Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below strongchick
Well-known member
http://www.netslaves.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl?board=005&action=display&num=1010831541
so I don't have to do the typing...
so I don't have to do the typing...
rightwingers, read and learn
- Thread starter strongchick
- Start date
Longhorn85
New member
I believe Bill Clinton deserves credit for a strong economy. It was strong during most of his watch. That was the bedrock of his campaign in 1992.
strongchick
Well-known member
.
p0ink
New member
time for you to read something. Click here
spentagn
New member
From that thread, and the best response, comes this quote:
Another example is the long series of painful decisions that moved the Federal budget from deficit to surplus. With hindsight, President Bush and the Congress, in 1990, get part of the credit -- although they certainly didn't get much at the time because recession hid their reductions in the structural deficit.
The NetSlaves God/moderator claims that the "President is the most powerful person on earth." Pretty naive statement. The President CANNOT change the monetary base. Only the Fed and, to a degree, the Treasury Dept can. Only the Fed does so and makes any real changes to the global economy.
The Fed can start a war if it wants to. Easy, wreck the economy of any country that is dollarized or has a fixed exchange rate. Bye bye Central America. Why do you think this region is so politically unstable? Because they can't control their own economies, and the people get pissed about it.
Also, C Reid S comments that the President and Congress work together to make "monetary change(s)." Bull shit. Nice grasp of the American economy
Another example is the long series of painful decisions that moved the Federal budget from deficit to surplus. With hindsight, President Bush and the Congress, in 1990, get part of the credit -- although they certainly didn't get much at the time because recession hid their reductions in the structural deficit.
The NetSlaves God/moderator claims that the "President is the most powerful person on earth." Pretty naive statement. The President CANNOT change the monetary base. Only the Fed and, to a degree, the Treasury Dept can. Only the Fed does so and makes any real changes to the global economy.
The Fed can start a war if it wants to. Easy, wreck the economy of any country that is dollarized or has a fixed exchange rate. Bye bye Central America. Why do you think this region is so politically unstable? Because they can't control their own economies, and the people get pissed about it.
Also, C Reid S comments that the President and Congress work together to make "monetary change(s)." Bull shit. Nice grasp of the American economy
The Dude
New member
ttlpkg said:
I'm sorry, but that statement is wrong on so many levels. Just because he used the economy in his campaign doesn't mean diddly about what was to follow. Let's not forget that the mild recession we experienced back then WAS OVER in 1992. Done, caput, economy was steaming ahead in that election year. Yet, it was still the worst economy in 50 years? Politics my friend. The economy we have just experienced is the DIRECT RESULT of Reagan's tax cuts and deregulation. He loosened the bonds holding down the private sector and it boomed....just as every economic theory predicts and finds true each and every time it happens. Our economy got into trouble in the '60s and Kennedy proposed a massive tax cut (makes Bush's look like childs play, yet the tax burden back then was much smaller than it is today). Clinton wanted to raise taxes on a good economy and succeeded. However, the scale of this increase was held back thanks to a ferocious battle put up by the MINORITY Republican congress. THEN...and this is key...they made a difference in kicking the economy into overdrive once they were in the majority. They pushed through a capital gains tax that caused businesses to invest more and caused TAX REVENUE to suddenly INCREASE. What a suprise. Ronnie cut taxes and revenues went UP. Newt's boys cut taxes and revenues went UP ONCE AGAIN. People always forget or they never learn. Politicians can only affect the ecnomy in two fundamental ways. Taxes and regulations. Increases are bad. Decreases are good (but, no regulations at all would be bad...basics are needed, but not the mess with live with today.).
Rambling rant finished!
strongchick
Well-known member
Here's what Alice Rivlin had to say a few years later about the bravery of pushing for the tax increases and spending cuts:
Another example is the long series of painful decisions that moved the Federal budget from deficit to surplus. With hindsight, President Bush and the Congress, in 1990, get part of the credit -- although they certainly didn't get much at the time because recession hid their reductions in the structural deficit. President Clinton and the 1993 Congress also get high marks for policy that looks a lot better in retrospect than it seemed to the public at the time.
It is easy to forget now that the Clinton Administration's 1993 budget package was extremely controversial, passing by only one vote in each house after a lot of arm twisting. Moreover, at the time, it was not obvious that the critics were all wrong. Some argued that the deficit reduction was too rapid, that it might further sap the momentum of a sluggishly growing economy. Others argued that tax increases, especially at the high end of the income scale, would discourage growth and investment. I suspect most of the people in this room still believe that the modest upper-income tax increase enacted in 1993 was a mistake, but it's hard to argue with a straight face that it was bad for the economy. Moreover, the dreaded energy tax increase of 4.3 cents a gallon of gasoline, which many politicians feared would cause voter backlash, is now forgotten in the general plunge of gas prices at the pump.
The 1993 deficit reduction package was bold, but it didn't finish the job. Bringing the budget to surplus took several additional painful and acrimonious rounds of budget negotiations -- program by program, line by line, year by year. The process was not attractive. There was name-calling, posturing, finger pointing, and a desperately inconvenient shutdown of many government services. But out of the public eye, there was also hard serious work and well-crafted compromises on the part of legislators and Administration negotiators. Spending programs of all sorts -- military and civilian appropriations, grants to states and benefits to individuals -- were downsized and restructured. Fees for many government services were increased. Many Federal agencies were, if not "reinvented," at least made considerably leaner. The number of Federal employees was reduced significantly. And the effort paid off. Budget restructuring in combination with the high growth economy has moved the budget into surplus several years sooner than even the optimists dared to hope.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/1998/19980618.htm
Another example is the long series of painful decisions that moved the Federal budget from deficit to surplus. With hindsight, President Bush and the Congress, in 1990, get part of the credit -- although they certainly didn't get much at the time because recession hid their reductions in the structural deficit. President Clinton and the 1993 Congress also get high marks for policy that looks a lot better in retrospect than it seemed to the public at the time.
It is easy to forget now that the Clinton Administration's 1993 budget package was extremely controversial, passing by only one vote in each house after a lot of arm twisting. Moreover, at the time, it was not obvious that the critics were all wrong. Some argued that the deficit reduction was too rapid, that it might further sap the momentum of a sluggishly growing economy. Others argued that tax increases, especially at the high end of the income scale, would discourage growth and investment. I suspect most of the people in this room still believe that the modest upper-income tax increase enacted in 1993 was a mistake, but it's hard to argue with a straight face that it was bad for the economy. Moreover, the dreaded energy tax increase of 4.3 cents a gallon of gasoline, which many politicians feared would cause voter backlash, is now forgotten in the general plunge of gas prices at the pump.
The 1993 deficit reduction package was bold, but it didn't finish the job. Bringing the budget to surplus took several additional painful and acrimonious rounds of budget negotiations -- program by program, line by line, year by year. The process was not attractive. There was name-calling, posturing, finger pointing, and a desperately inconvenient shutdown of many government services. But out of the public eye, there was also hard serious work and well-crafted compromises on the part of legislators and Administration negotiators. Spending programs of all sorts -- military and civilian appropriations, grants to states and benefits to individuals -- were downsized and restructured. Fees for many government services were increased. Many Federal agencies were, if not "reinvented," at least made considerably leaner. The number of Federal employees was reduced significantly. And the effort paid off. Budget restructuring in combination with the high growth economy has moved the budget into surplus several years sooner than even the optimists dared to hope.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/1998/19980618.htm
strongchick
Well-known member
spentagn said:Thanks for reposting what you already provided a link to
You guys were quoting...so I did too.
fuck off , asswipe.
don't send me another personal email...bs'ing about how you are for the right of things.
don't post in my threads.
stop attacking me with one liners.
and before you get your feelings all hurt...remember you told me to fuck off a few days ago...for no other reason than a heated, polite religious discussion.
why don't you do the same....fuck off.
spentagn
New member
strongchick said:
With no commentary? Or are you still trying to comprehend what the text was saying?
strongchick said:
No.
strongchick said:
So since I disagree with you, I'm not for the right things? For the record, I believe I sent you two emails, attempting to state how I feel about certain issues. What did you write in return? Go check this link on netslaves, you'll hate it.
I did converse with you on another occasion, when I notified you that a certain poster had revealed your personal info on the board. I also stated my regret for a dumbass doing so. And then I contacted a couple mods, and Warik was kind enough to edit the post. I guess I really am an asswipe.
strongchick said:
Don't tell me what to do.
strongchick said:
"fuck off , asswipe."
strongchick said:
No, I said that in response for you questioning my integrity. I do not lie, especially about my having a child.
strongchick said:
No.
strongchick
Well-known member
so you have the right to tell me to fuckoff.
whatever.
And you distort the truth for your benefit, same as everyone else.
go hug your kid.
whatever.
And you distort the truth for your benefit, same as everyone else.
go hug your kid.
Longhorn85
New member
The Dude said:
I agree with all of those facts you presented, and believe me, I am no Clinton fan (ask anyone here!). But I believe in accountability in leadership. The economy was good on his watch, so I give the man some credit for that, even if some of it was in spite of his policies.
MasterMind
New member
saint808 said:
Thank you saint......all Clinton had to do was NOTHING...and he couldn't even handle that.....I'm sorry but he was the one of the most innactive presidents......I mean it doesn't take a really good guy to get blowjobs from interns all day
P
Pennywise
Guest
hey strongchick, could you stop infringing on copyrights??????
youngdeltman
New member
strongchick said:
You don't have the right to choose who posts on your threads
