade transportation and technology networks. (Hold onto your wallets.)

Google "middle class in America" and you'll see that only government can provide job security with good wages, a good education and a home to call your own. Google "executive authority" and you will find Obama's promise to use Executive Orders to bypass Congress at every opportunity. Google "good jobs" and you will find that Obama intends to continue to create jobs in wind and solar. (Until they go bankrupt?)

And that's just through Page Six of a 20-page speech.

I'm surprised anyone was left awake. Way too long. And more to come.
 
So, do you guys miss Bill Clinton yet? That man knew how to give a speech. Now we've had 13 years of morons blathering at us. 13 years since we've had a real economy. 13 years of printing money.

Feds halt loan review for Las Vegas-to-California high-speed train" | Las Vegas Review-Journal so I don't get it. Is this good news or bad news? Ar you bragging or complaining?

Why in the world would any sensible person miss Clinton when it was Reagan who put this nation aright again after decades of relentless governmental growth and staggeringly high tax rates, a new course that every president since has tried to reverse? The best thing that ever happened to Clinton was a Republican-controlled Congress that stopped him from growing government the way he wanted to and forced him to sign a number of important economic reforms, including welfare reform, that he would have never supported otherwise. 'Course with the disaster that is Obama, virtually all those gains have been rendered moot.

There has never been a more corrupt, dishonest and cynical administration than that of Obama.

I'll tell what I miss, besides Reagan. I miss the sane electorate of recent decades that would have run this treasonous, American-hating leftist punk out of office in a landslide decision in 2012.
 
I would also like to note this was not a Fox News piece either! This is how the world sees us.
Nile Gardiner is a Washington-based foreign affairs analyst and political commentator. A former aide to Margaret Thatcher, Gardiner has served as a foreign policy adviser to two US presidential campaigns. He appears frequently on American and British television, including Fox News Channel, BBC, and Fox Business Network.
Yes, clearly this was a completely objective news piece. :roll:
 
I always laugh at his faux negating of the rich since he's one hell of a wealthy freaking bastard.

Yeah....he and his wife both attended college on borrowed money. At one time early in their marriage their payments on their education were larger than their house mortgage. Who the hell do you think you are badmouthing a man just because he's black? There's one thing about a racist...you don't have to listen to or read their remarks more than a minute till they reveal their true belief system.

Obama came from a very normal life and graduated magna cum laude from Harvard's law school. Get Over It!!
 
Why in the world would any sensible person miss Clinton when it was Reagan who put this nation aright again after decades of relentless governmental growth and staggeringly high tax rates, a new course that every president since has tried to reverse?

The best thing that ever happened to Clinton was a Republican-controlled Congress that stopped him from growing government the way he wanted to and forced him to sign a number of important economic reforms, including welfare reform, that he would have never supported otherwise.
Never mind the fact that effective tax rates were in fact higher under Reagan than under Bush Jr or Obama.

The Republican led congress shaved all of .5 percent from Clinton's budgetary requests. This prevention of growth you're speaking of was purely imaginary. Also, it's important to note that welfare reform was in fact a staple campaign platform for Clinton, the debate was largely centered around the details and time span in which the reforms would be implemented.
 
Never mind the fact that effective tax rates were in fact higher under Reagan than under Bush Jr or Obama.

The Republican led congress shaved all of .5 percent from Clinton's budgetary requests. This prevention of growth you're speaking of was purely imaginary. Also, it's important to note that welfare reform was in fact a staple campaign platform for Clinton, the debate was largely centered around the details and time span in which the reforms would be implemented.

For some reason their theories about conservatism just could not work the 8 years bush was in the WH.
 
Yeah....he and his wife both attended college on borrowed money. At one time early in their marriage their payments on their education were larger than their house mortgage. Who the hell do you think you are badmouthing a man just because he's black? There's one thing about a racist...you don't have to listen to or read their remarks more than a minute till they reveal their true belief system.

Obama came from a very normal life and graduated magna cum laude from Harvard's law school. Get Over It!!

Where did you see race in his comments?
 
Never mind the fact that effective tax rates were in fact higher under Reagan than under Bush Jr or Obama.

The Republican led congress shaved all of .5 percent from Clinton's budgetary requests. This prevention of growth you're speaking of was purely imaginary. Also, it's important to note that welfare reform was in fact a staple campaign platform for Clinton, the debate was largely centered around the details and time span in which the reforms would be implemented.

I'll assume that you didn't intentionally mangle my observation, just misunderstood it, m-kay?

Let us keep before the reader what I actually wrote:

Why in the world would any sensible person miss Clinton when it was Reagan who put this nation aright again after decades of relentless governmental growth and staggeringly high tax rates, a new course that every president since has tried to reverse?

The best thing that ever happened to Clinton was a Republican-controlled Congress that stopped him from growing government the way he wanted to and forced him to sign a number of important economic reforms, including welfare reform, that he would have never supported otherwise.

Reagan dramatically reduced tax rates, the highest effective rate from a staggering 70% to 33%! Roughly. Bush Sr. and Clinton slightly raised them again. Bush Jr. lowered them again.

As for Obama the Pathological Liar, he would that they be higher, much higher. He would that the cooperate tax rate be higher, much higher, when it needs to come down dramatically. He would that the rate of taxation on capital gains be higher, even though a higher rate of taxation on the same would not bring in more revenue, but less, as it discouraged investment. Brilliant! And of course beyond a certain threshold, relative to the changing dynamics of the economy, income and cooperate tax rates do not bring in more revenue either as punitively high rates inevitably serve to blunt economic growth and, consequently, shrink the economy . . . shrink the revenue base.

Obama hasn't been able to do all the stupid things that he and his fellow Democrats (socialists) would do to the tax code because the Republicans took back the House in 2010. Before that, of course, these tools spent more than that which was spent in all of the rest of the Republic's history combined, leaving us with a nearly 17-trillion-dollar debt and with virtually nothing to show for it. The economy remains in the tank and ever-threatens to get worse with no end in sight. Oh, and of course, they saddled us with ObamaCare, a staggeringly expensive new entitlement program that will further decimate the economy.

Who cares about slightly lower effective tax rates under Bush Jr. and Obama when these two dramatically grew the government? But of course my point neither denied nor had anything whatsoever to do with the post-Reagan, typically 2-to-3 point ups and downs of the marginal rates. Down from 70% under Reagan! HELLO! LOL!

As for Clinton, are you kidding me? Purely imaginary?

He stupidly and unnecessarily raised the marginal rates extending the cyclical recession of his time, that carried over from the Bush Sr. years, and I'm not merely talking about the .5 shaved by the Republicans.

The overall point I'm making goes to the fact that Reagan fought to shrink government, not expand it. He fought to simplify the tax code and lower taxes, not make it more complex and raise them.

HILLARYCARE!

Fortunately, the American electorate effectively stopped that by putting the Republicans in charge of Congress.

And if you'll recall the Republicans wanted to shave dramatically more, but lost the political fight in terms of public opinion, though they would have been vindicated had they held their ground.

Clintonian welfare reform? LOL! Naive.

The astute know that Clinton never actually intended to put forth meaningful welfare reform. That was just the blather of election politics in a decidedly more conservative era of the Republic. He never expected the Dems to loose complete control of Congress whereby he'd be obliged to actually keep his promise. Even Clinton wasn't as politically cynical as Obama. Once pressed, his legacy at stake, he cut a deal. Obama routinely promises the moon one day and delivers pizza the next.

And once again, what did I actually write?

The best thing that ever happened to Clinton was a Republican-controlled Congress that stopped him from growing government the way he wanted to and forced him to sign a number of important economic reforms, including welfare reform, that he would have never supported otherwise.

In other words, Clinton's economic legacy was never his own, but that of Reagan, and if not for the Republican-controlled Congress that permanently killed HilaryCare, permanently stopped any further increases in tax rates and ensured welfare reform among other things, he would have ruined it.
 
Reagan dramatically reduced tax rates, the highest effective rate from a staggering 70% to 33%! Roughly.Bush Sr. and Clinton slightly raised them again. Bush Jr. lowered them again.
Those would be nominal rates, not effective. In either case, effective rates were in fact higher than current levels despite healthy economic growth and can be blamed for contributing substantially to foolishly large budget deficits.

As for Clinton, are you kidding me? Purely imaginary? He stupidly and unnecessarily raised the marginal rates extending the cyclical recession of his time, that carried over from the Bush Sr. years, and I'm not merely talking about the .5 shaved by the Republicans. And if you'll recall the Republicans wanted to shave dramatically more, but lost the political fight in terms of public opinion, though they would have been vindicated had they held their ground.

There was not a recession during any point in Clinton's presidency, nor a single quarters worth of negative growth. You're simply in the wrong here. The half a percent figure is indeed correct, and regardless of Republican desires during the period, the appropriations proposed and signed into law by Clinton remain below historical norm and responsible in nature considering both the minimal deficits and later surpluses he delivered.

Clintonian welfare reform? LOL! Naive. The astute know that Clinton never actually intended to put forth meaningful welfare reform. That was just the blather of election politics in a decidedly more conservative era of the Republic. He never expected the Dems to loose complete control of Congress whereby he'd be obliged to actually keep his promise. Even Clinton wasn't as politically cynical as Obama. Once pressed, his legacy at stake, he cut a deal.

More errors I'm afraid. Clinton assigned a committee the task of crafting suitable welfare reform legislation prior to the Democrats losing control of congress. The main clog in the pipes was infighting, inaction, and later, draconian measures demanded by House leadership.

In other words, Clinton's economic legacy was never his own, but that of Reagan, and if not for the Republican-controlled Congress that permanently killed HilaryCare, permanently stopped any further increases in tax rates and ensured welfare reform among other things, he would have ruined it.
Abject silliness. Clinton was elected while the unemployment rate hovered in the mid 7's. One cannot credit Reagan for the success of Clinton while absolving him for the downturn directly following his term with any shred of honesty.
 
For some reason their theories about conservatism just could not work the 8 years bush was in the WH.

For some reason you don't seem to remember that the economy did precisely what it will always do with low tax rates and no Keynesian stimulus spending. The economy grew and tax revenues increased. Bush's problem is that his other policies dramatically grew the government. But then of course he also fought two expensive wars on the heals of an economically devastating attack on our home soil.

Even so, the economy was dramatically better off under Bush than it has ever been under the current dingbat, and if America hadn‘t been attacked and if we hadn't fought those wars, the economy would have been much better off.

Obama's leftist policies have clearly made everything worse at every turn.

In any event, Bush was conservative lite. The more conservative the government's policies, the better off the economy will be. Obviously, thinkforyouself (LOL!), Obama hardline Keynesian and collectivist policies have been a disaster. Hello!

Are you one of those voters who gave him another term?
 
Even so, the economy was dramatically better off under Bush than it has ever been under the current dingbat, and if America hadn‘t been attacked and if we hadn't fought those wars, the economy would have been much better off.

Obama's leftist policies have clearly made everything worse at every turn.
It astounds me how deeply people buy into such ridiculous political politics. Ignoring the provably false claim that the economy is worse now under Obama than when he started, I find it amazing how you say Reagan was responsible for what happened under Clinton, but the economy under Obama is the fault of Obama. Apparently a previous Republican President is only responsible for the economy under a Democrat if the economy does well. If the economy does not do well, then it's all the fault of the Democrat's leftist policies.

Furthermore, and maybe you just glossed over it, you seem to ignore the fact the economy Obama inherited CRASHED while under Bush's watch, so saying the economy was "dramatically better off under Bush" seems to suggest you either are completely unaware of recent history, or you just cannot seem to pull the Republican team jersey off your back.
 
It astounds me how deeply people buy into such ridiculous political politics. Ignoring the provably false claim that the economy is worse now under Obama than when he started, I find it amazing how you say Reagan was responsible for what happened under Clinton, but the economy under Obama is the fault of Obama. Apparently a previous Republican President is only responsible for the economy under a Democrat if the economy does well. If the economy does not do well, then it's all the fault of the Democrat's leftist policies.

Furthermore, and maybe you just glossed over it, you seem to ignore the fact the economy Obama inherited CRASHED while under Bush's watch, so saying the economy was "dramatically better off under Bush" seems to suggest you either are completely unaware of recent history, or you just cannot seem to pull the Republican team jersey off your back.

The economy is worse off right now under Obama than it was when he took office. Fact! You think we're better off because the economy is technically in a period of recovery in terms of positive, rather than negative, growth. LOL! The current economy is smaller than it was under Bush. We have lost millions of jobs under Obama. They're gone! They' haven’t been recovered. Net loss.

Ours is merely a technically growing economy (and at a persistently anemic rate of growth at that) of a smaller scale. Unemployment is stuck in what is in terms of recent history an unprecedented negative trend and is now inching back up again! We're not creating enough jobs to keep up with growth in population, not even close. On top of everything else, you don't grasp the implications of that, do you?

The poverty rate and the rate of dependency are much higher and growing with turnaround in sight. The national debt is at nearly 17-trillion dollars. The dollar is in the tank. We're printing it into oblivion. Dude. One bad shove in this or that direction in an economy that has never been more than a breath or two away from another recession . . . house of cards.

No president since Carter has presided over an economy of such entrenched and on-going malaise, and it's not because this is the worst economy since the great depression, it's because of this president's imbecilic policies!

As for what you think is amazing with regard to Reagan and Clinton because you're one of these people who doesn't understand that the policies of classical liberalism are superior to those of collectivism, and can't see that the nature of the policies Clinton was forced by political circumstances to embrace against his first inclinations were--you guessed it! and what do we have for winner, Johnny?--more akin to classical liberalism than collectivism.

specklebang and a351's point is that Clinton's policies are superior to those of Obama.

Yes? No? Maybe so? Zoom! Right over your head!

Indeed, they are superior, aren't they? Hmm? Aren't they? Aren't they?

You guys lost track of your point! LOL!

And my whole point goes to the idiocy of embracing a pretender forced into those policies that are obviously superior when the real deal. . . .

Zoom! Right over.

Note my annihilation of a351's nonsense below.
 
Those would be nominal rates, not effective. In either case, effective rates were in fact higher than current levels despite healthy economic growth and can be blamed for contributing substantially to foolishly large budget deficits.

Of course, nominal rates. Brain fart. Thank you.

There was not a recession during any point in Clinton's presidency, nor a single quarters worth of negative growth. You're simply in the wrong here.

I misremembered this. Your persistence made me go back and look. Actually what happened is that there was a sharp drop in the GDP for two to three quarters in 1992 to 1993, the immediate effects of Clinton's announcement of a tax hike, and the economy grew much slower after the hike was enacted than it should have before Clinton agreed with Republicans to cut the rates in his second term. Essentially, "the Reaganesque sweet spot" was restored.

The half a percent figure is indeed correct, and regardless of Republican desires during the period, the appropriations proposed and signed into law by Clinton remain below historical norm and responsible in nature considering both the minimal deficits and later surpluses he delivered.

I don't dispute the half of a percent figure. I took your word for it. Go back and read my post again. Though I disagree with your overall analysis, you struck me as a man who knows what he’s talking about, at least in terms of the technicalities.

As for spending and growth of government? No. Stop it. Clinton would have pushed through HillaryCare and would have spent much more than "below the historical norm" on other domestic programs in addition to it with a Democratically controlled Congress.

I think you know that's true.

Come on! HillaryCare alone would have sent the national debt soaring. So much for the surge in revenues during his second term, mostly due to the 1995 tax cut championed by the Republican Congress. And surpluses? What surpluses? They never would have happened had his wife gotten her way.

No. I don't give him credit for that. The credit for that goes to the electorate and the Republican Party!

He proposed what he did because that's the best he could expect to pass. And he agreed to cut taxes in his second term for the same reason he sheepishly dropped HillaryCare: because it was politically expedient for him to do so in response to Republican control of Congress and the electorate's disdain for HillaryCare and his tax hike. The resulting boom vindicated the position of the Republicans and the electorate. Clinton was not the leader in this wise, but the one who was corrected!

"I got the message."

"The era of big government is over."

Recall?

Who taught him that? Washington? Carter? LOL!

Once again, the roughly 20-year economic boom of the 80's and 90's, interrupted by the historically mild, cyclical recession of 1991, goes to the Reagan revolution, i.e., the legacy of his approach to government, not Clinton's. Republicans held Clinton's feet to the fire. That's all. And by the way, in spite of the high effective rates and Reagan's increases in military spending which served, along with certain geostrategic moves, to bring the former Soviet Union down, revenues soared during his tenor of booming economic growth too. Naturally.


More errors I'm afraid. Clinton assigned a committee the task of crafting suitable welfare reform legislation prior to the Democrats losing control of congress. The main clog in the pipes was infighting, inaction, and later, draconian measures demanded by House leadership.

More errors? No. (1) "Effective rates" was a gaff. Clearly. My terminology was correct in the second instance. (2) I misremembered the extent of the drop in growth, but it was close to negative and did in fact slow growth significantly. I got no problem with acknowledging these errors. Isn't the first time I've made such errors, won't be the last. (3) I didn't dispute your half percent. (4) And your central thesis, as I have shown, is the superficial reasoning of Clinton-was-president-at-the-time-and-therefore . . .

Clinton got spanked by the electorate for his decidedly non-Reaganesque initiatives in his first term, and got religion in his second, governing just like Reagan in terms of economics! Fact.

As for this ongoing pipedream of yours about sincere and real Clintonian welfare reform without a Republican-controlled Congress . . . I know "Clinton assigned a committee the task of crafting suitable welfare reform legislation prior to the Democrats losing control of congress."

Can you say political posturing? Games? Shoeshine? Appearances?

The real initiatives were passed by the Republican Congress--three in all. They didn't come out of the White House. Clinton vetoed the first two, hemmed and hawed, hemmed and hawed. He wanted to veto the third bill (The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996), but decided that wouldn't be politically expedient in an election year in which the electorate was demanding it.

Had that not been the case, he would have vetoed that one too.

Bottom line: Clinton knew that real, meaningful welfare reform would never get passed as long as the Democrats controlled at least one of the chambers of Congress, and he never imagined that the Republicans would hold both chambers long enough to force the issue.

Like I said, your naiveté is showing. Everyone with any sense knew, particularly after Clinton's second veto, that he was hoping and holding out for a shift in the electorate's mood.

Sorry. I don't drink Kool-Aid.

Abject silliness. Clinton was elected while the unemployment rate hovered in the mid 7's. One cannot credit Reagan for the success of Clinton while absolving him for the downturn directly following his term with any shred of honesty.

Silliness? Dishonesty?

Once again, let's put what I actually wrote before the reader:

In other words, Clinton's economic legacy was never his own, but that of Reagan, and if not for the Republican-controlled Congress that permanently killed HilaryCare, permanently stopped any further increases in tax rates and ensured welfare reform among other things, he would have ruined it.

Clearly, I've already proven this to be true. Your gas about the higher unemployment rates that necessarily accompany cyclical economic downturns is moot. Clinton could have lead the nation to the historically low unemployment rate of his second term much sooner had he not raised taxes in his first term.

Downturns happen. That's the economic cycle. Clinton wasn't allowed to do the kind of damage the Messianic One did to our economy. And the economic downturn that Clinton faced was nothing compared to what Reagan lead this nation out of it. The entrenched stagflation years of the seventies and early eighties were devastating, exacerbated by staggeringly high tax rates, double-digit unemployment, inflation and interest rates. In truth, Reagan faced a worse economy than Obama.

The worst economy since the Great Depression! LOL! What a crock. Obama took an admittedly tough challenge . . . and threw tons of money (squandered), a devalued dollar and government-controlled healthcare at it. Idiot.

Even Clinton knew Romany would have been a better president.

Bottom line: the more conservative our nation's economic policies are, the better off the economy will be.

Facts and Figures:
Clinton Tax Hikes Slowed Growth

The Dangerous Myth About The Bill Clinton Tax Increase - Forbes

Reality check: Taxes Up, Growth Down - Conservative News
 
Last edited:
The economy is worse off right now under Obama than it was when he took office. Fact!

Opinion. And a poor one at that.

You think we're better off because the economy is technically in a period of recovery in terms of positive, rather than negative, growth. LOL!

In addition to the stabilization in terms of employment, personal wealth and both the financial and housing industries.

The current economy is smaller than it was under Bush.

That is incorrect. The economy has expanded to the tune of 2 trillion dollars since Obama assumed office.

We have lost millions of jobs under Obama. They're gone! They' haven’t been recovered. Net loss.

Again, a blatant error. In net form, over 2 million positions have been added under his term, with a gain of nearly 7 million since the end of 2009.
 
The economy is worse off right now under Obama than it was when he took office. Fact!
No, it's not a fact, it's a delusion brought on by team politics. It kills Republicans for the economy to improve, and you're clearly no different.

You think we're better off because the economy is technically in a period of recovery in terms of positive, rather than negative, growth. LOL! The current economy is smaller than it was under Bush. We have lost millions of jobs under Obama. They're gone! They' haven’t been recovered. Net loss.
Completely false.

Ours is merely a technically growing economy (and at a persistently anemic rate of growth at that) of a smaller scale. Unemployment is stuck in what is in terms of recent history an unprecedented negative trend and is now inching back up again!
Again, completely false.

We're not creating enough jobs to keep up with growth in population, not even close.
First of all, that is false as well. Second of all, even if it were true, it's still better than losing hundreds of thousands of jobs like we were when Bush was in office. Just out of curiosity, who was responsible for the massive economic collapse we suffered in Bush's last year?

On top of everything else, you don't grasp the implications of that, do you?
No, generally I have a hard time understanding someone else's fictional world.

The poverty rate and the rate of dependency are much higher and growing with turnaround in sight.
Yes, that tends to happen after a major economic collapse.

The national debt is at nearly 17-trillion dollars.
Yep. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you say earlier it was Congress who controlled Clinton's spending? Hasn't the Republican Party been in charge of the House for the last three years?

The dollar is in the tank.
More falsehoods. The dollar today is roughly the same against the Euro as it was when Obama was inaugurated. The dollar is higher against the yen.

One bad shove in this or that direction in an economy that has never been more than a breath or two away from another recession . . . house of cards.
Ahh...you mean just like any other economy. :roll:

No president since Carter has presided over an economy of such entrenched and on-going malaise, and it's not because this is the worst economy since the great depression, it's because of this president's imbecilic policies!
Really...and how many of those policies has he had put into place over the last three years?

It amazes me how blind people like you are to your team politics. When things went well under Reagan, it was because of Reagan. When they went well under Clinton, it was because of Republican Congress. And now, even though things are getting better, you blame the current shortcomings on Obama.


In other words, it doesn't matter what happens, the good is because of Republicans and the bad is Democrats. You're so pathetically transparent it astounds me.

As for what you think is amazing with regard to Reagan and Clinton because you're one of these people who doesn't understand that the policies of classical liberalism are superior to those of collectivism, and can't see that the nature of the policies Clinton was forced by political circumstances to embrace against his first inclinations were--you guessed it! and what do we have for winner, Johnny?--more akin to classical liberalism than collectivism.
Right...Republicans always good, Democrats always bad.

Just admit you're a cheerleader for the Republican Party and move on. Obviously facts don't concern you, you're only interested in cheering for your team.

specklebang and a351's point is that Clinton's policies are superior to those of Obama.

Yes? No? Maybe so? Zoom! Right over your head!

Indeed, they are superior, aren't they? Hmm? Aren't they? Aren't they?

You guys lost track of your point! LOL!
Once more, you show your true colors.

I'm not on anyone's team. Unlike you, I prefer to think for myself, to evaluate facts and truth, not partisan spin. So go put your cheerleader costume on and move along.

And my whole point goes to
It goes to supporting your team. You're an unabashed team cheerleader, nothing more. You swallow the stories fed to you without questioning once how true they may be, you actively search for any political slant which supports your preconceived notions.

Note my annihilation of a351's nonsense below.
I can almost hear the Rush Limbaugh reverberating in your head...
 
Another member praised President Reagan for "setting this country right." I actually voted for the man, after meeting him during his first campaign when he spoke to our military school class. But having lived through his Presidency I find myself agreeing with this article I found here: 10 Things Conservatives Don't Want You To Know About Ronald Reagan | ThinkProgress

1. Reagan was a serial tax raiser. As president, Reagan “raised taxes in seven of his eight years in office,” including four times in just two years.

2. Reagan nearly tripled the federal budget deficit. During the Reagan years, the debt increased to nearly $3 trillion, “roughly three times as much as the first 80 years of the century had done altogether.”

3. Unemployment soared after Reagan’s 1981 tax cuts. Unemployment jumped to 10.8 percent after Reagan enacted his much-touted tax cut, and it took years for the rate to get back down to its previous level.

4. Reagan grew the size of the federal government tremendously. He promised to cut government agencies like the Department of Energy and Education but ended up adding one of the largest — the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, which today has a budget of nearly $90 billion and close to 300,000 employees.

5. Reagan gave amnesty to 3 million undocumented immigrants. Reagan signed into law a bill that made any immigrant who had entered the country before 1982 eligible for amnesty.

The article lists five other actions which proved troublesome nationally and internationally right up to 9/11.

I don't recall that he closed a single government agency during his tenure as President. He was the second President I ever voted for, and the last time I voted Republican.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom