Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: BM OUT on August 10, 2010, 12:26:51 PM
-
How many times do we have to hear the "they droove the economy into the ditch" story?Who is writing this fools material.The same tired story every single time.The only difference is he goes into blacker voice with each telling, "naw you cant have da keys back you cant drive".Jesus what a tired bore this man has turned out to be.
-
How many times do we have to hear the "they droove the economy into the ditch" story?Who is writing this fools material.The same tired story every single time.The only difference is he goes into blacker voice with each telling, "naw you cant have da keys back you cant drive".Jesus what a tired bore this man has turned out to be.
Um...but they did..
Thats the same as you calling him a racist everyday...in your mind he is racist..so you keep saying it...
-
Um...but they did..
Thats the same as you calling him a racist everyday...in your mind he is racist..so you keep saying it...
actually bush had little to nothing to do with the economy going to shit...
this is just the purest form of bullshit...anyone here that thinks that please explain to me how bush or the reps for that matter created this mess...
-
Um...but they did..
Thats the same as you calling him a racist everyday...in your mind he is racist..so you keep saying it...
And Obama took the car in the ditch and took a sledgehammer out and smashed it to bits,then took a bulldozer and filled the ditch with dirt to completely make sure the car never gets out of the ditch.He has destroyed the economy.Look at UE numbers when Bush left and compare them to Obamas economy.Bush had 52 consecutive weeks of job growth,this guy has had NONE!But in fairness,he is doing it on purpose so in his mind he is doing a great job.Care to compare the deficit number under Bush to Obamas,or we could compare the Bush deficit under republican control of the house to that of democrat control.
-
Um...but they did..
Thats the same as you calling him a racist everyday...in your mind he is racist..so you keep saying it...
Um...who controlled Congress the last 2 years of Bush's presidency?
You must have missed Barney Frank in 2005 assuring that the housing market would not collapse and most democrats supported him at that time. Even Bush questioned the solvency of Fannie and Freddie Mac and the Dems would have none of it.
And yes, Obama was part of that Democratic controlled Congress. How come they blame Bush, but they did not see the recession coming at that time and did nothing to stop it?
Anyway. That is all water under the bridge. Obama promised change for the better. He said he would fix it. But, in fact, he has made it worse. He and the stupid Dems can continue to blame Bush. The people don't care whose fault it is. In fact, most people will say that Republican and Dems are equally at fault. What the people want are jobs and they want to feel confident about the economy. The Dems had FAILED in that regard. And since the people see Obama and Dems in charge, they will make them pay like they made Republicans pay in 2006.
-
OUCH - CHECK OUT THIS VIDEO!!!!!!!!!!!
________________________ ____________________
August 10, 2010
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/10/obama-vs-obama-on-afghani_n_676836.html
Your request is being processed...
This is the print preview: Back to normal view » Dan Froomkin froomkin@huffingtonpost.com | HuffPost Reporting Become a Fan Get Email Alerts from this Reporter Ben Craw bencraw@huffingtonpost.com | HuffPost Reporting Become a Fan Get Email Alerts from this Reporter
Obama vs. Obama On Endless Wars: Who Wins? (VIDEO, POLL)
First Posted: 08-10-10 12:35 PM | Updated: 08-10-10 02:00 PM
Read More: Afghanistan, Afghanistan Policy, Afghanistan War, Obama Afghanistan, Obama War, Poll, Politics News
Back in early 2007, when the Bush administration was insisting that its military intervention in a faraway land was not open-ended, Senator Barack Obama wasn't buying it.
So the freshman from Illinois used then-secretary of state Condoleeza Rice's appearance before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee as an opportunity to raise some probing questions about the exit strategy from Iraq. Senator Obama was particularly skeptical about the administration's alleged "benchmarks" for success. He wanted to know exactly what they were -- and what would happen if they weren't met. And he wanted to know the answer to this question: "At what point do we say: 'Enough'?"
Three and a half years later, that's an excellent question for President Obama, about Afghanistan. But he doesn't have an answer.
In this video, Huffington Post Video Editor Ben Craw interweaves edited clips of Senator Obama questioning Rice about Iraq in January 2007 with comments President Obama has made about his own Afghan exit strategy in a speech in March 2009, an interview with CBS's "60 Minutes" in March 2009, an address to the nation in December 2009, remarks to the troops in Afghanistan in March, an interview with ABC in April, and an appearance on ABC's "The View" in July.
Who do you think gets the best of this exchange? Vote in our poll, below the video.
-
Can you name one piece of legislation,other then the war in Iraq,that Obama voted against Bush on.
-
Um...but they did..
Thats the same as you calling him a racist everyday...in your mind he is racist..so you keep saying it...
88% of blacks still support Obama while no other group, including hispanics, even come close to that. Why is that?
-
88% of blacks still support Obama while no other group, including hispanics, even come close to that. Why is that?
Why would blacks continue to support Obama if they are not racists? Blacks are color blind. Aren't they?
-
Can you name any racial group that votes for anyone at a clip of 97% other then blacks?
-
You cant spin failure like this. And this has nothing to do with GWB. This is solely on Obama.
-
88% of blacks still support Obama while no other group, including hispanics, even come close to that. Why is that?
56 hispanics...
and 38% whites
-
Can you name any racial group that votes for anyone at a clip of 97% other then blacks?
its because we blacks here all retarded racists and have bad intensions towards life
-
All blacks
-
Can you name any racial group that votes for anyone at a clip of 97% other then blacks?
None. You are right. Plenty of whites voted for Obama and many of them are turning their back on that disaster. But Blacks? When are they going to wake up?
I believe there are plenty of black racists. The thing I hate about them is they like play the race card and act like victims when it is convenient for them.
-
You cant spin failure like this. And this has nothing to do with GWB. This is solely on Obama.
Reagan's budget director disagree's with you. ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)
8/10/10
ARROYO GRANDE, Calif. (MarketWatch) -- "How my G.O.P. destroyed the U.S. economy." Yes, that is exactly what David Stockman, President Ronald Reagan's director of the Office of Management and Budget, wrote in a recent New York Times op-ed piece, "Four Deformations of the Apocalypse." Get it? Not "destroying." The GOP has already "destroyed" the U.S. economy, setting up an "American Apocalypse."
Reagan Republican: the GOP should file for bankruptcy
Stockman rushes into the ring swinging like a boxer: "If there were such a thing as Chapter 11 for politicians, the Republican push to extend the unaffordable Bush tax cuts would amount to a bankruptcy filing. The nation's public debt ... will soon reach $18 trillion." It screams "out for austerity and sacrifice." But instead, the GOP insists "that the nation's wealthiest taxpayers be spared even a three-percentage-point rate increase."
In the past 40 years Republican ideology has gone from solid principles to hype and slogans. Stockman says: "Republicans used to believe that prosperity depended upon the regular balancing of accounts -- in government, in international trade, on the ledgers of central banks and in the financial affairs of private households and businesses too."
No more. Today there's a "new catechism" that's "little more than money printing and deficit finance, vulgar Keynesianism robed in the ideological vestments of the prosperous classes" making a mockery of GOP ideals. Worse, it has resulted in "serial financial bubbles and Wall Street depredations that have crippled our economy." Yes, GOP ideals backfired, crippling our economy.
Stockman's indictment warns that the Republican party's "new policy doctrines have caused four great deformations of the national economy, and modern Republicans have turned a blind eye to each one:"
Stage 1. Nixon irresponsible, dumps gold, U.S starts spending binge
Richard Nixon's gold policies get Stockman's first assault, for defaulting "on American obligations under the 1944 Bretton Woods agreement to balance our accounts with the world." So for the past 40 years, America's been living "beyond our means as a nation" on "borrowed prosperity on an epic scale ... an outcome that Milton Friedman said could never happen when, in 1971, he persuaded President Nixon to unleash on the world paper dollars no longer redeemable in gold or other fixed monetary reserves."
Remember Friedman: "Just let the free market set currency exchange rates, he said, and trade deficits will self-correct." Friedman was wrong by trillions. And unfortunately "once relieved of the discipline of defending a fixed value for their currencies, politicians the world over were free to cheapen their money and disregard their neighbors."
And without discipline America was also encouraging "global monetary chaos as foreign central banks run their own printing presses at ever faster speeds to sop up the tidal wave of dollars coming from the Federal Reserve." Yes, the road to the coming apocalypse began with a Republican president listening to a misguided Nobel economist's advice.
Stage 2. Crushing debts from domestic excesses, war mongering
Stockman says "the second unhappy change in the American economy has been the extraordinary growth of our public debt. In 1970 it was just 40% of gross domestic product, or about $425 billion. When it reaches $18 trillion, it will be 40 times greater than in 1970." Who's to blame? Not big-spending Dems, says Stockman, but "from the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
Back "in 1981, traditional Republicans supported tax cuts," but Stockman makes clear, they had to be "matched by spending cuts, to offset the way inflation was pushing many taxpayers into higher brackets and to spur investment. The Reagan administration's hastily prepared fiscal blueprint, however, was no match for the primordial forces -- the welfare state and the warfare state -- that drive the federal spending machine."
OK, stop a minute. As you absorb Stockman's indictment of how his Republican party has "destroyed the U.S. economy," you're probably asking yourself why anyone should believe a traitor to the Reagan legacy. I believe party affiliation is irrelevant here. This is a crucial subject that must be explored because it further exposes a dangerous historical trend where politics is so partisan it's having huge negative consequences.
Yes, the GOP does have a welfare-warfare state: Stockman says "the neocons were pushing the military budget skyward. And the Republicans on Capitol Hill who were supposed to cut spending, exempted from the knife most of the domestic budget -- entitlements, farm subsidies, education, water projects. But in the end it was a new cadre of ideological tax-cutters who killed the Republicans' fiscal religion."
When Fed chief Paul Volcker "crushed inflation" in the '80s we got a "solid economic rebound." But then "the new tax-cutters not only claimed victory for their supply-side strategy but hooked Republicans for good on the delusion that the economy will outgrow the deficit if plied with enough tax cuts." By 2009, they "reduced federal revenues to 15% of gross domestic product," lowest since the 1940s. Still today they're irrationally demanding an extension of those "unaffordable Bush tax cuts [that] would amount to a bankruptcy filing."
Recently Bush made matters far worse by "rarely vetoing a budget bill and engaging in two unfinanced foreign military adventures." Bush also gave in "on domestic spending cuts, signing into law $420 billion in nondefense appropriations, a 65% percent gain from the $260 billion he had inherited eight years earlier. Republicans thus joined the Democrats in a shameless embrace of a free-lunch fiscal policy." Takes two to tango.
Stage 3. Wall Street's deadly 'vast, unproductive expansion'
Stockman continues pounding away: "The third ominous change in the American economy has been the vast, unproductive expansion of our financial sector." He warns that "Republicans have been oblivious to the grave danger of flooding financial markets with freely printed money and, at the same time, removing traditional restrictions on leverage and speculation." Wrong, not oblivious. Self-interested Republican loyalists like Paulson, Bernanke and Geithner knew exactly what they were doing.
They wanted the economy, markets and the government to be under the absolute control of Wall Street's too-greedy-to-fail banks. They conned Congress and the Fed into bailing out an estimated $23.7 trillion debt. Worse, they have since destroyed meaningful financial reforms. So Wall Street is now back to business as usual blowing another bigger bubble/bust cycle that will culminate in the coming "American Apocalypse."
Stockman refers to Wall Street's surviving banks as "wards of the state." Wrong, the opposite is true. Wall Street now controls Washington, and its "unproductive" trading is "extracting billions from the economy with a lot of pointless speculation in stocks, bonds, commodities and derivatives." Wall Street banks like Goldman were virtually bankrupt, would have never survived without government-guaranteed deposits and "virtually free money from the Fed's discount window to cover their bad bets."
Stage 4. New American Revolution class-warfare coming soon
Finally, thanks to Republican policies that let us "live beyond our means for decades by borrowing heavily from abroad, we have steadily sent jobs and production offshore," while at home "high-value jobs in goods production ... trade, transportation, information technology and the professions shrunk by 12% to 68 million from 77 million."
As the apocalypse draws near, Stockman sees a class-rebellion, a new revolution, a war against greed and the wealthy. Soon. The trigger will be the growing gap between economic classes: No wonder "that during the last bubble (from 2002 to 2006) the top 1% of Americans -- paid mainly from the Wall Street casino -- received two-thirds of the gain in national income, while the bottom 90% -- mainly dependent on Main Street's shrinking economy -- got only 12%. This growing wealth gap is not the market's fault. It's the decaying fruit of bad economic policy."
Get it? The decaying fruit of the GOP's bad economic policies is destroying our economy.
Warning: this black swan won't be pretty, will shock, soon
His bottom line: "The day of national reckoning has arrived. We will not have a conventional business recovery now, but rather a long hangover of debt liquidation and downsizing ... it's a pity that the modern Republican party offers the American people an irrelevant platform of recycled Keynesianism when the old approach -- balanced budgets, sound money and financial discipline -- is needed more than ever."
Wrong: There are far bigger things to "pity."
First, that most Americans, 300 million, are helpless, will do nothing, sit in the bleachers passively watching this deadly partisan game like it's just another TV reality show.
Second, that, unfortunately, politicians are so deep-in-the-pockets of the Wall Street conspiracy that controls Washington they are helpless and blind.
And third, there's a depressing sense that Stockman will be dismissed as a traitor, his message lost in the 24/7 news cycle ... until the final apocalyptic event, an unpredictable black swan triggers another, bigger global meltdown, followed by a long Great Depression II and a historic class war.
So be prepared, it will hit soon, when you least expect
----------
Nice to finally see an HONEST republican. (Oxymoron of course)
-
its because we blacks here all retarded racists and have bad intensions towards life
Try again.
-
its because we blacks here all retarded racists and have bad intensions towards life
No,its because your easily led.Proven by the fact that Jesses Jackson and Al Sharpton are allowed to speak for your race.
-
No,its because your easily led.Proven by the fact that Jesses Jackson and Al Sharpton are allowed to speak for your race.
Well thats just a load of crap. They dont speak for "our race" the same way palin dont speak for yours. Poll every black person and ask if they agree with those fools...its a resounding no.. how about i have been on record many many times on this very board stating my distain for the two..so get some new shit...
See..this is the muthafuckin problem...you lump blacks, together...thats some ancient shit...how you gonna lump blacks together when blacks dont lump blacks together...thats dumb ass level 1 thinking...its easy...match the colors...hahahahaha how retarded...really..thats what we on now a days...all blacks this all whites that...i say god damn...what the fuck year are we in...fool blacks dont like other blacks at times as whites dont like whites at times...this us them in the same country is completely and utterly subhuman...
-
Well thats just a load of crap. They dont speak for "our race" the same way palin dont speak for yours. Poll every black person and ask if they agree with those fools...its a resounding no.. how about i have been on record many many times on this very board stating my distain for the two..so get some new shit...
See..this is the muthafuckin problem...you lump blacks, together...thats some ancient shit...how you gonna lump blacks together when blacks dont lump blacks together...thats dumb ass level 1 thinking...its easy...match the colors...hahahahaha how retarded...really..thats what we on now a days...all blacks this all whites that...i say god damn...what the fuck year are we in...fool blacks dont like other blacks at times as whites dont like whites at times...this us them in the same country is completely and utterly subhuman...
Ummm,when a group votes 97% for a candidate and votes on average at a rate of 95% democrat,it seems that grouping them together is rather easy to do.Clearly,based on those statistics,they have a group think mentality.You cant name another race that votes like that for any party or individual.
Now,you say Jackson and Sharpton dont speak for blacks.Where is the outrage among blacks when these two goofs are trotted out again and again.Whites wouldnt allow David Duke to be given an audiance on regular media.I dont see any blacks protesting the fact that Jackson and Obama are put up as the head of all negroes.I never hear a peep about it,other then from you.
Where are the congressman,the black media types,the black writers etc?So,I agree they certainly dont speak for almost any black person I know,there they are every week on tv speaking for blacks and blacks dont say a peep about it.Think whites would tolerate David Duke speaking for us?Or would there be outragge at every level of white society.
-
Well thats just a load of crap. They dont speak for "our race" the same way palin dont speak for yours. Poll every black person and ask if they agree with those fools...its a resounding no.. how about i have been on record many many times on this very board stating my distain for the two..so get some new shit...
See..this is the muthafuckin problem...you lump blacks, together...thats some ancient shit...how you gonna lump blacks together when blacks dont lump blacks together...thats dumb ass level 1 thinking...its easy...match the colors...hahahahaha how retarded...really..thats what we on now a days...all blacks this all whites that...i say god damn...what the fuck year are we in...fool blacks dont like other blacks at times as whites dont like whites at times...this us them in the same country is completely and utterly subhuman...
Wrong Mal - when blacks vote 90% or better for the Dem regardless of who it is, they lump themselves together as a bloc.
-
Question: If George W. Bush sucked so bad with 4.8% unemployment and historically low deficits in 2007, does that mean Barack Obama swallows?
-
Um...but they did..
Um...no they didnt. Atleast not near as much as the Dems.
-
Every day that goes by makes Bush look better in retrospect, as awful as he was in his second term.
-
I heard a black political scientist on the radio one day talking about how the black community has marginalized itself politically by just blindly voting democrat. He talked about looking at the state of black america after years and years of blindly voting democrat....what has it brought them? When asked about republicans, he said why would they even bother a serious campaign towards blacks when it is already a forgone conclusion.....the guy was spot on. Sad.
ALL politicians should be earning votes.....and yes, I have voted dem, rep and indy during my lifetime so anyone who hasn't, your opinion HAS to be taken with a grain of salt.
-
Exactly - like I said - blacks marginalize themselves in electoral politics.
-
I heard a black political scientist on the radio one day talking about how the black community has marginalized itself politically by just blindly voting democrat. He talked about looking at the state of black america after years and years of blindly voting democrat....what has it brought them? When asked about republicans, he said why would they even bother a serious campaign towards blacks when it is already a forgone conclusion.....the guy was spot on. Sad.
ALL politicians should be earning votes.....and yes, I have voted dem, rep and indy during my lifetime so anyone who hasn't, your opinion HAS to be taken with a grain of salt.
Very true. Hispanics are to some extent the same way. But that doesnt excuse Republican politicians for not atleast making the effort to court them and sway thier opinion. Here is what needs to be said to hispanics.
1. Why would you vote for the party that has the policies which destroyed the homeland that you got away from in the first place?
2. Many Americans understand the illegal immigrant and that is why many Americans support a conditional path to citezenship. Do illegal immigrants and thier supporters understand Americans who have cultural, institutional, and economic concerns about hundreds of thousands and millions of foreigners chaotically immersing themselves into a soverign land without any kind of an organized process that manages it?
What if many forigners from Chile, Venuezual, and Nicaragua immersed themselves into Mexico? Would Mexico feel invaded? Would Mexico treat those illegal immigrants as well as the U.S.?
-
Its not blind voting a dem per se.. what it is, (for a good margin) is voting for tax brackets...which is why i dont understand why rural whites were pro bush (well i do understand but for arguments sake). I have to chalk it up to religion and war and shit like that. Because the bush tax cuts didnt help them. My best friend..has his masters degree in education, is an innercity product like me...makes about 56k per year and is black...votes republican and dosent care who knows...more over he is a councelor at a school in WATTS....a public school.
And i have a white friend...makes about $1.6 mil per year with some custom bike and wheel shops he owns down in garden grove....and he voted dem...all the time...
i cant explain either but to say this. Maybe in the totem pole of issues in their mind, one guy suits them best. IF you are an automobile worker for gm you might make that top priority and vote obama because of it.
As far as race...im positive race is a huge reason obamas approval ratings are high among blacks and i also think they would be in the 50's among whites if he were white...its impossible to judge because we have blacks and whites who vote soely based off race this election.
And when i say marginalize...i mean lump blacks in a category as billy does that says "blacks are criminals or blacks are lazy" because me my family and every black person close to me is a clear contradiction to that line of thinking
and dont get me started on economy and shit...we were crazy in the black when clinton left...and ....we know how the previous administration left it after 8 years..do spare me the bull shit
-
Its not blind voting a dem per se.. what it is, (for a good margin) is voting for tax brackets...which is why i dont understand why rural whites were pro bush (well i do understand but for arguments sake). I have to chalk it up to religion and war and shit like that. Because the bush tax cuts didnt help them. My best friend..has his masters degree in education, is an innercity product like me...makes about 56k per year and is black...votes republican and dosent care who knows...more over he is a councelor at a school in WATTS....a public school.
And i have a white friend...makes about $1.6 mil per year with some custom bike and wheel shops he owns down in garden grove....and he voted dem...all the time...
i cant explain either but to say this. Maybe in the totem pole of issues in their mind, one guy suits them best. IF you are an automobile worker for gm you might make that top priority and vote obama because of it.
As far as race...im positive race is a huge reason obamas approval ratings are high among blacks and i also think they would be in the 50's among whites if he were white...its impossible to judge because we have blacks and whites who vote soely based off race this election.
And when i say marginalize...i mean lump blacks in a category as billy does that says "blacks are criminals or blacks are lazy" because me my family and every black person close to me is a clear contradiction to that line of thinking
and dont get me started on economy and shit...we were crazy in the black when clinton left...and ....we know how the previous administration left it after 8 years..do spare me the bull shit
No. Spare ME the bullshit. The Republicans balanced the budget in 40 months after the Dems talked about it for 40 years. Clinton just cynaclly went along for the ride. Oh, and people who make way more than the $250000 threshhold are MORE likely to vote Democrat. Millionares and especialy billionares vote Democrat because, quite frankly, when you get that rich you dont pay taxes anyway no matter what happens. Its the people who make just a little above the $250000 threshold who get hurt the most and vote Republican.
-
No. Spare ME the bullshit. The Republicans balanced the budget in 40 months after the Dems talked about it for 40 years. Clinton just cynaclly went along for the ride. Oh, and people who make way more than the $250000 threshhold are MORE likely to vote Democrat. Millionares and especialy billionares vote Democrat because, quite frankly, when you get that rich you dont pay taxes anyway no matter what happens. Its the people who make just a little above the $250000 threshold who get hurt the most and vote Republican.
are you fucking high..get the fuck out of here
-
and dont get me started on economy and shit...we were crazy in the black when clinton left...and ....we know how the previous administration left it after 8 years..do spare me the bull shit
MALLLLL
tell me how bush and the reps fucked up the economy?
LOL ill give you the spending but please dont come on here and parrot the ignorant talking points of this administration...
-
Why is everyone letting Reid/Pelosi off the hook? Those two have run the budget since 2007!
-
Clinton was stalemated by a Republican majority in congress. Its very simple to see what happens when either party has control of everything.
-
MALLLLL
tell me how bush and the reps fucked up the economy?
LOL ill give you the spending but please dont come on here and parrot the ignorant talking points of this administration...
Was there a surplus when bush took office...yes...was there a deficit when he left...yes...
-
Was there a surplus when bush took office...yes...was there a deficit when he left...yes...
No there wasnt. It was a budgetary gimmick as a result of insane revenues from the dot com bubble that collapsed as bush went into office. The govt was getting huge capital gains tax receipts as well as tons of money from M&A action on wall street.
Needless to say, Clinton & the GOP worked well together on these things, as acrimonious as it was.
Gridlock is good for everyone.
-
Was there a surplus when bush took office...yes...was there a deficit when he left...yes...
There was no surplus, that is a democrat fairy tale.
from the CBO
Fiscal
Year Year Ending
National Debt Deficit
FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion
FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion
FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion
FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion
FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion
FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion
FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion
FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion
-
Was there a surplus when bush took office...yes...was there a deficit when he left...yes...
again that was spending NOT THE ECONOMY...
you said the economy...so please tell me how bush destroyed the economy?
either that or for goodness sake please stop parroting the ignorance of others...
-
There was no surplus, that is a democrat fairy tale.
from the CBO
Fiscal
Year Year Ending
National Debt Deficit
FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion
FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion
FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion
FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion
FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion
FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion
FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion
FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion
Output fell 2.2% in 1982 while budget deficits soared. When Reagan took office in 1981, the national debt stood at $995 billion. Twelve years later, by the end of George H.W. Bush�s presidency, it had exploded to $4 trillion. Reagan was a �B� grade movie actor and a doddering, probably clinically senile president, but he was a sheer genius at rewarding his friends by saddling other people with debts.
Bill Clinton reversed Reagan�s course, raising taxes on the wealthy, and lowering them for the working and middle classes. This produced the longest sustained economic expansion in American history. Importantly, it also produced budgetary surpluses allowing the government to begin paying down the crippling debt begun under Reagan. In 2000, Clinton�s last year, the surplus amounted to $236 billion. The forecast ten year surplus stood at $5.6 trillion. It was the last black ink America would see for decades, perhaps forever.
George W. Bush immediately reversed Clinton�s policy in order to revive Reagan�s, once again showering an embarrassment of riches on the already most embarrassingly rich, his �base� as he calls them. He ladled out some $630 billion in tax cuts to the top 1% of income earners. In true Republican fashion, they returned the favor by investing over $200 million to ensure Bush�s re-election. Do the math. A $630 billion return on a $200 million investment: $3,160 for $1. I�ll give you $3,160. All I ask is that you give me $1 back so I can keep the goodness flowing. Do we have a deal? Republicans know return on investment.
-
Well according the the CBO numbers the Debt was never decreased on the deficit.
-
The whole "Clinton Surplus" is a fairy tail, correct.
At what point did Clinton run a budget surplus? In fact, when did Clinton run a balanced budget? Never.
The magical "200 Billion Dollar" surplus was achieved by "borrowing" 200 or so billion dollars from the Social Security Trust Fund which was then counted as "revenue" on the Govt. balance sheet.
And without the Republican Congress there wouldn't even have been TALK of achieving a balanced budget. Clinton owes The Republican Congress a huge "Thank You" as well as the Dot.Com bubble aided by the Fed and, of course, Clinton owes himself a HUGE pat on the back for not listening to that stupid doddering old Marxist Robert Reich. I thought that would have been the end of Comrade Reich, but he is now pounding the pulpit on MSNBC and CNBC about the govt. needing to spend trillions on a new WPA program...Apparently Robert isn't good with history which is, sadly, the case with many on this board.
-
again that was spending NOT THE ECONOMY...
you said the economy...so please tell me how bush destroyed the economy?
either that or for goodness sake please stop parroting the ignorance of others...
For the economy i will say it was a joint effort by both parties...Because i think the housing market based on something not real was a large part of the economy....But the massive wallstreet unregulation by GOP lead to the fucked up economy...but whos administration was in power
-
For the economy i will say it was a joint effort by both parties...Because i think the housing market based on something not real was a large part of the economy....But the massive wallstreet unregulation by GOP lead to the fucked up economy...but whos administration was in power
Both parties get the blame for deregulation, Glass/Stegal was repleaed under Clinton with a Republican majority congress. We can go at this all night, but when all is said and done, both parties have fucked the country up, neither should get anymore blame than the other.
-
For the economy i will say it was a joint effort by both parties...Because i think the housing market based on something not real was a large part of the economy....But the massive wallstreet unregulation by GOP lead to the fucked up economy...but whos administration was in power
do you understand that there was regulation in place that could have stopped the melt down?
what exactly do you think the GOP undid that would have stopped the fucked up economy?
-
are you fucking high..get the fuck out of here
Wow. You mean presidents have the power of the purse? I didnt know that. I thought Congress had power of the purse. Lets not forget that Reagan had to fight and defeat the Communists, and Bush had to fight the terrorists. Clinton had the luxury of presiding during the most peaceful decade in US history and he has Reagan to thank for that.
-
Output fell 2.2% in 1982 while budget deficits soared. When Reagan took office in 1981, the national debt stood at $995 billion. Twelve years later, by the end of George H.W. Bush�s presidency, it had exploded to $4 trillion. Reagan was a �B� grade movie actor and a doddering, probably clinically senile president, but he was a sheer genius at rewarding his friends by saddling other people with debts.
Bill Clinton reversed Reagan�s course, raising taxes on the wealthy, and lowering them for the working and middle classes. This produced the longest sustained economic expansion in American history. Importantly, it also produced budgetary surpluses allowing the government to begin paying down the crippling debt begun under Reagan. In 2000, Clinton�s last year, the surplus amounted to $236 billion. The forecast ten year surplus stood at $5.6 trillion. It was the last black ink America would see for decades, perhaps forever.
George W. Bush immediately reversed Clinton�s policy in order to revive Reagan�s, once again showering an embarrassment of riches on the already most embarrassingly rich, his �base� as he calls them. He ladled out some $630 billion in tax cuts to the top 1% of income earners. In true Republican fashion, they returned the favor by investing over $200 million to ensure Bush�s re-election. Do the math. A $630 billion return on a $200 million investment: $3,160 for $1. I�ll give you $3,160. All I ask is that you give me $1 back so I can keep the goodness flowing. Do we have a deal? Republicans know return on investment.
Regean had to fight inflation with high interest rates and that caused the recession of the early 80s. His tax cuts were not enacted until 1983, which is when the economy took off. Deficits soured because we were building up our defenses against the Soviet Union and it proved to be a terrific investment. But domestic descretionary spending went DOWN. Yes, deficits were up but assets were up probably TEN times as much.
Clinton raised taxes on EVERYONE except some people who werent paying taxes at all and stayed off the tax rolls. That's part of the reason Republicans took Congress in 1994. The Republicans forced lower government spending. They even shut down the government to achieve this end. The dot com bubble, easy money by the fed, and the capital gains tax cut led to the near surplus, not to mention much lower millitary spending.
Earning $250000 on a joint filing status when you are in your 40s and 50s does not make you rich!!!!!!!! If you are a small business owner making that money you are not rich!!!! You may need to save that money for years in which you are not making as much revenue.
-
Barack and his followers are whiney little cry babies. They will be blaming bush for decades after they get tossed in 2012.
-
Its not blind voting a dem per se.. what it is, (for a good margin) is voting for tax brackets...which is why i dont understand why rural whites were pro bush (well i do understand but for arguments sake). I have to chalk it up to religion and war and shit like that. Because the bush tax cuts didnt help them. My best friend..has his masters degree in education, is an innercity product like me...makes about 56k per year and is black...votes republican and dosent care who knows...more over he is a councelor at a school in WATTS....a public school.
And i have a white friend...makes about $1.6 mil per year with some custom bike and wheel shops he owns down in garden grove....and he voted dem...all the time...
i cant explain either but to say this. Maybe in the totem pole of issues in their mind, one guy suits them best. IF you are an automobile worker for gm you might make that top priority and vote obama because of it.
As far as race...im positive race is a huge reason obamas approval ratings are high among blacks and i also think they would be in the 50's among whites if he were white...its impossible to judge because we have blacks and whites who vote soely based off race this election.
And when i say marginalize...i mean lump blacks in a category as billy does that says "blacks are criminals or blacks are lazy" because me my family and every black person close to me is a clear contradiction to that line of thinking
and dont get me started on economy and shit...we were crazy in the black when clinton left...and ....we know how the previous administration left it after 8 years..do spare me the bull shit
Well,Ive never said "all blacks are lazy or all blacks are criminals".I have said that there were 36,000 black on white rapes and ZERO white on black rapes.Sorry,thats a statistic and yet the one case the media harped on was the absolute made up Duke case.
I do say the blacks in Barrack Hussein Obamas community are lazy and criminals,again stats prove that and yet the media acts like he healed the community.
My agenda is not race based.Its the double standard of the media.If its a whiyte on black issue its news for months[look at the Imus case,the Duke case]if its a black on white case -nothing.Look at the Jaime Fox case or the 36,000 black on white rapes.So,my rhetoric is ALWAYS about the double standard in society and while its based on racial issues,its not racist,its simply to point out the incredible double standards in the society.Knock Obama,its about race,knock Palin,its about competance,when both are completely clueless.
-
Both parties get the blame for deregulation, Glass/Stegal was repleaed under Clinton with a Republican majority congress. We can go at this all night, but when all is said and done, both parties have fucked the country up, neither should get anymore blame than the other.
you are right.. It was good talkin with you guys.
-
Every day that goes by makes Bush look better in retrospect, as awful as he was in his second term.
hhaha
Yes we can, yes we can destroy the nation. haha