What good has Bush and his government done for the US the last 6 years?

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by FreeThinker:
Any more words of wisdom from the aging male nurse?

What about our bet? You man enough to walk your talk? Or do you prefer to make irresponsible statements that have no basis in fact and leave the illusion you know stuff? You made an earlier comment about me that you failed to research. You know it and I know it. We both know you didn't spend any effort collecting or analyzing evidence from which to draw an intelligent conclusion from. We both know you just shot your mouth off on the fly because it sounded neat and witty at the time. I won't argue "neat" and "witty" because I think they were too. But I do know something you don't. I know how accurate your statement was. I know how far from the truth it was. And I know just how irresponsible you were by making a statement like that.

So, tough guy, put your money where your mouth is. $100 says no one in the history of this forum, past or present, has reported less posts than I have. You got game? Or do you need to go to the sporting goods store and pick yourself up a set of balls? You said something about me, back it up. Prove it. Or admit you made it up because you chose to be an irresponsible little prick that day.

One large that says you're a f.u.c.k.i.n.g liar!

We got a bet?

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

:lol: What a steaming load!

1) "By September 2001"....Name which policies Bush was able to pass in those few months, and more importantly please which of those policies were so extreme that we could've seen the effects of them that soon.

The economy doesn't work that way.

2) "By June"...yeah, after Bill Clinton's 8-year non-response to Al Queda destroyed our economy on 9/11/01, the unemployment rate got pretty bad. Democrat spinelessness was the problem there, not small business owners having more of their own money. :roll:

3) Of course the unemployment rate isn't currently at the best place it ever was under Clinton...Clinton merely had to sit back and take credit for the prosperity of the tech boom he was relentlessly undermining...Bush had Enron, 9/11, Katrina, etc.

At least Clinton has good results and a good record, he moved the economy from recession to great growth.

Bush has done the opposit he has thrown America back into recession and will be responsible for the next depression, how that is done, doesnt really matter in economy.

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

Stop right there. YES, that is dishonest, because the economy started performing better right when Clinton took office (i.e., it couldn't have been a result of him raping small businesses, Social Security, Medicare, and gas prices) and started performing like crap right when Bush took over (i.e., it was not caused by Bush giving small businesses their money back).

:liar2

It slowlyn started improving when Clinton took office, is starkly started declining again when Bush took office.

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

He came in on the beginning of a growth cycle, his tax increased slowed that down, the Republican congress reversed that by denying him futher tax increases, a government take over of health care and cutting taxes then passing wel-fare reform ALL of which Clinton opposed.

He opposed the very things you give him credit for.

Doesnt matter how it was done, the fact is the numbers and they were good during Clinton and have turned sour during Bush.. Whatever the excuse the Republicans use to make themself look better is irrelevant to me.

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

1. Turned the international joke of the US presidency left over from a sexually frustrated lame duck liberal back into a respected position of leadership and morality.

At least everyone respected Clinton, not only in foreign countries but also America.. He will unfortuanetely best be remembered for one sex scandal.. But hey, hes a man and I forgive him much easier than Bush who killed massive amounts of people.

2. Aggressively and unapologetically defended Americans without compromise.

Thats true, but maybe he took the wrong approach and did more damage than good in the end?

3. Changed the tone of presidential speeches and policy from being lofty and vague to being clear and simple: he means what he says. You don't have to guess what his position might be on an issue.

Clear and simple about idiot policies, ruining every American policy and only focus on his joke foreign policy.

4. Put fear back into our enemies that they hadn't experienced since Reagan.

Sure thing, but the number of enemies has sure increased very fast since Bush came to office, not only of him personally, but also of your country.

5. Passed educational reforms that hold schools accountable when students are not learning.

Probably, I can not argue with this since I have no knowledge of such a policy.

6. Matched state grants dollar for dollar that support private landowners preserving endangered species.

Nice.

7. KILLED SADDAM HUSSEIN. LIBERATED IRAQ.

Yeah, using 400 billion dollars, killing 200.000 Iraqies, 3000 US soldiers and throwing Iraq into civil war and a playground and training camp for terrorists.

Congrats.

8. Liberated Afghanistan from female slavery and religious dictatorship.

That was certainly disgusting, I think Afghanistan is better of now, but they do actually grow more drugs than before.

9. Increased accountability in the UN.

:lol: :doh :lol: :doh

Every single other country in thr UN now things the US and especially George Bush is a joke.

10. Consolidated federal agencies that had the responsibility of protecting Americans into one cohesive group (HS).

That he probably did.

11. Made sweeping changes to Medicare.

Yeah, for the worse. Your pathetic waste of money into medicare and health dont even give every citizen free healtcare. Europe actually spends less per citizen on healtcare, but still its almost all free to everyone.

12. Forced immigration to process all immigration applications within 6 months so that people applying for citizenship don't get stuck in limbo.

Probably, dont know. Nice in case its true.

13. Armed our pilots.

Isnt it really better to disarm than arming murderers?

14. Gave people that believe in God the same rights as atheists.

They always had. He made those people slaves, the extreme christians at least, and exploited their fate in Jesus and God by misusing God and Jesus in his unholy blasphemist policies.

15. Made Americans proud to be Americans again.

Really? I would be utterly ashamed to be American(I am very happy not to be, proud to be European), I think many Americans are ashamed, and I know all people who are not Americans would be ashamed to be American.
That was very different in 1999.

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

The Clinton recession?

Clinton Recession - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[FreeThinker]

What about our bet? You man enough to walk your talk? Or do you prefer to make irresponsible statements that have no basis in fact and leave the illusion you know stuff? You made an earlier comment about me that you failed to research. You know it and I know it. We both know you didn't spend any effort collecting or analyzing evidence from which to draw an intelligent conclusion from. We both know you just shot your mouth off on the fly because it sounded neat and witty at the time. I won't argue "neat" and "witty" because I think they were too. But I do know something you don't. I know how accurate your statement was. I know how far from the truth it was. And I know just how irresponsible you were by making a statement like that.

So, tough guy, put your money where your mouth is. $100 says no one in the history of this forum, past or present, has reported less posts than I have. You got game? Or do you need to go to the sporting goods store and pick yourself up a set of balls? You said something about me, back it up. Prove it. Or admit you made it up because you chose to be an irresponsible little prick that day.

One large that says you're a f.u.c.k.i.n.g liar!

We got a bet?

"63% of corporations pay no taxes".

What ever happened to that thread Billo?

I think you should calm down a bit. Getting mad enough to type out a cuss word using periods to bypass the filter is just a bit much don't you think?

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by FreeThinker
"63% of corporations pay no taxes".

What ever happened to that thread Billo?

I think you should calm down a bit. Getting mad enough to type out a cuss word using periods to bypass the filter is just a bit much don't you think?

Don't change the subject. What about our bet? You said something about me and I want you to show how you came to that conclusion. Because you and I both know it is total bullshit!

Now state your proof or admit you made it up!

$100 bucks says you made it up.

 

[FreeThinker]

Don't change the subject. What about our bet? You said something about me and I want you to show how you came to that conclusion. Because you and I both know it is total bullshit!

Now state your proof or admit you made it up!

$100 bucks says you made it up.

$100 bucks says you made up that 63% of corporations pay no taxes.

And when did I ever make a bet with you about anything before?

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by FreeThinker
$100 bucks says you made up that 63% of corporations pay no taxes.

And when did I ever make a bet with you about anything before?

Stop changing the subject! Either present your evidence, or take your beating like a man.

From 1996 to 2000, 63 percent of U.S. corporations paid no taxes, while 94 percent paid taxes equal to less than 5% of their net income. The most disturbing trend is that CEOs of large corporations pay themselves huge salaries, bonuses and stock options, while the business profits are often dismal at best. CEOs, who are hired by the Board of Directors, in turn authorize this greed. Now why would they permit this outlandish behavior? It’s really quite simple. Generally, the people who sit on the Board of Directors are CEOs of other large corporations, so it’s an incestuous relationship. You scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours. We have all seen how these monsters declare themselves excessive bonuses just prior to declaring bankruptcy, wiping out the stock investments and pension plans the workers have judiciously accumulated over the years while contributing to the corporation’s growth. Finally, a few of these gangsters are being prosecuted after the people rose up in one voice to protest this egregious behavior. This corruption existed while millions of jobs were lost due to the economic slowdown and outsourcing.

Reforming the U. S. Tax System

 

[Iriemon]

It slowlyn started improving when Clinton took office, is starkly started declining again when Bush took office.

The economy was several quarters out of the '91 recession when Clinton took office. The economy had already declined at the time Bush took office.

1991q1 7,040.8 -0.51%
1991q2 7,086.5 0.65%
1991q3 7,120.7 0.48%
1991q4 7,154.1 0.47%
1992q1 7,228.2 1.04%
1992q2 7,297.9 0.96%
1992q3 7,369.5 0.98%
1992q4 7,450.7 1.10%
1993q1 7,459.7 0.12%
1993q2 7,497.5 0.51% <- Clinton takes office
1993q3 7,536.0 0.51%
1993q4 7,637.4 1.35%
1994q1 7,715.1 1.02%
1994q2 7,815.7 1.30%

2000q2 9,847.9 1.57%
2000q3 9,836.6 -0.11%
2000q4 9,887.7 0.52%
2001q1 9,875.6 -0.12%
2001q2 9,905.9 0.31% <-Bush takes office
2001q3 9,871.1 -0.35%
2001q4 9,910.0 0.39%
2002q1 9,977.3 0.68%

http://bea.gov/bea/dn/gdplev.xls

 

[aquapub]

At least Clinton has good results and a good record, he moved the economy from recession to great growth.

The fallacy you are basing your assertions on this time is called, "cum hoc ergo propter hoc."

It means that since 2 things happened at once, one must be causing the other.

Too bad the only things Clinton did were detrimental for the economy (tax hikes on Medicare, Social Security, income, fuel, etc.) or this claim of yours might pass for a valid statement. :mrgreen:

 

[aquapub]

Bush has done the opposit he has thrown America back into recession and will be responsible for the next depression, how that is done, doesnt really matter in economy.

Yes, giving small businesses more of their own money back destroyed the economy. :roll:


Clinton's 8-year non-response to Al Queda, Katrina, and Enron is what Bush's tax cuts saved the economy from.

 

[Iriemon]

The fallacy you are basing your assertions on this time is called, "cum hoc ergo propter hoc."

It means that since 2 things happened at once, one must be causing the other.

Too bad the only things Clinton did were detrimental for the economy (tax hikes on Medicare, Social Security, income, fuel, etc.) or this claim of yours might pass for a valid statement. :mrgreen:

That's pretty funny. You criticize someone for a fallacy in logic, and then making a statement with the exact same error: "Too bad the only things Clinton did were detrimental for the economy".

Or maybe you were just making a joke, which is why you put the little smiley face.

 

[Stinger]

Wrong again!

Clinton inhereted, and eliminated, a $340 billion deficit.

There you go again, when it has been proven Clinton fought the elimination of the debt with his higher budget request, delaying wel-fare reform and slowed down the recovery he inherited delaying the elimination of that deficit. It's all in this thread and the others where that has been shot down.

 

[Stinger]

1993q2 7,497.5 0.51% <- Clinton takes office
1993q3 7,536.0 0.51%
1993q4 7,637.4 1.35%
1994q1 7,715.1 1.02%
1994q2 7,815.7 1.30%

Typical how you cut it off so it wouldn't show how the Clinton tax increases slowed down the recovery.

1994q3 7,115.1 7,859.5 0.56%
1994q4 7,232.2 7,951.6 1.17%
1995q1 7,298.3 7,973.7 0.28%
1995q2 7,337.7 7,988.0 0.18%
1995q3 7,432.1 8,053.1 0.81%
1995q4 7,522.5 8,112.0 0.73%
1996q1 7,624.1 8,169.2 0.71%

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

The economy was several quarters out of the '91 recession when Clinton took office. The economy had already declined at the time Bush took office.

1991q1 7,040.8 -0.51%
1991q2 7,086.5 0.65%
1991q3 7,120.7 0.48%
1991q4 7,154.1 0.47%
1992q1 7,228.2 1.04%
1992q2 7,297.9 0.96%
1992q3 7,369.5 0.98%
1992q4 7,450.7 1.10%
1993q1 7,459.7 0.12%
1993q2 7,497.5 0.51% <- Clinton takes office
1993q3 7,536.0 0.51%
1993q4 7,637.4 1.35%
1994q1 7,715.1 1.02%
1994q2 7,815.7 1.30%

2000q2 9,847.9 1.57%
2000q3 9,836.6 -0.11%
2000q4 9,887.7 0.52%
2001q1 9,875.6 -0.12%
2001q2 9,905.9 0.31% <-Bush takes office
2001q3 9,871.1 -0.35%
2001q4 9,910.0 0.39%
2002q1 9,977.3 0.68%

http://bea.gov/bea/dn/gdplev.xls

Nice filtering of information there.. what about 1994-2000? or 2002 until 2006? Economic reforms dont pay off in 1 year. It takes at least a few.

 

[Iriemon]

There you go again, when it has been proven Clinton fought the elimination of the debt with his higher budget request, delaying wel-fare reform and slowed down the recovery he inherited delaying the elimination of that deficit. It's all in this thread and the others where that has been shot down.

If anyone other than Stinger wants to see the data that backs up my assertion "Clinton inhereted, and eliminated, a $340 billion deficit" I'll be happy to post it.

 

[Iriemon]

Typical how you cut it off so it wouldn't show how the Clinton tax increases slowed down the recovery.

1994q3 7,115.1 7,859.5 0.56%
1994q4 7,232.2 7,951.6 1.17%
1995q1 7,298.3 7,973.7 0.28%
1995q2 7,337.7 7,988.0 0.18%
1995q3 7,432.1 8,053.1 0.81%
1995q4 7,522.5 8,112.0 0.73%
1996q1 7,624.1 8,169.2 0.71%

The point of my post was not how well the economy grew under Clinton but that there were several quarters of positive growth after the '91 recession before he took office. What relevance are your numbers to that?

There's 2.4% growth in the last 4 quarters of the numbers you posted, not stellar, but not bad. But if *you* are trying to portray economic performance under Clinton, what is the purpose of focusing on the worst period, unless you are trying to be unfair.

What is the proof you have that it was the tax increase that was the reason it wasn't higher?

 

[Iriemon]

Nice filtering of information there.. what about 1994-2000? or 2002 until 2006? Economic reforms dont pay off in 1 year. It takes at least a few.

Jeez I got one guy claiming I am being tricky because I didn't show how lousy the economy was under Clinton and you are claiming I am being tricky because I didn't show how great it was, in a post I made that had nothing to do with that topic.

You stated: "It slowlyn started improving when Clinton took office, is starkly started declining again when Bush took office."

That is not an accurate representation. The economy was improving before Clinton took office, and started declined before Bush took office.

My point has nothing to do with how the economy did overall while Clinton was in office.

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

Jeez I got one guy claiming I am being tricky because I didn't show how lousy the economy was under Clinton and you are claiming I am being tricky because I didn't show how great it was, in a post I made that had nothing to do with that topic.

You stated: "It slowlyn started improving when Clinton took office, is starkly started declining again when Bush took office."

That is not an accurate representation. The economy was improving before Clinton took office, and started declined before Bush took office.

My point has nothing to do with how the economy did overall while Clinton was in office.

No matter which side, you still filtered the information.. The point is that druing Clinton presidency the trend was positive, and immidiately when Bush came to office or a few months after there was a drastic turn towards a egative trend.

 

[Iriemon]

No matter which side, you still filtered the information.. The point is that druing Clinton presidency the trend was positive, and immidiately when Bush came to office or a few months after there was a drastic turn towards a egative trend.

Sorry, I misunderstood your point when you wrote: "It slowlyn started improving when Clinton took office,..." as meaning that the economy slowly started improving when Clinton took office.

2000q2 9,847.9 1.57%
2000q3 9,836.6 -0.11%
2000q4 9,887.7 0.52%
2001q1 9,875.6 -0.12%
2001q2 9,905.9 0.31% <-Bush takes office
2001q3 9,871.1 -0.35%
2001q4 9,910.0 0.39%
2002q1 9,977.3 0.68%
2002q2 10,031.6 0.54%
2002q3 10,090.7 0.59%
2002q4 10,095.8 0.05%
2003q1 10,126.0 0.30%


I certainly wouldn't call the last 4 quarters under Clinton a "positive trend" nor would I think it is fair to say that the economy took a "drastic turn towards a negative trend" when Bush took office. But folks can decide for themselve.

 

[aquapub]

That's pretty funny. You criticize someone for a fallacy in logic, and then making a statement with the exact same error: "Too bad the only things Clinton did were detrimental for the economy".

Or maybe you were just making a joke, which is why you put the little smiley face.

Jesus. :ws

YOU applied a fallacy, not me: Clinton became president as the economy was improving, therefore Clinton caused the improvement.

THAT is a fallacy (cum hoc ergo propter hoc).

Debunking your fallacy by pointing out that all Clinton's policies worked against prosperity (and in other ways) is not claiming that if 2 things happen at once, one must be causing the other.

You are the only one using fallacies here. The things I'm using are called facts and evidence.

 

[Iriemon]

Jesus. :ws

Do ya think your posts sound more intellegent when you insult people?

YOU applied a fallacy, not me: Clinton became president as the economy was improving, therefore Clinton caused the improvement.

Err, no, it was not ME who applied the fallacy. Jesus. :ws

That was someone else. I just commented that you were doing the same thing.

THAT is a fallacy (cum hoc ergo propter hoc).

Got it.

Debunking your fallacy by pointing out that all Clinton's policies worked against prosperity (and in other ways) is not claiming that if 2 things happen at once, one must be causing the other.

I see, and what is the basis for you assetion "that Clinton's policies worked against prosperity"? Because there was that "recession" at the end of Clinton's term that happened when his policies were still in place. Ergo, you argue, because the recession happend when Clinton's policies were in place, Clinton's policies must have caused the recession.

cum hoc ergo propter hoc

You are the only one using fallacies here. The things I'm using are called facts and evidence.

 

[Stinger]

If anyone other than Stinger wants to see the data that backs up my assertion "Clinton inhereted, and eliminated, a $340 billion deficit" I'll be happy to post it.

How about you retracting your assertions that HE eliminated anything as the figures show, when you don't cherry pick them, his tax increase COST the treasury. I still have all my authoritative sources to back it up and even YOUR figures prove it.

OH I forgot pointing out the fallacies of your argument is not "being reasonable".