More Bill and Hilary history

[jonks]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
And I thought lying about a reason to invade and occupy Iraq was bad, this really takes the cake.:roll:

Originally posted by: senseamp
Well, maybe he lied this country into peace and prosperity, fine by me.

Is Bush running for POTUS again?

typical...

I think what he was saying, if I may so boldly interject, is that the relative gravitas between a repeating what is likely a family myth about the origin of Hillary's name and ruining the nation with dissembling are on different moral planes. I suspect that Red may be dimly aware that Bush isn't running in the next election, if you catch my meaning.

If a person is so willing to lie about such a minor detail as the source of their name, do you really think that person would hesitate lie if it was done to cover up, say, bombing the wrong country?

Hillary will do whatever it takes to put Hillary on top and keep her there.

yeah, she once told chelsea that she was pretty. you can't trust this woman.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: senseamp
Well, maybe he lied this country into peace and prosperity, fine by me.

You were never able to prove that Clinton did anything to bring prosperity to this country. You fail economics and finance.

Right, it's just a coincidence that the budgets got balanced and economy boomed.
:roll: I guess Clintons just bring this country luck.

It was the Gingrich Republicans who also lead the charge into a balanced budget "paygo" stance.

Name one reason how Bill influenced the tech boom. You said that lesser government bonds reduced the "crowding out" theory. However, if that were true, then we wouldn't have seen the housing bubble.

Your "crowing out" theory sucks, try again.

You are going to tell us that Republicans are for 'paygo' after the last 8 years?
Seems to me like their 'paygo' stance is closely related to a Clinton being in the White House.

Please, everybody knows that the current congress was a bunch of overspending quislings, as opposed to Gingrich and his group which were the opposite.

You still haven't provided justification for the economic cycle that happened while Clinton was in office. Please provide this, we are all waiting with bated breath while you use mad spinning skillz.

Really, they just happened to revert to deficit spending after Clinton left?
Nothing to do with Clinton's administration? You must be in complete denial.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
And I thought lying about a reason to invade and occupy Iraq was bad, this really takes the cake.:roll:

Originally posted by: senseamp
Well, maybe he lied this country into peace and prosperity, fine by me.

Is Bush running for POTUS again?

typical...

Is Hillary going to win? No, republicans just cannot help but continually bash her. It's boring. It's like bashing Kim Jong IL, we get it, guys, thanks!

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: senseamp
Well, maybe he lied this country into peace and prosperity, fine by me.

You were never able to prove that Clinton did anything to bring prosperity to this country. You fail economics and finance.

Right, it's just a coincidence that the budgets got balanced and economy boomed.
:roll: I guess Clintons just bring this country luck.

It was the Gingrich Republicans who also lead the charge into a balanced budget "paygo" stance.

Name one reason how Bill influenced the tech boom. You said that lesser government bonds reduced the "crowding out" theory. However, if that were true, then we wouldn't have seen the housing bubble.

Your "crowing out" theory sucks, try again.

You are going to tell us that Republicans are for 'paygo' after the last 8 years?
Seems to me like their 'paygo' stance is closely related to a Clinton being in the White House.

Please, everybody knows that the current congress was a bunch of overspending quislings, as opposed to Gingrich and his group which were the opposite.

You still haven't provided justification for the economic cycle that happened while Clinton was in office. Please provide this, we are all waiting with bated breath while you use mad spinning skillz.

Really, they just happened to revert to deficit spending after Clinton left?
Nothing to do with Clinton's administration? You must be in complete denial.

Where did I say it had nothing to do with Clinton?

Any defense of the assertion of economic prosperity was due to Clinton? I see you are side-stepping that asinine assertion time and again. What's wrong? Caught being full of crap?

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: senseamp
Well, maybe he lied this country into peace and prosperity, fine by me.

You were never able to prove that Clinton did anything to bring prosperity to this country. You fail economics and finance.

Right, it's just a coincidence that the budgets got balanced and economy boomed.
:roll: I guess Clintons just bring this country luck.

It was the Gingrich Republicans who also lead the charge into a balanced budget "paygo" stance.

Name one reason how Bill influenced the tech boom. You said that lesser government bonds reduced the "crowding out" theory. However, if that were true, then we wouldn't have seen the housing bubble.

Your "crowing out" theory sucks, try again.

You are going to tell us that Republicans are for 'paygo' after the last 8 years?
Seems to me like their 'paygo' stance is closely related to a Clinton being in the White House.

Please, everybody knows that the current congress was a bunch of overspending quislings, as opposed to Gingrich and his group which were the opposite.

You still haven't provided justification for the economic cycle that happened while Clinton was in office. Please provide this, we are all waiting with bated breath while you use mad spinning skillz.

Really, they just happened to revert to deficit spending after Clinton left?
Nothing to do with Clinton's administration? You must be in complete denial.

Where did I say it had nothing to do with Clinton?

Any defense of the assertion of economic prosperity was due to Clinton? I see you are side-stepping that asinine assertion time and again. What's wrong? Caught being full of crap?

It was due to Clinton. There is strong correlation between Clinton presidency and improvement of our fiscal situation. No such correlation for Republican Congress, who only ran surpluses when Clinton was in the White House. To me it doesn't matter if Clinton is directly responsible for balanced budgets, or his being president made Republicans fiscally conservatives. The end result is the same. Budgets were balanced under Clinton, and they weren't before and after him. If Republicans only balance budgets if Clinton is president, it's not their getting elected that determined if budget was balanced, but Clinton being elected.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Originally posted by: senseamp
It was due to Clinton. There is strong correlation between Clinton presidency and improvement of our fiscal situation. No such correlation for Republican Congress, who only ran surpluses when Clinton was in the White House. To me it doesn't matter if Clinton is directly responsible for balanced budgets, or his being president made Republicans fiscally conservatives. The end result is the same. Budgets were balanced under Clinton, and they weren't before and after him. If Republicans only balance budgets if Clinton is president, it's not their getting elected that determined if budget was balanced, but Clinton being elected.

Unfortunately, we have no such correlation concerning a Clinton presidency with a Democratic congress.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: senseamp
Well, maybe he lied this country into peace and prosperity, fine by me.

You were never able to prove that Clinton did anything to bring prosperity to this country. You fail economics and finance.

Right, it's just a coincidence that the budgets got balanced and economy boomed.
:roll: I guess Clintons just bring this country luck.

It was the Gingrich Republicans who also lead the charge into a balanced budget "paygo" stance.

Name one reason how Bill influenced the tech boom. You said that lesser government bonds reduced the "crowding out" theory. However, if that were true, then we wouldn't have seen the housing bubble.

Your "crowing out" theory sucks, try again.

You are going to tell us that Republicans are for 'paygo' after the last 8 years?
Seems to me like their 'paygo' stance is closely related to a Clinton being in the White House.

Please, everybody knows that the current congress was a bunch of overspending quislings, as opposed to Gingrich and his group which were the opposite.

You still haven't provided justification for the economic cycle that happened while Clinton was in office. Please provide this, we are all waiting with bated breath while you use mad spinning skillz.

Really, they just happened to revert to deficit spending after Clinton left?
Nothing to do with Clinton's administration? You must be in complete denial.

Where did I say it had nothing to do with Clinton?

Any defense of the assertion of economic prosperity was due to Clinton? I see you are side-stepping that asinine assertion time and again. What's wrong? Caught being full of crap?

It was due to Clinton. There is strong correlation between Clinton presidency and improvement of our fiscal situation. No such correlation for Republican Congress, who only ran surpluses when Clinton was in the White House. To me it doesn't matter if Clinton is directly responsible for balanced budgets, or his being president made Republicans fiscally conservatives. The end result is the same. Budgets were balanced under Clinton, and they weren't before and after him. If Republicans only balance budgets if Clinton is president, it's not their getting elected that determined if budget was balanced, but Clinton being elected.

The correct republicans were in place to make it work within Congress.

What about your assertion regarding the economy?

 

[senseamp]

Wrong again. It was the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 that set this country on the course for balanced budgets. Republicans would not have passed this tax hike, and we would have the same policies we had under Reagan and Bush's to bankrupt this country to keep taxes low.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O...nciliation_Act_of_1993

The bill, at the time, was based on unproved economic theory. Since the Ronald Reagan administration, the American public was more receptive to Reaganomics pursued during the 1980s. The theory behind the bill was that federal budget deficits were more critical to economic health than either the New Deal liberals or Reagan-era conservatives wanted to admit. Both groups dismissed the importance of the federal budget deficit.

The bill, which both raised taxes and cut government spending, has been credited as the major cause behind the deficit reduction and eventual surpluses during the 1990s, by sources such as the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office. [2] The theory holds that federal budget deficits increase both inflation and interest rates. These two phenomena are widely known to cause economic stagnation.[citation needed] Indeed, when inflation increases, often the Federal Reserve will raise interest rates to contain the inflation.

The U.S. government pays for its debt by issuing additional debt instruments (such as Treasury Bonds and Treasury Notes). As U.S. government debt instruments are one of the safest investments in the world, they pay some of the lowest interest in the world. This causes the rate charged on federal bonds to act as a floor. This is because most other debt instruments are more risky (it is more likely that other issuers will default on their bonds than it is likely that the U.S. government will default on its bonds, and so those other issuers must pay higher interest rates to compensate for the higher risk). As more U.S. government debt is issued, there is an increasing demand for world capital to pay for these instruments. As the supply of these instruments increase, the interest rates paid by the U.S. government must increase to attract additional investors. As U.S. debt becomes more costly to carry, debt around the world also becomes more costly. This increase in worldwide interest rates causes it to be more expensive to operate businesses. This suppresses economic growth. It also causes companies to charge more for their products and services to pay for the more expensive debt. This causes inflation. The process is called crowding out.

Bill Clinton and Democrat Congress were right, which is why they balanced the budgets and grew the economy with this act. Republicans were wrong with their typical Reaganomics tripe, as usual.

The effect of the Republican Congress was actually a negative overall, based on Congressional budget office asessment.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/...&item=&sel=TOC_627612&

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: senseamp
-snip-
It was due to Clinton. There is strong correlation between Clinton presidency and improvement of our fiscal situation. No such correlation for Republican Congress, who only ran surpluses when Clinton was in the White House. To me it doesn't matter if Clinton is directly responsible for balanced budgets, or his being president made Republicans fiscally conservatives. The end result is the same. Budgets were balanced under Clinton, and they weren't before and after him. If Republicans only balance budgets if Clinton is president, it's not their getting elected that determined if budget was balanced, but Clinton being elected.

I think it had more to do with Newt Gingrich and the mood of the country.

Gingrich's Contract With America sent a strong message of fiscal responsibility. That's when a pile of Dems got thrown out of Congress and the Repub gained control (for the first time in a long time IIRC).

At that time Clinton wasn't very popular and had been weakend by the big Repub gains in Congress. It forced him to move to the right (triangulation) and compromise with the Repub led Congress.

IMO, if you wanna credit Bill Clinton, you'd have to argue his screwing up the first two years in office and handing big electoral gains to the Repubs was done on purpose in carrying out his "secret stealth plan" to rein in government spending.

Fern

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

The correct republicans were in place to make it work within Congress.

What about your assertion regarding the economy?

Republicans had nothing to do with the balanced budget. It was Democrats who balanced budgets with the tax hike of 1993. The Republicans continued to be a net drag on the budget, as they invariably are.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/...&item=&sel=TOC_627612&

Major Reasons for the FY 1998 Surplus
CBO Estimate Billions
Projected FY 1998 Deficit (Jan. 1993 CBO forecast) $357
Major Factors for Fiscal Change Since 1992:
Improved economy (revenues higher/entitlement costs lower than 1993 forecast) 1 -210
Democratic Congress (budgetary effect of legislation passed in 1993 and 1994) -141
Health care costs (lower cost increases for Medicare/other health care programs than 1993 forecast) -60
Total Deficit Reduction -411
Republican Congresses (budgetary effect of legislation passed 1995-present) +11
Total Fiscal Change -400

Clinton and the Democrats were right, they cut the deficits, which in turn improved the economy, which in turn cut the deficits even more. Republicans are intellectually incapable of balancing the budget because they subscribe to Reaganomics, which failed to live up to its theory time and time again, and has ALWAYS resulted in huge budget shortfalls.
So before you go giving economics lectures, why don't you go learn it yourself.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: senseamp
-snip-
It was due to Clinton. There is strong correlation between Clinton presidency and improvement of our fiscal situation. No such correlation for Republican Congress, who only ran surpluses when Clinton was in the White House. To me it doesn't matter if Clinton is directly responsible for balanced budgets, or his being president made Republicans fiscally conservatives. The end result is the same. Budgets were balanced under Clinton, and they weren't before and after him. If Republicans only balance budgets if Clinton is president, it's not their getting elected that determined if budget was balanced, but Clinton being elected.

I think it had more to do with Newt Gingrich and the mood of the country.

Gingrich's Contract With America sent a strong message of fiscal responsibility. That's when a pile of Dems got thrown out of Congress and the Repub gained control (for the first time in a long time IIRC).

At that time Clinton wasn't very popular and had been weakend by the big Repub gains in Congress. It forced him to move to the right (triangulation) and compromise with the Repub led Congress.

IMO, if you wanna credit Bill Clinton, you'd have to argue his screwing up the first two years in office and handing big electoral gains to the Repubs was done on purpose in carrying out his "secret stealth plan" to rein in government spending.

Fern

Contract with America wasn't worth the paper it was written on. The course of the budget was set by then, with the 1993 tax hikes which lead to the balanced budget. Read the CBO document on the subject. Clinton and the Democrats set the legal framework for balanced budgets in 1993, and then Clinton held off the Republicans from screwing it up until 2000, which is why the budget reverted to Reaganite deficits as soon as he wasn't there to keep the Republicans from screwing it up.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Wrong again. It was the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 that set this country on the course for balanced budgets. Republicans would not have passed this tax hike, and we would have the same policies we had under Reagan and Bush's to bankrupt this country to keep taxes low.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O...nciliation_Act_of_1993

The bill, at the time, was based on unproved economic theory. Since the Ronald Reagan administration, the American public was more receptive to Reaganomics pursued during the 1980s. The theory behind the bill was that federal budget deficits were more critical to economic health than either the New Deal liberals or Reagan-era conservatives wanted to admit. Both groups dismissed the importance of the federal budget deficit.

The bill, which both raised taxes and cut government spending, has been credited as the major cause behind the deficit reduction and eventual surpluses during the 1990s, by sources such as the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office. [2] The theory holds that federal budget deficits increase both inflation and interest rates. These two phenomena are widely known to cause economic stagnation.[citation needed] Indeed, when inflation increases, often the Federal Reserve will raise interest rates to contain the inflation.

The U.S. government pays for its debt by issuing additional debt instruments (such as Treasury Bonds and Treasury Notes). As U.S. government debt instruments are one of the safest investments in the world, they pay some of the lowest interest in the world. This causes the rate charged on federal bonds to act as a floor. This is because most other debt instruments are more risky (it is more likely that other issuers will default on their bonds than it is likely that the U.S. government will default on its bonds, and so those other issuers must pay higher interest rates to compensate for the higher risk). As more U.S. government debt is issued, there is an increasing demand for world capital to pay for these instruments. As the supply of these instruments increase, the interest rates paid by the U.S. government must increase to attract additional investors. As U.S. debt becomes more costly to carry, debt around the world also becomes more costly. This increase in worldwide interest rates causes it to be more expensive to operate businesses. This suppresses economic growth. It also causes companies to charge more for their products and services to pay for the more expensive debt. This causes inflation. The process is called crowding out.

Bill Clinton and Democrat Congress were right, which is why they balanced the budgets and grew the economy with this act. Republicans were wrong with their typical Reaganomics tripe, as usual.

The effect of the Republican Congress was actually a negative overall, based on Congressional budget office asessment.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/...&item=&sel=TOC_627612&

The economy had nothing to do with the tax hikes. The tech bubble was entirely capital driven, not tax driven, nor balanced budget driven.

The government, nor fed, can hinder the flow of capital into the markets. We have seen this with the housing bubble, where the capital flight into the debt markets dropped long-term borrowing rates and spurred massive borrowing, despite unbalanced budgets.

Your whole assumption has been proven false multiple times and is nothing more than a single theory in finance that has no strong correlations.

 

[senseamp]

You keep yapping about the tech bubble, which to me tells me you have no clue about economy. Tech bubble was a small part of the Clinton years growth. 22 Million Jobs were added under Clinton, how many were destroyed when Credit bubble burst? Not even 5 % of those.
Please get a clue before making assertions. Clinton economic growth was not a bubble, it was sustained growth. Tax hikes are what balanced the budgets and lead to the economic growth. That article explains it very well.
Again, results speak for themselves. If you chose to remain stuck on stupid in the face of results, that is of course a choice that living in a free country affords you.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
And I thought lying about a reason to invade and occupy Iraq was bad, this really takes the cake.:roll:

Originally posted by: senseamp
Well, maybe he lied this country into peace and prosperity, fine by me.

Is Bush running for POTUS again?

typical...

I think what he was saying, if I may so boldly interject, is that the relative gravitas between a repeating what is likely a family myth about the origin of Hillary's name and ruining the nation with dissembling are on different moral planes. I suspect that Red may be dimly aware that Bush isn't running in the next election, if you catch my meaning.

If a person is so willing to lie about such a minor detail as the source of their name, do you really think that person would hesitate lie if it was done to cover up, say, bombing the wrong country?

Hillary will do whatever it takes to put Hillary on top and keep her there.

yeah, she once told chelsea that she was pretty. you can't trust this woman.

if she lied about the easter bunny, who else knows what this bitch will lie about?

first it's santa claus, next she'll be doing lines off a prostitutes ass in the rose garden.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: senseamp
You keep yapping about the tech bubble, which to me tells me you have no clue about economy. Tech bubble was a small part of the Clinton years growth. 22 Million Jobs were added under Clinton, how many were destroyed when Credit bubble burst? Not even 5 % of those.
Please get a clue before making assertions. Clinton economic growth was not a bubble, it was sustained growth. Tax hikes are what balanced the budgets and lead to the economic growth. That article explains it very well.
Again, results speak for themselves. If you chose to remain stuck on stupid in the face of results, that is of course a choice that living in a free country affords you.

ROFL, Clinton was in the right place at the right time. He did almost nothing to spur economic growth, other than breath air. You bandy about jobs, but don't provide any context, which is a nice way of spinning crap.

You still have failed to show how what he did translated directly into growth. Growth is provided by investment, investment is driven by opportunity, opportunity is driven by innovation, innovation is driven by advancement in technology, investment in technology has very little to do with Presidents.

The economy isn't controlled by Presidents. The Fed chairman has multiples more influence. I know economics quite well, I get paid to.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
[
ROFL, Clinton was in the right place at the right time.

More like the right man for that time unlike Bush who obviously was/is the wrong man for any time.

 

[Pabster]

She has repeated the Sir Edmund Hillary lie time and time again, though I hadn't heard Bill make the claim before.

The Clintons are a disgrace.

 

[Carmen813]

Originally posted by: senseamp
A Clinton is, and if Bill Clinton's lying didn't stop him from presiding over peace and prosperity, why would it stop Hillary from doing the same?

Perhaps you should google the words "Bosnia," "Somalia," "1993 WTC," and "Operation Northern Watch and Operation Southern Watch"

The mid-90s had the highest level of military ops tempo when compared to the previous 20 years, even counting the cold war.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
[
ROFL, Clinton was in the right place at the right time.

More like the right man for that time unlike Bush who obviously was/is the wrong man for any time.

I would agree with one single thing. When Clinton had a tax surplus due to increased Capital Gains and Corporate Tax increases, he held the line on not spending more money even while Republicans in Congress wanted to. Had it been this moron Bush, he'd have spent every last penny and then some.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: Carmen813

Originally posted by: senseamp
A Clinton is, and if Bill Clinton's lying didn't stop him from presiding over peace and prosperity, why would it stop Hillary from doing the same?

Perhaps you should google the words "Bosnia," "Somalia," "1993 WTC," and "Operation Northern Watch and Operation Southern Watch"

The mid-90s had the highest level of military ops tempo when compared to the previous 20 years, even counting the cold war.

What about compared to the last 8 years?

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: senseamp
You keep yapping about the tech bubble, which to me tells me you have no clue about economy. Tech bubble was a small part of the Clinton years growth. 22 Million Jobs were added under Clinton, how many were destroyed when Credit bubble burst? Not even 5 % of those.
Please get a clue before making assertions. Clinton economic growth was not a bubble, it was sustained growth. Tax hikes are what balanced the budgets and lead to the economic growth. That article explains it very well.
Again, results speak for themselves. If you chose to remain stuck on stupid in the face of results, that is of course a choice that living in a free country affords you.

ROFL, Clinton was in the right place at the right time. He did almost nothing to spur economic growth, other than breath air. You bandy about jobs, but don't provide any context, which is a nice way of spinning crap.

You still have failed to show how what he did translated directly into growth. Growth is provided by investment, investment is driven by opportunity, opportunity is driven by innovation, innovation is driven by advancement in technology, investment in technology has very little to do with Presidents.

The economy isn't controlled by Presidents. The Fed chairman has multiples more influence. I know economics quite well, I get paid to.

He was in the right place at the right time. In the White House with a Democrat congress prior to 94 to get the balanced budget done and hike taxes. And it paid off as predicted by Democrats and not failed as predicted by Reaganomists, who think that raising taxes only leads to economic troubles. That is what pisses the right more than anything is that Clinton proved supply side Reaganomics, which they worship, completely wrong. You subscribe to a failed economic policy. It failed time and again and racked up huge deficits in the process.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: senseamp
You keep yapping about the tech bubble, which to me tells me you have no clue about economy. Tech bubble was a small part of the Clinton years growth. 22 Million Jobs were added under Clinton, how many were destroyed when Credit bubble burst? Not even 5 % of those.
Please get a clue before making assertions. Clinton economic growth was not a bubble, it was sustained growth. Tax hikes are what balanced the budgets and lead to the economic growth. That article explains it very well.
Again, results speak for themselves. If you chose to remain stuck on stupid in the face of results, that is of course a choice that living in a free country affords you.

ROFL, Clinton was in the right place at the right time. He did almost nothing to spur economic growth, other than breath air. You bandy about jobs, but don't provide any context, which is a nice way of spinning crap.

You still have failed to show how what he did translated directly into growth. Growth is provided by investment, investment is driven by opportunity, opportunity is driven by innovation, innovation is driven by advancement in technology, investment in technology has very little to do with Presidents.

The economy isn't controlled by Presidents. The Fed chairman has multiples more influence. I know economics quite well, I get paid to.

He was in the right place at the right time. In the White House with a Democrat congress prior to 94 to get the balanced budget done and hike taxes. And it paid off as predicted by Democrats and not failed as predicted by Reaganomists, who think that raising taxes only leads to economic troubles. That is what pisses the right more than anything is that Clinton proved supply side Reaganomics, which they worship, completely wrong. You subscribe to a failed economic policy. It failed time and again and racked up huge deficits in the process.

Who said I subscribe to it? Last time I checked I never advocated supply side, please show me where I did, I'd love to know. Are you done speaking for me, or can I continue with my own opinions?

You still haven't proven how Clinton directly caused the .bombs. Your "crowding out" theory failed. Next?

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: senseamp
You keep yapping about the tech bubble, which to me tells me you have no clue about economy. Tech bubble was a small part of the Clinton years growth. 22 Million Jobs were added under Clinton, how many were destroyed when Credit bubble burst? Not even 5 % of those.
Please get a clue before making assertions. Clinton economic growth was not a bubble, it was sustained growth. Tax hikes are what balanced the budgets and lead to the economic growth. That article explains it very well.
Again, results speak for themselves. If you chose to remain stuck on stupid in the face of results, that is of course a choice that living in a free country affords you.

ROFL, Clinton was in the right place at the right time. He did almost nothing to spur economic growth, other than breath air. You bandy about jobs, but don't provide any context, which is a nice way of spinning crap.

You still have failed to show how what he did translated directly into growth. Growth is provided by investment, investment is driven by opportunity, opportunity is driven by innovation, innovation is driven by advancement in technology, investment in technology has very little to do with Presidents.

The economy isn't controlled by Presidents. The Fed chairman has multiples more influence. I know economics quite well, I get paid to.

He was in the right place at the right time. In the White House with a Democrat congress prior to 94 to get the balanced budget done and hike taxes. And it paid off as predicted by Democrats and not failed as predicted by Reaganomists, who think that raising taxes only leads to economic troubles. That is what pisses the right more than anything is that Clinton proved supply side Reaganomics, which they worship, completely wrong. You subscribe to a failed economic policy. It failed time and again and racked up huge deficits in the process.

Who said I subscribe to it? Last time I checked I never advocated supply side, please show me where I did, I'd love to know. Are you done speaking for me, or can I continue with my own opinions?

You still haven't proven how Clinton directly caused the .bombs. Your "crowding out" theory failed. Next?

Are you denying that the 1993 Tax reconcilliation act under Clinton and Democrat Congress was the most significant legislative step towards balancing the budget? Even the CBO said it was.
I am not getting baited in your .bomb BS, because I explained to you time and again that 22 million jobs were created under Clinton, and not even 5% of those went away when .bomb burst. Since you can't even handle that simple arithmetic, not much point having further discussions with you on more advanced subjects.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: senseamp
You keep yapping about the tech bubble, which to me tells me you have no clue about economy. Tech bubble was a small part of the Clinton years growth. 22 Million Jobs were added under Clinton, how many were destroyed when Credit bubble burst? Not even 5 % of those.
Please get a clue before making assertions. Clinton economic growth was not a bubble, it was sustained growth. Tax hikes are what balanced the budgets and lead to the economic growth. That article explains it very well.
Again, results speak for themselves. If you chose to remain stuck on stupid in the face of results, that is of course a choice that living in a free country affords you.

ROFL, Clinton was in the right place at the right time. He did almost nothing to spur economic growth, other than breath air. You bandy about jobs, but don't provide any context, which is a nice way of spinning crap.

You still have failed to show how what he did translated directly into growth. Growth is provided by investment, investment is driven by opportunity, opportunity is driven by innovation, innovation is driven by advancement in technology, investment in technology has very little to do with Presidents.

The economy isn't controlled by Presidents. The Fed chairman has multiples more influence. I know economics quite well, I get paid to.

He was in the right place at the right time. In the White House with a Democrat congress prior to 94 to get the balanced budget done and hike taxes. And it paid off as predicted by Democrats and not failed as predicted by Reaganomists, who think that raising taxes only leads to economic troubles. That is what pisses the right more than anything is that Clinton proved supply side Reaganomics, which they worship, completely wrong. You subscribe to a failed economic policy. It failed time and again and racked up huge deficits in the process.

Who said I subscribe to it? Last time I checked I never advocated supply side, please show me where I did, I'd love to know. Are you done speaking for me, or can I continue with my own opinions?

You still haven't proven how Clinton directly caused the .bombs. Your "crowding out" theory failed. Next?

Are you denying that the 1993 Tax reconcilliation act under Clinton and Democrat Congress was the most significant legislative step towards balancing the budget? Even the CBO said it was.
I am not getting baited in your .bomb BS, because I explained to you time and again that 22 million jobs were created under Clinton, and not even 5% of those went away when .bomb burst. Since you can't even handle that simple arithmetic, not much point having further discussions with you on more advanced subjects.

I never said it wasn't and I have stated that Clinton did a good job balancing the budget, while working with the Republicans to do so.

You claim 22MM jobs, yet keep failing to show how they were created by him. Economic cycles are a bitch to explain, aren't they?

 

[Moonbeam]

Greenspan said 'irrational exuberance'. That would imply that economic activity is emotional, based, on feelings of need, greed and fear, the latter of which, of course, is not really an emotion, but the suppression of all feeling, etc. Perhaps the reason there are so few one armed economists is because they don't know what people feel. Maybe economics should be understood more as the art of psychology than the science of statistics.

The tracker follows his game but the aboriginal knows the location of the water hole.