Will Republicans ever admit the mess they left President Obama?

[Oldstyle]

Faun doesn't want to admit that Clinton rode the Dot Com Boom and THAT boom was responsible for his economic numbers because if you take away Clinton's rosy economic numbers you're not left with much. What's amusing is listening to those on the left that think somehow the economy will duplicate what happened back then simply because another Clinton is in the White House.

I'd appreciate it if you would stop lying about what I said. In stark contrast to the denial you falsely ascribe to me, I actually told you...

While it's true the dot Com bubble helped fuel the economy, it's also true the economy began improving prior to the dot Com bubble.

emphasis added​

On a percentage basis, Faun...how much of the Clinton economy was due to the Dot Com Boom?

The truth that you so stubbornly don't want to admit is that what Bill Clinton did back then had very little to do with the economy improving. His ass just happened to be sitting in the Oval Office when it did and he was lucky enough to be in his last year in office before the Dot Com Bubble broke.

Tell me one thing that Hillary Clinton is proposing that will grow the economy! She has no economic strategy for growth. She totally relies on naive liberals like yourself that expect another Clinton in the White House will engender the same results we had when Slick Willie was there!

Is that your way of apologizing for lying about what I said?

Why would I apologize for pointing out how you refuse to admit that Clinton's economic numbers had everything to do with the Dot Com Boom and absolutely nothing to do with his raising taxes?

prove it...

Dude, the "proof" that you DEMAND has been provided by Bill Clinton himself! He's not calling for tax increases to stimulate the economy. He's calling for tax cuts! Why would he do THAT if it was tax increases that led to the great economic numbers he enjoyed back in the day?

 

[Oldstyle]

Oh, that's right...you can't "speak" for Bill Clinton!

 

[Faun]

AND you again seem to be so f...king stupid! Recessions DON"T start on the day the NBER says! The slow down STARTED under clinton.
FACTS!
Predictions that the bubble would burst emerged during the dot-com bubble in the late 1990s. Predictions about a future burst increased following the October 27, 1997 mini-crash, in the wake of the Asian crisis. This caused an uncertain economic climate during the first few months of 1998. However conditions improved, and the Federal Reserve raised interest rates six times between June 1999 and May 2000 in an effort to cool the economy to achieve a soft landing. The burst of the stock market bubble occurred in the form of the NASDAQ crash in March 2000. Growth in gross domestic product slowed considerably in the third quarter of 2000 to the lowest rate since a contraction in the first quarter of 1992.[3]
Early 2000s recession - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Faun doesn't want to admit that Clinton rode the Dot Com Boom and THAT boom was responsible for his economic numbers because if you take away Clinton's rosy economic numbers you're not left with much. What's amusing is listening to those on the left that think somehow the economy will duplicate what happened back then simply because another Clinton is in the White House.

I'd appreciate it if you would stop lying about what I said. In stark contrast to the denial you falsely ascribe to me, I actually told you...

While it's true the dot Com bubble helped fuel the economy, it's also true the economy began improving prior to the dot Com bubble.

emphasis added​

FACTS!
What President has the highest GDP increase?
Bush for 2 years
Then Clinton 5 years.

View attachment 70639

First and foremost, I'm glad to see you hold Duhbya responsible for the Great Recession.

Your tacit confession aside, you're an idiot for referencing nominal figures when you should be using real figures .... you moronically attributed 10 years to Clinton when he was president for 8 years ... and you're dumb enough to think you made a point by showing Obama coming in last with 2009 figures which were actually weighed down heavily by Bush's Great Recession.

Good job.

See I'm an honest person and unlike most people like YOU I can admit I made a mistake and thank you for catching it!
I'm the better person though because I can admit a mistake so...
You are right!
I counted 10 years for Clinton!
So here is the correct number.
George W. Bush had the 1st, 2nd and 8th highest growth in GDP of the top 10.
Clinton had 3,4,5,6,9,10th highest again after Bush.
Bush 41 had the 7th highest.
Plus according to other people the recession didn't start until Obama took office!

Whether I'm "dumb" enough is debatable.
There is no DEBATE that Obama as President in 2009 had a 2% loss in GDP.
The highest in the 69 years since the GDP measure was started in 1947.
That is a FACT!


View attachment 70735

If you were honest, you would use real figures.

Using nominal figures as you are doing puts Jimmy Carter ahead of all of the presidents you listed and places his 4 years among the top 6 slots.

See why you're so ignorant?

As far as GDP loss in 2009... that's entirely due to Bush's Great Recession, for which even you unwittingly credited him. But if blaming Obama for the economy he inherited makes you feel better, then more power to ya.

 

[Faun]

I'd appreciate it if you would stop lying about what I said. In stark contrast to the denial you falsely ascribe to me, I actually told you...

emphasis added​

On a percentage basis, Faun...how much of the Clinton economy was due to the Dot Com Boom?

The truth that you so stubbornly don't want to admit is that what Bill Clinton did back then had very little to do with the economy improving. His ass just happened to be sitting in the Oval Office when it did and he was lucky enough to be in his last year in office before the Dot Com Bubble broke.

Tell me one thing that Hillary Clinton is proposing that will grow the economy! She has no economic strategy for growth. She totally relies on naive liberals like yourself that expect another Clinton in the White House will engender the same results we had when Slick Willie was there!

Is that your way of apologizing for lying about what I said?

Why would I apologize for pointing out how you refuse to admit that Clinton's economic numbers had everything to do with the Dot Com Boom and absolutely nothing to do with his raising taxes?

prove it...

Dude, the "proof" that you DEMAND has been provided by Bill Clinton himself! He's not calling for tax increases to stimulate the economy. He's calling for tax cuts! Why would he do THAT if it was tax increases that led to the great economic numbers he enjoyed back in the day?

Holyfuckingshit!

Prove Clinton thinks it was a bad idea to raise taxes then because he thinks we should cut taxes now.... different economies call for different approaches.

And I note, you failed miserably to prove the economy during Clinton's presidency was fueled almost entirely by the dot com bubble.

 

[Oldstyle]

On a percentage basis, Faun...how much of the Clinton economy was due to the Dot Com Boom?

The truth that you so stubbornly don't want to admit is that what Bill Clinton did back then had very little to do with the economy improving. His ass just happened to be sitting in the Oval Office when it did and he was lucky enough to be in his last year in office before the Dot Com Bubble broke.

Tell me one thing that Hillary Clinton is proposing that will grow the economy! She has no economic strategy for growth. She totally relies on naive liberals like yourself that expect another Clinton in the White House will engender the same results we had when Slick Willie was there!

Is that your way of apologizing for lying about what I said?

Why would I apologize for pointing out how you refuse to admit that Clinton's economic numbers had everything to do with the Dot Com Boom and absolutely nothing to do with his raising taxes?

prove it...

Dude, the "proof" that you DEMAND has been provided by Bill Clinton himself! He's not calling for tax increases to stimulate the economy. He's calling for tax cuts! Why would he do THAT if it was tax increases that led to the great economic numbers he enjoyed back in the day?

Holyfuckingshit!

Prove Clinton thinks it was a bad idea to raise taxes then because he thinks we should cut taxes now.... different economies call for different approaches.

And I note, you failed miserably to prove the economy during Clinton's presidency was fueled almost entirely by the dot com bubble.

Different economies call for different approaches? Did you really just post that? So what's "different" between much of the time that Bill Clinton was in office and now? Gee, think it might just be that the Dot Com Boom was taking place?

 

[Oldstyle]

What's amusing is that if you REALLY look at what took place during the Clinton Administration you'll find many of the root causes of our present economic difficulties. He's the one who signed NAFTA which made it easier to outsource American jobs to other countries and he's the one who signed the Financial Services Modernization Act which got rid of the Glass-Steagal Act...which contributed to the financial melt down.

 

[healthmyths]

Faun doesn't want to admit that Clinton rode the Dot Com Boom and THAT boom was responsible for his economic numbers because if you take away Clinton's rosy economic numbers you're not left with much. What's amusing is listening to those on the left that think somehow the economy will duplicate what happened back then simply because another Clinton is in the White House.

I'd appreciate it if you would stop lying about what I said. In stark contrast to the denial you falsely ascribe to me, I actually told you...

While it's true the dot Com bubble helped fuel the economy, it's also true the economy began improving prior to the dot Com bubble.

emphasis added​

FACTS!
What President has the highest GDP increase?
Bush for 2 years
Then Clinton 5 years.

View attachment 70639

First and foremost, I'm glad to see you hold Duhbya responsible for the Great Recession.

Your tacit confession aside, you're an idiot for referencing nominal figures when you should be using real figures .... you moronically attributed 10 years to Clinton when he was president for 8 years ... and you're dumb enough to think you made a point by showing Obama coming in last with 2009 figures which were actually weighed down heavily by Bush's Great Recession.

Good job.

See I'm an honest person and unlike most people like YOU I can admit I made a mistake and thank you for catching it!
I'm the better person though because I can admit a mistake so...
You are right!
I counted 10 years for Clinton!
So here is the correct number.
George W. Bush had the 1st, 2nd and 8th highest growth in GDP of the top 10.
Clinton had 3,4,5,6,9,10th highest again after Bush.
Bush 41 had the 7th highest.
Plus according to other people the recession didn't start until Obama took office!

Whether I'm "dumb" enough is debatable.
There is no DEBATE that Obama as President in 2009 had a 2% loss in GDP.
The highest in the 69 years since the GDP measure was started in 1947.
That is a FACT!


View attachment 70735

If you were honest, you would use real figures.

Using nominal figures as you are doing puts Jimmy Carter ahead of all of the presidents you listed and places his 4 years among the top 6 slots.

See why you're so ignorant?

As far as GDP loss in 2009... that's entirely due to Bush's Great Recession, for which even you unwittingly credited him. But if blaming Obama for the economy he inherited makes you feel better, then more power to ya.

Hey... first let's put Carter's INFLATION RATE into play because THAT inflates the GDP artificially! The HIGHEST Inflation rate in history will INFLATE
the GDP as any intelligent person should acknowledge which I guess leaves you out!

Yes... I again being more honest then you do admit that the GDP loss was partially caused by the recession started through the housing bubble that was
begun under Clinton's Community Reinvestment Act CRA which allowed loans made to poor loan risks.
In a recent meeting with the Council on Foreign Relations, Barney Frank–the chair of the House Financial Services Committee and a longtime supporter of Fannie and Freddie–admitted that it had been a mistake to force homeownership on people who could not afford it.
Renting, he said, would have been preferable. Now he tells us.
Long-term pressure from Frank and his colleagues to expand home ownership connects government housing policies to both the housing bubble and the poor quality of the mortgages on which it is based. In 1992, Congress gave a new affordable housing “mission” to Fannie and Freddie, and authorized the Department of Housing and Urban Development to define its scope through regulations.
Shortly thereafter, Fannie Mae, under Chairman Jim Johnson, made its first “trillion-dollar commitment” to increase financing for affordable housing. What this meant for the quality of the mortgages that Fannie–and later Freddie–would buy has not become clear until now.

On a parallel track was the Community Reinvestment Act. New CRA regulations in 1995 required banks to demonstrate that they were making mortgage loans to underserved communities, which inevitably included borrowers whose credit standing did not qualify them for a conventional mortgage loan.
A Government-Mandated Housing Bubble
And even though Bush administration made warnings about the potential housing bust!
GWB's administration was LAUGHED AT BY Democrats Frank and Dodd after 17 times trying to get Fannie/Freddie fixed!
"Over the past six years, the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of failure to reform GSEs but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties.
President Bush publicly called for GSE reform at least 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted.

Unfortunately, these warnings went unheeded, as the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems.
Setting the Record Straight: The Three Most Egregious Claims In The New York Times Article On The Housing Crisis

Many prominent Democrats, including House Finance Chairman Barney Frank, opposed any legislation correcting the risks posed by GSEs.
* House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) criticized
the President's warning saying:
"these two entities - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - are not facing any kind of financial crisis .
The more people exaggerate these problems,
the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."...
(Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae," New York Times, 9/11/03)

* Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd also ignored the President's warnings and
called on him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" position. Eric Dash, "Fannie Mae's Offer To Help Ease Credit Squeeze
Is Rejected, As Critics Complain Of Opportunism," New York Times, 8/11/07)

Barney Frank's Fannie and Freddie Muddle

Finally YOU are so dumb in that NOT one of your comments is supported with links to PROVE your statements.
People believe my posts more often because I am not making the statements but the experts that are provided in the links make them!
HINT you should spend more time researching then making subjective unproven comments.

 

[Faun]

Is that your way of apologizing for lying about what I said?

Why would I apologize for pointing out how you refuse to admit that Clinton's economic numbers had everything to do with the Dot Com Boom and absolutely nothing to do with his raising taxes?

prove it...

Dude, the "proof" that you DEMAND has been provided by Bill Clinton himself! He's not calling for tax increases to stimulate the economy. He's calling for tax cuts! Why would he do THAT if it was tax increases that led to the great economic numbers he enjoyed back in the day?

Holyfuckingshit!

Prove Clinton thinks it was a bad idea to raise taxes then because he thinks we should cut taxes now.... different economies call for different approaches.

And I note, you failed miserably to prove the economy during Clinton's presidency was fueled almost entirely by the dot com bubble.

Different economies call for different approaches? Did you really just post that? So what's "different" between much of the time that Bill Clinton was in office and now? Gee, think it might just be that the Dot Com Boom was taking place?

WTF are you talking about now? There was no dot com boom when Clinton came into office and raised taxes.

And I'm still waiting for you to prove the dot com boom accounted for nearly the entire economy while Clinton was president...

 

[Faun]

I'd appreciate it if you would stop lying about what I said. In stark contrast to the denial you falsely ascribe to me, I actually told you...

emphasis added​

FACTS!
What President has the highest GDP increase?
Bush for 2 years
Then Clinton 5 years.

View attachment 70639

First and foremost, I'm glad to see you hold Duhbya responsible for the Great Recession.

Your tacit confession aside, you're an idiot for referencing nominal figures when you should be using real figures .... you moronically attributed 10 years to Clinton when he was president for 8 years ... and you're dumb enough to think you made a point by showing Obama coming in last with 2009 figures which were actually weighed down heavily by Bush's Great Recession.

Good job.

See I'm an honest person and unlike most people like YOU I can admit I made a mistake and thank you for catching it!
I'm the better person though because I can admit a mistake so...
You are right!
I counted 10 years for Clinton!
So here is the correct number.
George W. Bush had the 1st, 2nd and 8th highest growth in GDP of the top 10.
Clinton had 3,4,5,6,9,10th highest again after Bush.
Bush 41 had the 7th highest.
Plus according to other people the recession didn't start until Obama took office!

Whether I'm "dumb" enough is debatable.
There is no DEBATE that Obama as President in 2009 had a 2% loss in GDP.
The highest in the 69 years since the GDP measure was started in 1947.
That is a FACT!


View attachment 70735

If you were honest, you would use real figures.

Using nominal figures as you are doing puts Jimmy Carter ahead of all of the presidents you listed and places his 4 years among the top 6 slots.

See why you're so ignorant?

As far as GDP loss in 2009... that's entirely due to Bush's Great Recession, for which even you unwittingly credited him. But if blaming Obama for the economy he inherited makes you feel better, then more power to ya.

Hey... first let's put Carter's INFLATION RATE into play because THAT inflates the GDP artificially! The HIGHEST Inflation rate in history will INFLATE
the GDP as any intelligent person should acknowledge which I guess leaves you out!

Yes... I again being more honest then you do admit that the GDP loss was partially caused by the recession started through the housing bubble that was
begun under Clinton's Community Reinvestment Act CRA which allowed loans made to poor loan risks.
In a recent meeting with the Council on Foreign Relations, Barney Frank–the chair of the House Financial Services Committee and a longtime supporter of Fannie and Freddie–admitted that it had been a mistake to force homeownership on people who could not afford it.
Renting, he said, would have been preferable. Now he tells us.
Long-term pressure from Frank and his colleagues to expand home ownership connects government housing policies to both the housing bubble and the poor quality of the mortgages on which it is based. In 1992, Congress gave a new affordable housing “mission” to Fannie and Freddie, and authorized the Department of Housing and Urban Development to define its scope through regulations.
Shortly thereafter, Fannie Mae, under Chairman Jim Johnson, made its first “trillion-dollar commitment” to increase financing for affordable housing. What this meant for the quality of the mortgages that Fannie–and later Freddie–would buy has not become clear until now.

On a parallel track was the Community Reinvestment Act. New CRA regulations in 1995 required banks to demonstrate that they were making mortgage loans to underserved communities, which inevitably included borrowers whose credit standing did not qualify them for a conventional mortgage loan.
A Government-Mandated Housing Bubble
And even though Bush administration made warnings about the potential housing bust!
GWB's administration was LAUGHED AT BY Democrats Frank and Dodd after 17 times trying to get Fannie/Freddie fixed!
"Over the past six years, the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of failure to reform GSEs but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties.
President Bush publicly called for GSE reform at least 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted.

Unfortunately, these warnings went unheeded, as the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems.
Setting the Record Straight: The Three Most Egregious Claims In The New York Times Article On The Housing Crisis

Many prominent Democrats, including House Finance Chairman Barney Frank, opposed any legislation correcting the risks posed by GSEs.
* House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) criticized
the President's warning saying:
"these two entities - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - are not facing any kind of financial crisis .
The more people exaggerate these problems,
the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."...
(Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae," New York Times, 9/11/03)

* Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd also ignored the President's warnings and
called on him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" position. Eric Dash, "Fannie Mae's Offer To Help Ease Credit Squeeze
Is Rejected, As Critics Complain Of Opportunism," New York Times, 8/11/07)

Barney Frank's Fannie and Freddie Muddle

Finally YOU are so dumb in that NOT one of your comments is supported with links to PROVE your statements.
People believe my posts more often because I am not making the statements but the experts that are provided in the links make them!
HINT you should spend more time researching then making subjective unproven comments.



View attachment 70748

Nobody with a functioning brain believes an imbecile who who tries to formulate an argument based on nominal GDP figures. But g'head... convince yourself otherwise.

Again, your first clue that you have no idea what you're talking about is when you say Carter's economy was better than Reagan's and Clinton's.

 

[Andylusion]

What's amusing is that if you REALLY look at what took place during the Clinton Administration you'll find many of the root causes of our present economic difficulties. He's the one who signed NAFTA which made it easier to outsource American jobs to other countries and he's the one who signed the Financial Services Modernization Act which got rid of the Glass-Steagal Act...which contributed to the financial melt down.

While I disagree, it is interesting to me how psychotic the left-wing is about free-trade. While in this specific discussion they claim free trade is bad, all you have to do is mention Cuba, and suddenly free-trade is good. The Embargo is somehow magically horrible. When this embargo is removed, what the heck do you think is going to happen? Companies are going to invest in Cuba. What does that mean? They are going to take money they earned here, and invest in factories and business in Cuba, which will employ Cubans, and at a fraction of the wages paid here. It will not be 5 years before products are being shipped to the US from Cuba.

That said, your claim is in error on two counts. Outsourcing was happening all throughout the 80s, and even the 70s. Moreover, there is no evidence that NAFTA did anything negative to our economy, and at worst gave us a boost. Lastly, NAFTA really didn't do that much. What many people don't seem to know, is that we already had small free-trade agreements with Canada and Mexico, before NAFTA was ever signed. Before NAFTA ever existed, we had agreements that factories in Mexico territories could get supplies from the US with zero tariff, and could ship finished products back with zero tariff.

By the time the 1990s, rolled around, there was practically no tariffs anywhere along the US-Mexico boarder. The only thing that NAFTA did, was codify into one unified treaty, what was already the norm. The biggest changes was that US corn farmers could sell deeper into Mexico, and machinery and industrial equipment could be imported from the US without tariff.

Lastly, the Financial Service Modernization Act, had nothing to do with the melt down. Nothing. Not one thing about that bill, had any impact on the melt down. If the FSM Act had never existed, the sub-prime explosion would have happened exactly the same way, with ZERO difference.

No, the cause of the sub-prime crash, was Bill Clinton's administration suing banks to force them to make bad loans, *AND* the direction of Freddie Mac, and Fannie Mae to guarantee Sub-prime loans.

The house price bubble started in 1997, two years before the FSM Act was passed. And the boom in sub-prime mortgages started in 1997, two years before the FSM Act. The FSM Act had NOTHING to do with the sub-prime crash. Not one aspect of the Glass-Steagal Act, would have prevented, slowed, hindered, or mitigated any aspect of the 2008 sub-prime crash. Not one thing.

 

[Oldstyle]

What's amusing is that if you REALLY look at what took place during the Clinton Administration you'll find many of the root causes of our present economic difficulties. He's the one who signed NAFTA which made it easier to outsource American jobs to other countries and he's the one who signed the Financial Services Modernization Act which got rid of the Glass-Steagal Act...which contributed to the financial melt down.

While I disagree, it is interesting to me how psychotic the left-wing is about free-trade. While in this specific discussion they claim free trade is bad, all you have to do is mention Cuba, and suddenly free-trade is good. The Embargo is somehow magically horrible. When this embargo is removed, what the heck do you think is going to happen? Companies are going to invest in Cuba. What does that mean? They are going to take money they earned here, and invest in factories and business in Cuba, which will employ Cubans, and at a fraction of the wages paid here. It will not be 5 years before products are being shipped to the US from Cuba.

That said, your claim is in error on two counts. Outsourcing was happening all throughout the 80s, and even the 70s. Moreover, there is no evidence that NAFTA did anything negative to our economy, and at worst gave us a boost. Lastly, NAFTA really didn't do that much. What many people don't seem to know, is that we already had small free-trade agreements with Canada and Mexico, before NAFTA was ever signed. Before NAFTA ever existed, we had agreements that factories in Mexico territories could get supplies from the US with zero tariff, and could ship finished products back with zero tariff.

By the time the 1990s, rolled around, there was practically no tariffs anywhere along the US-Mexico boarder. The only thing that NAFTA did, was codify into one unified treaty, what was already the norm. The biggest changes was that US corn farmers could sell deeper into Mexico, and machinery and industrial equipment could be imported from the US without tariff.

Lastly, the Financial Service Modernization Act, had nothing to do with the melt down. Nothing. Not one thing about that bill, had any impact on the melt down. If the FSM Act had never existed, the sub-prime explosion would have happened exactly the same way, with ZERO difference.

No, the cause of the sub-prime crash, was Bill Clinton's administration suing banks to force them to make bad loans, *AND* the direction of Freddie Mac, and Fannie Mae to guarantee Sub-prime loans.

The house price bubble started in 1997, two years before the FSM Act was passed. And the boom in sub-prime mortgages started in 1997, two years before the FSM Act. The FSM Act had NOTHING to do with the sub-prime crash. Not one aspect of the Glass-Steagal Act, would have prevented, slowed, hindered, or mitigated any aspect of the 2008 sub-prime crash. Not one thing.

Well I disagree with your disagreement, Andy!

How can you say that NAFTA didn't do much? While it did create jobs in the United States it also more or less wiped out entire industries in computers, automobiles, textiles and electrical appliances in States like Texas, California, Michigan and New York. It also depressed worker's wages in the companies that didn't relocate because of the threat of relocation. The so called Maquiladoras that sprung up just over the Mexican border were built by US and Japanese corporations taking advantage of cheap Mexican labor. Yes, US corn farmers could sell deep into Mexico but only because the US Government subsidized them so that Mexican farmers couldn't compete with the price that US farmers were charging. Those Mexican farmers subsequently went out of business. If you see that as a good thing then I question your judgement.

As for what the FSM did in relation to the sub-prime crash? How can you ignore the effect of knocking down the barrier between commercial banks and other financial institutions had on the severity of the crash? The FSM helped create the so-called "Super Banks" that were too big to fail! It encouraged the making of risky loans, bundling them together and then selling them to other financial institutions.

 

[Oldstyle]

Why would I apologize for pointing out how you refuse to admit that Clinton's economic numbers had everything to do with the Dot Com Boom and absolutely nothing to do with his raising taxes?

prove it...

Dude, the "proof" that you DEMAND has been provided by Bill Clinton himself! He's not calling for tax increases to stimulate the economy. He's calling for tax cuts! Why would he do THAT if it was tax increases that led to the great economic numbers he enjoyed back in the day?

Holyfuckingshit!

Prove Clinton thinks it was a bad idea to raise taxes then because he thinks we should cut taxes now.... different economies call for different approaches.

And I note, you failed miserably to prove the economy during Clinton's presidency was fueled almost entirely by the dot com bubble.

Different economies call for different approaches? Did you really just post that? So what's "different" between much of the time that Bill Clinton was in office and now? Gee, think it might just be that the Dot Com Boom was taking place?

WTF are you talking about now? There was no dot com boom when Clinton came into office and raised taxes.

And I'm still waiting for you to prove the dot com boom accounted for nearly the entire economy while Clinton was president...

So if the reason the economy started "booming" was because Clinton raised taxes...then why oh why would he ever be calling for tax CUTS now? Duh?

 

[Faun]

prove it...

Dude, the "proof" that you DEMAND has been provided by Bill Clinton himself! He's not calling for tax increases to stimulate the economy. He's calling for tax cuts! Why would he do THAT if it was tax increases that led to the great economic numbers he enjoyed back in the day?

Holyfuckingshit!

Prove Clinton thinks it was a bad idea to raise taxes then because he thinks we should cut taxes now.... different economies call for different approaches.

And I note, you failed miserably to prove the economy during Clinton's presidency was fueled almost entirely by the dot com bubble.

Different economies call for different approaches? Did you really just post that? So what's "different" between much of the time that Bill Clinton was in office and now? Gee, think it might just be that the Dot Com Boom was taking place?

WTF are you talking about now? There was no dot com boom when Clinton came into office and raised taxes.

And I'm still waiting for you to prove the dot com boom accounted for nearly the entire economy while Clinton was president...

So if the reason the economy started "booming" was because Clinton raised taxes...then why oh why would he ever be calling for tax CUTS now? Duh?

First of all, I never said the economy boomed because he raised taxes, even though you continually falsely infer that I did.

Secondly, adjusting taxes in 1993 has absolutely nothing to do with adjusting them now.

Thirdly, because Clinton thinks corporate tax should be lowered now does not mean he thinks they were too high in 1993 when he raised them.

Fourthly, you failed to prove the dot com boom was almost entirely responsible for the economic growth under Clinton, which you claimed.

Fifthly, Obama's job approval rating is still higher today than Reagan's was at this point in his presidency.

Sixthly, the answer to the forum topic still appears to be a firm "no."

 

[healthmyths]

Dude, the "proof" that you DEMAND has been provided by Bill Clinton himself! He's not calling for tax increases to stimulate the economy. He's calling for tax cuts! Why would he do THAT if it was tax increases that led to the great economic numbers he enjoyed back in the day?

Holyfuckingshit!

Prove Clinton thinks it was a bad idea to raise taxes then because he thinks we should cut taxes now.... different economies call for different approaches.

And I note, you failed miserably to prove the economy during Clinton's presidency was fueled almost entirely by the dot com bubble.

Different economies call for different approaches? Did you really just post that? So what's "different" between much of the time that Bill Clinton was in office and now? Gee, think it might just be that the Dot Com Boom was taking place?

WTF are you talking about now? There was no dot com boom when Clinton came into office and raised taxes.

And I'm still waiting for you to prove the dot com boom accounted for nearly the entire economy while Clinton was president...

So if the reason the economy started "booming" was because Clinton raised taxes...then why oh why would he ever be calling for tax CUTS now? Duh?

First of all, I never said the economy boomed because he raised taxes, even though you continually falsely infer that I did.

Secondly, adjusting taxes in 1993 has absolutely nothing to do with adjusting them now.

Thirdly, because Clinton thinks corporate tax should be lowered now does not mean he thinks they were too high in 1993 when he raised them.

Fourthly, you failed to prove the dot com boom was almost entirely responsible for the economic growth under Clinton, which you claimed.

Fifthly, Obama's job approval rating is still higher today than Reagan's was at this point in his presidency.

Sixthly, the answer to the forum topic still appears to be a firm "no."

Your "Fifthly, Obama's job approval rating is still higher today than Reagan's was at this point in his presidency."
Agree. Primarily because the MSM is NOT an adversary as they were when a GOP is president. Proof?
Here explain how the MSM would ever produce stories that would endanger the election/re-election of Obama WHEN 85% of these same news people donated to Obama in 2008 and wrote biased stories against Romney in 2012?
HERE are the FACTS please refute!

Over 85% of media donated money to Democrats!
1,160 (85%) of the 1,353 of the Senior executives, on-air personalities, producers, reporters, editors, writers and other self-identifying employees of ABC, CBS and NBC contributed more than $1 million to Democrats candidates and campaign committees in 2008, according to an analysis by The Examiner of data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.
Obama, Democrats got 88 percent of 2008 contributions by TV network execs, writers, reporters

Study of 130,213 stories shows Obama bias in 2012 election BY PAUL BEDARD | MARCH 16, 2015 | 10:49 AM
A sweeping study of some 130,213 news articles on the 2012 presidential match between President Obama and Mitt Romney has proven anew
that there was a strong pro-Democratic bias in the U.S. and international press.
The study, published in the authoritative journal Big Data Society, also tested the campaign themes the media focused on and determined that Obama succeeded in stealing the economic issue from Republican Romney.
"Overall, media reporting contained more frequently positive statements about the Democrats than the Republicans.
Overall, the Republicans were more frequently the object of negative statements," wrote the study authors, Their conclusion:
"The Republican Party is the most divisive subject in the campaign, and is portrayed in a more negative fashion than the Democrats."
Paul Bedard, the Washington Examiner's "Washington Secrets" columnist, can be contacted at pbedard@washingtonexaminer.com.
Smooch: Study of 130,213 stories shows Obama bias in 2012 election

So to repeat, of course Obama's going to have higher approval.
A) The MSM bashed Reagan/Bush any GOP president.
B) THE MSM exalted even called Obama a God so what would you expect the general public's approval rating would be when the BIASED MSM makes
statements like this MSM Editor that LOVES Obama so much that here in the words of a MSM publication said it!
The Editor of NewsWeek, Evan Thomas.
Thomas was once asked about George Bush and this is his response.
"our job is to bash the president[Bush], that's what we do." Evan Thomas responding to a question on whether the media's unfair to Bush on the TV talk show Inside Washington, February 2, 2007.He-Could-Go-All-The-Way: 'Today' Cheers Obama's Football Play

RIGHT HIS job was to BASH Bush. He is a journalist. Unbiased. Objective. Professional. RIGHT??

But when it came to Obama???
This same hard-nosed "bashing journalist- Editor of NewsWeek gushed about Obama.....
"I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God."
Newsweek’s Evan Thomas: Obama Is ‘Sort of God’
A professional NEWS editor calling a mortal man "sort of God"??? That's not reporting, that's gushing!

Please refute the above statements because I only deal in the facts and the simple fact is the MSM forms public opinion.
The MSM loves Obama..."he's sort of a God"! ugh....
They donated money to Obama so why would they write negative stories about him...."professional journalists"??? Ugh!

 

[Faun]

Holyfuckingshit!

Prove Clinton thinks it was a bad idea to raise taxes then because he thinks we should cut taxes now.... different economies call for different approaches.

And I note, you failed miserably to prove the economy during Clinton's presidency was fueled almost entirely by the dot com bubble.

Different economies call for different approaches? Did you really just post that? So what's "different" between much of the time that Bill Clinton was in office and now? Gee, think it might just be that the Dot Com Boom was taking place?

WTF are you talking about now? There was no dot com boom when Clinton came into office and raised taxes.

And I'm still waiting for you to prove the dot com boom accounted for nearly the entire economy while Clinton was president...

So if the reason the economy started "booming" was because Clinton raised taxes...then why oh why would he ever be calling for tax CUTS now? Duh?

First of all, I never said the economy boomed because he raised taxes, even though you continually falsely infer that I did.

Secondly, adjusting taxes in 1993 has absolutely nothing to do with adjusting them now.

Thirdly, because Clinton thinks corporate tax should be lowered now does not mean he thinks they were too high in 1993 when he raised them.

Fourthly, you failed to prove the dot com boom was almost entirely responsible for the economic growth under Clinton, which you claimed.

Fifthly, Obama's job approval rating is still higher today than Reagan's was at this point in his presidency.

Sixthly, the answer to the forum topic still appears to be a firm "no."

Your "Fifthly, Obama's job approval rating is still higher today than Reagan's was at this point in his presidency."
Agree. Primarily because the MSM is NOT an adversary as they were when a GOP is president. Proof?
Here explain how the MSM would ever produce stories that would endanger the election/re-election of Obama WHEN 85% of these same news people donated to Obama in 2008 and wrote biased stories against Romney in 2012?
HERE are the FACTS please refute!

Over 85% of media donated money to Democrats!
1,160 (85%) of the 1,353 of the Senior executives, on-air personalities, producers, reporters, editors, writers and other self-identifying employees of ABC, CBS and NBC contributed more than $1 million to Democrats candidates and campaign committees in 2008, according to an analysis by The Examiner of data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.
Obama, Democrats got 88 percent of 2008 contributions by TV network execs, writers, reporters

Study of 130,213 stories shows Obama bias in 2012 election BY PAUL BEDARD | MARCH 16, 2015 | 10:49 AM
A sweeping study of some 130,213 news articles on the 2012 presidential match between President Obama and Mitt Romney has proven anew
that there was a strong pro-Democratic bias in the U.S. and international press.
The study, published in the authoritative journal Big Data Society, also tested the campaign themes the media focused on and determined that Obama succeeded in stealing the economic issue from Republican Romney.
"Overall, media reporting contained more frequently positive statements about the Democrats than the Republicans.
Overall, the Republicans were more frequently the object of negative statements," wrote the study authors, Their conclusion:
"The Republican Party is the most divisive subject in the campaign, and is portrayed in a more negative fashion than the Democrats."
Paul Bedard, the Washington Examiner's "Washington Secrets" columnist, can be contacted at pbedard@washingtonexaminer.com.
Smooch: Study of 130,213 stories shows Obama bias in 2012 election

So to repeat, of course Obama's going to have higher approval.
A) The MSM bashed Reagan/Bush any GOP president.
B) THE MSM exalted even called Obama a God so what would you expect the general public's approval rating would be when the BIASED MSM makes
statements like this MSM Editor that LOVES Obama so much that here in the words of a MSM publication said it!
The Editor of NewsWeek, Evan Thomas.
Thomas was once asked about George Bush and this is his response.
"our job is to bash the president[Bush], that's what we do." Evan Thomas responding to a question on whether the media's unfair to Bush on the TV talk show Inside Washington, February 2, 2007.He-Could-Go-All-The-Way: 'Today' Cheers Obama's Football Play

RIGHT HIS job was to BASH Bush. He is a journalist. Unbiased. Objective. Professional. RIGHT??

But when it came to Obama???
This same hard-nosed "bashing journalist- Editor of NewsWeek gushed about Obama.....
"I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God."
Newsweek’s Evan Thomas: Obama Is ‘Sort of God’
A professional NEWS editor calling a mortal man "sort of God"??? That's not reporting, that's gushing!

Please refute the above statements because I only deal in the facts and the simple fact is the MSM forms public opinion.
The MSM loves Obama..."he's sort of a God"! ugh....
They donated money to Obama so why would they write negative stories about him...."professional journalists"??? Ugh!

Sorry, that just doesn't fly when right leaning Fox News advertises how more viewers watch their network than all of their competitors combined. Not to mention, in today's day and age where so many people get their news from the Internet. The [traditional] MSM is barely recognizable any more.

And still.... Reagan, 50%; Obama, 52% ~ Gallup

 

[Oldstyle]

That's all other "cable" networks, Faun...get your facts straight!

 

[Oldstyle]

You guys on the left hate Fox News because it's one of the few conservative outlets that exists on television!

 

[Faun]

That's all other "cable" networks, Faun...get your facts straight!

My facts were perfectly straight. Thanks for checking though.

Fox is a cable news network... who did you think I was referring to when I boxed their competitors in with, "their competitors?"

 

[Faun]

You guys on the left hate Fox News because it's one of the few conservative outlets that exists on television!

Personally, I don't watch Fox News because they lie as much as they do.

 

[eddiew]

You guys on the left hate Fox News because it's one of the few conservative outlets that exists on television!

Personally, I don't watch Fox News because they lie as much as they do.

I too try not to watch But I do when I need a laugh and they do have good taste in good looking female reporters,,,,of course most are all shit for brains .......pardon my french