bravedave
Well-Known Member
The Gingrich budget years?
Who is your favorite president of all time?
- Thread starter ODanksta
- Start date
see4
Well-Known Member
No doubt there are aspects of the Clinton administration that I do not like. But as a whole, the era brought prosperity to the middle class, we started to see shifts in education and public welfare, all positive. All politicians are in it for money and power. If we take money out of politics we wouldn't have this problem.
Agreed, from a personal character perspective the Clintons would likely not be my friends. However, I don't need to like them as people, or have a warm fuzzy feeling about them. I want them to lead my country, and do it in a way that is most prosperous to everyone. If the middle class succeeds, everyone succeeds. We need to return to that -- and Trump will most certainly not get us there.
2ANONYMOUS
Well-Known Member
GWB for putting the nail in the coffin for USA
bravedave
Well-Known Member
...and handing the hammer to Obama?
2ANONYMOUS
Well-Known Member
For one i need to know is there any president that did not conspire to some form of government corruption ????
Then he is the one that i would pick as FAV personally ,,, I think this guy would of been the best president of all time
Then he is the one that i would pick as FAV personally ,,, I think this guy would of been the best president of all time
OddBall1st
Well-Known Member
Hillary was at his wedding, so at one point, she saw something in him. Hillary Clinton is not about middle class, she`s above it and needs it to cater to her, so she supports it.
Hillary has one goal, it is not to be the best president to chose this time around or to be working for me and you, her goal is to go down in history as the first female President. Nothing more. She lost everything else that could get her fame.
She will say and do whatever to achieve that, If I thought she was the best choice, I would vote for her, but I wont because she has chased me off.
Donald is a new chance at changing the norm. Hillary is neck deep in it. Donald is a business man, Hillary is a lawyer, I would want a successful business man attacking a failing economy over a lawyer of any kind.
2ANONYMOUS
Well-Known Member
In actual fact, the Reagan years produced the strongest economic growth since the roaring 20's, saw more people jump UP income brackets than at ANY time in our history, and created more jobs than in ANY 8 year cycle EVER. Yes, the federal debt did triple, but actually dropped as a percentage of GDP, and don't forget, Reagan WAS handed one of the worst economies in our history, with 20% interest rates, gas lines, and rabid inflation.
Yet in just 8 years he reversed it, all while defeating the threat of Communist nuclear obliteration to our country, and having to deal with a Democratic Congress that just couldn't stop spending the poor American workers' hard-earned dollars. Now that's MR. REAGAN'S legacy Mr. Clinton, but unfortunately, yours will be more along the lines of scandal, lies, draft-dodging, losing the House and Senate on your first watch, Monica, and of course, ...IMPEACHMENT.
Here's what you'll NEVER hear from the liberal media: The first 2 years of Clinton/Gore DOUBLED the federal debt, even though they were handed a growing economy, a peacetime dividend, and an information revolution that would dramatically increase worker productivity, and therefore, corporate profits and GDP.
As you now know, it's not a "Clinton boom" we enjoyed, but a continuation of President Ronald Reagan's boom. Even George H.W. Bush endorsed what he had previously called "Voodoo economics" after President Reagan proved to the entire universe that it worked. President Reagan's historic economy actually continues to grow with us to this day, only briefly interrupted by two large tax increases, (Econ 101 for liberals: "Economic boom, interrupted by tax increases") oh, and an economic policy disaster named Bill & Hillary Clinton. As shown in the famous graph occasionally published in The Wall Street Journal, a mild recession brought on when President Bush was forced by the George Mitchell led Senate Democrats in Congress to break his "No new taxes" pledge more than recovered in the fourth year of his term. In fact, Clinton would never match the economic growth President Bush left him until the Republicans took over Congress and started reversing his liberal tax-and-spend policies.
That bears repeating: Clinton would NEVER match the economic growth President Bush left him until the Republicans took over Congress and started reversing his liberal tax-and-spend policies. The incredible economy Clinton was handed (that HE claimed, and the liberal media parroted, was "The worst in forty years") slowed dramatically under the first two years of the Clinton administration, due to the largest tax increase in history, and the first one that was ever retroactive. (Clinton actually had the audacity to tax people for a period of time WHEN HE WASN'T EVEN PRESIDENT!) Other poor economic policies politically inspired by the political friends Bill poorly appointed to economic policy positions soon contributed to the poor Clinton economy. (It's a mouthful, but it's the damn truth!)
see4
Well-Known Member
No. Just no. But you stick to your Reagan guns. I hope it works out well for you. Bush and economic growth in the same sentence can only be used as a joke. I'm sorry, but I can't take you seriously. But thanks for sharing.
see4
Well-Known Member
Failing economy. No.
The Donald, likes to bankrupt his companies so he can get out of paying debts. He is a trust fund baby who was able to capitalize on his name-sake. He is a dimwit by all intents and purposes.
trippnface
Well-Known Member
the best president ever?
the ones that stood up to the federal reserve of course.
few and far between. most presidents are excellent banker slaves
the ones that stood up to the federal reserve of course.
few and far between. most presidents are excellent banker slaves
OddBall1st
Well-Known Member
He`d be broke by now if he didn`t play his cards right.
Bankruptcy is an option many business owners chose to make, it does not erase your credit.
OddBall1st
Well-Known Member
pnwmystery
Well-Known Member
One of the funniest things about the Lewinsky scandal is some of Bill's most vocal Republican opponents who were saying how wrong and immoral it was for him to cheat on Hillary came out a few years later admitting they had numerous extramarital affairs. Food for thought.
OddBall1st
Well-Known Member
One of the funniest things about the Lewinsky scandal is some of Bill's most vocal Republican opponents who were saying how wrong and immoral it was for him to cheat on Hillary came out a few years later admitting they had numerous extramarital affairs. Food for thought.
I remember that and some were against minors. I don`t think Donald is that way though. Hillary wont punish it if she can benefit from it as see4 pointed out.
2ANONYMOUS
Well-Known Member
Clinton has just been inaugurated, and has appointed his friends to the Treasury and Economic Advisory Board. In order to pay for their huge increase in government spending, and keep the largest tax increase in history from being even larger, Clinton cronies must "cook" the books in a way that would make Enron, Arthur Anderson or Global Crossing proud, as well as make some hair-brained accounting moves to make government spending APPEAR smaller.
How you ask? Let us count the ways.
By swapping long term treasury notes at higher interest rates for short term notes at lower government paid interest rates.
Now, this works as long as the economy stays up and interest rates stay low. But if the short term notes come due after interest rates go up, then the government has to sell new notes (borrow) at the higher interest rates. Remember Ross Perot bagging on Clinton for short-term financing our national debt? The liberal media just ignored him.
Think of it this way. You are financing a house and the interest rates are lower than they have ever been. Do you go for the long term note or the five year variable? Of course you lock in the long term rate!
Unless you're Slick Willie, and know that you won't be in office in four to eight years, so who cares? And in fact, it would make Slick look even better if the economy did well while HE was in office, and poorly after HE left. Too much to ask? Not if you go for the lower short term rates to reduce your deficit and forego the long term security and increased financial market stability you could have had with the long term notes. Almost like buying a house on your credit card. Guess what? That's EXACTLY what the scumbags did! Who cares about the country's future, it's all about me, me, me. Make the economy look good while I'm in, and ah, er, screw the next guy. What Bill Clinton would call a "Twofer." And to back it up, they kept short term rates artificially low throughout the Clinton terms by using other "Risky cookbook schemes" (to paraphrase Al Gore) that we'll see later.
How else did the Clintonistas "Reduce" the debt to increase spending on "fabulous" programs like Hillary's failed healthcare plan, Al Gore's favorite: Environmental impact study on cow farts, or "Midnight basketball??" (Simply an excuse for young thugs to be on the streets in the middle of the night, instead of home, getting a good night's rest so they can go to school, or WORK the next morning.)
How about looting the Social Security funds that were designed to cover the retirement of baby-boomers in about ten years? (Once again, AFTER Bill is long gone!) Yep, they did that too, by REVISING the ESTIMATES of future Social Security costs! And get this, they THEN had the audacity to claim that Republicans would destroy Social Security by "Looting the Trust Fund" (which does not, and NEVER did exist) and put granny on the street if they were elected. Shame? No way, we're talking about the guy that dorked Monica.
Gutting our Armed Forces: Clinton brags about Al Gore "reinventing" government. (Didn't Al invent it the first time?) He claimed that, in the process, they cut 100,000 government jobs. What he omits is the 700,000 active duty Armed Forces personnel, and almost 300,000 Reserves laid off by his administration to make way for new government employees! In other words, he's INCREASED the size of "government" by 900,000 basically worthless workers, (the government was already screwed up, and unproductive) and cut our military. Sounds just like something Gore would do. More government spending, simply transferred from our military budget.
And while we're on the subject of looting military spending, don't forget all those foreign trips, you know, like the ones Bill, Hill, Chelsea, Hillary's mom, (a real national security expert, chuckle, chuckle!) and ALL their friends went on to Africa, India, etc., etc.? Yep, you guessed it, literally hundreds of millions of dollars, ALL budgeted to "Military expenses." All while our troops lived on food stamps, another Clinton first. And all for votes, as if you thought that the almost 1 million cushy job government employees hired BY Bill wouldn't vote FOR Bill. Remember, we're talking about the snake-oil salesman that never even got 48% of the electorate, and needed every vote he could buy, ah...sorry, get.
"Cooked books?" They hadn't even defrosted them yet. Under Reagan and Bush, unemployment was measured by sending out about 60,000 household surveys asking about employment. The "Chronically unemployed" were dropped from counting, defined THEN as three or four years of being out of a job. The Clinton regime dropped 9,000 surveys, mostly from inner cities where unemployment is much higher, then later trimmed the overall number to 50,000 - again avoiding inner cities. They then redefined the "Chronically unemployed" horizon down to ONE YEAR. BINGO! Instant record breaking unemployment and the lowest recorded unemployment for African-Americans in history. (Pander statistic to get out the vote.) Wow, are we doing well or what!?
Remember, the reading of the economic speedometer (CPI, PPI, unemployment, etc.) was done by the Clinton administration's Department of Labor. Labor Secretary Alexis Hermann would NEVER have rigged numbers to make Slick Willie look good. (Ahem! Cough, cough! We're talking about someone who had a special prosecutor show she took bribes and lied about them!)
Fortunately for America, (and FORTUNATELY for Bill) the GOP took the House and Senate in 1994, AFTER which, the economy began its recovery to growth from decline. Again, that bears repeating. Bill Clinton had actually KILLED the economy's growth until....the GOP took the House and Senate in 1994, AFTER which, the economy began its recovery to growth from decline.
Remember when Bill claimed "He was still relevant" after the Republicans took Congress? In actual fact, he has been totally irrelevant to our current economy, except when he did things that actually slowed it. The only relevance he's had on the economy is when he briefly stunted a booming period of growth with his huge tax increase, massive federal spending, and terrible fiscal policies. Hey, at least he was getting laid.
GrowUrOwnDank
Well-Known Member
Hands down the best president who ever lived is in my opinion Barack Obama. I think Michelle should run in 2020. Get the Obamas back in the White House.
2ANONYMOUS
Well-Known Member
"Amazingly" (dripping sarcasm now turned off) GOP-backed legislation such as the balanced-budget, reduction of deficit spending, welfare reform, etc., quickly reversed the Clinton recession. (And probably got him reelected, and certainly saved his @$$ from being the first President impeached AND removed from office.) While Greenspan continued to keep rates artificially low for his buddy Bill, Slick simply went along for the ride, although, not willingly. He vetoed every one of the Republican bills until public pressure forced him to sign them later. He basically went kicking and screaming, and you certainly remember his dire predictions when he signed them: "The poor, elderly, and (who'da thunk it?) women and children will be left cold, homeless, hungry, and helpless." When none of that happened, Slick immediately claimed these GOP successes as HIS administration's greatest accomplishments. Nerve? Hey, we're talking about Bill Clinton.
Of course, Willy couldn't leave well enough alone. What that means is his greed for fame was (still is) SO limitless, he needed more attention. After the impeachment "blow" to his "legacy," Slick needed to "become relevant" again, especially with an upcoming Presidential election. Why, what if Al doesn't win, we might have an administration that actually prosecutes us for the crimes we've committed! (No such luck for us.)
With new motivation to "help the economy," the "book cooking" went from simmer to full boil. How you ask? Good question, easy answer:
REVISED figures AFTER Clinton left office (and the grown-ups were back in charge): "...Revealed corporate profits were really lower by 10.7 percent, 12.2 percent, 15.2 percent and 18 percent for the four quarters of 1999. In 2000, this gap became a chasm. The revised quarterly profits for the election year are lower than the announced figures by 23.3 percent, 25.9 percent, 29.9 percent and 28.2 percent. "
"Most startling, original estimates showed a generally rising profit outlook for the two years preceding the election. Starting with $503.7 billion in the last quarter of 1998, the quarterly estimates rose steadily to $543.8 billion in the fourth quarter of 1999 and then took off in the first two quarters of 2000 to $574.9 billion and $606.6 billion, leveling off to $602.9 billion in the third quarter (before falling to $527.3 billion in the fourth quarter after the election)."
That sounds like SHOCKING evidence of absolutely GROSS pre-election political tampering with economic data for which the administration was directly responsible. You might ask, where did THOSE numbers come from?
Well, if you noticed the quote marks, you're probably sharp enough to realize that statement came from Clinton's very own Brent Moulton, (interview with Robert Novak, 08/07/2002) associate director at the Bureau of Economic Analysis, and an underling of Rob Shapiro, one of Clinton's most politically partisan appointments. Oh, AND it was made AFTER the 2000 election was over, AND AFTER the Supreme Court had ruled that the Gore selective recounts were illegal, AND AFTER President Bush was already in office. If the Bush administration wasn't so busy cleaning up the worldwide mess Clinton/Clinton/Gore left, they'd have time to prosecute these bastards, but leaving them no time was part of the Clinton master plan.
Remarkably, (no sarcasm this time) the markets weren't fooled by the Clinton tricks forever. Sure, they over-accelerated on the phony numbers, but not for long. 2000 was a down year for the DOW, NASDAQ and S&P, despite the rosy predictions from the Clinton administration. It seems that the REAL analysts know what the meaning of "Is" is, and react accordingly. Of course, the 2000 election cycle was in full swing, and there was no mention of the market downturn in the liberal media. Remember of course, we're talking about the same media that reported "It's the economy stupid" when G HW Bush handed Clinton an economy the Democrats couldn't sustain, but just imagine how they would have reported it nightly if there had been a REPUBLICAN incumbent president!
Funny, (not really) but it turns out the REAL decade of greed wasn't the 80's, as Slick claimed, but between 1992-2000, when the Clintons showed us how to turn $1,000 into $100,000 in cattle futures with NO trading experience, (just insider help,) how to pillage the economy for political gain, how to trade pardons of crooks and terrorists for dollars and votes, and how to literally steal the silverware and artwork from the White House when they left. Hell, it was a veritable "How To" book on corruption that would have made John Gotti and Al Capone proud. Bill and Hillary lied about who they were BEFORE they were elected, but they showed their true colors....AFTER they were elected.
Of course, Willy couldn't leave well enough alone. What that means is his greed for fame was (still is) SO limitless, he needed more attention. After the impeachment "blow" to his "legacy," Slick needed to "become relevant" again, especially with an upcoming Presidential election. Why, what if Al doesn't win, we might have an administration that actually prosecutes us for the crimes we've committed! (No such luck for us.)
With new motivation to "help the economy," the "book cooking" went from simmer to full boil. How you ask? Good question, easy answer:
REVISED figures AFTER Clinton left office (and the grown-ups were back in charge): "...Revealed corporate profits were really lower by 10.7 percent, 12.2 percent, 15.2 percent and 18 percent for the four quarters of 1999. In 2000, this gap became a chasm. The revised quarterly profits for the election year are lower than the announced figures by 23.3 percent, 25.9 percent, 29.9 percent and 28.2 percent. "
"Most startling, original estimates showed a generally rising profit outlook for the two years preceding the election. Starting with $503.7 billion in the last quarter of 1998, the quarterly estimates rose steadily to $543.8 billion in the fourth quarter of 1999 and then took off in the first two quarters of 2000 to $574.9 billion and $606.6 billion, leveling off to $602.9 billion in the third quarter (before falling to $527.3 billion in the fourth quarter after the election)."
That sounds like SHOCKING evidence of absolutely GROSS pre-election political tampering with economic data for which the administration was directly responsible. You might ask, where did THOSE numbers come from?
Well, if you noticed the quote marks, you're probably sharp enough to realize that statement came from Clinton's very own Brent Moulton, (interview with Robert Novak, 08/07/2002) associate director at the Bureau of Economic Analysis, and an underling of Rob Shapiro, one of Clinton's most politically partisan appointments. Oh, AND it was made AFTER the 2000 election was over, AND AFTER the Supreme Court had ruled that the Gore selective recounts were illegal, AND AFTER President Bush was already in office. If the Bush administration wasn't so busy cleaning up the worldwide mess Clinton/Clinton/Gore left, they'd have time to prosecute these bastards, but leaving them no time was part of the Clinton master plan.
Remarkably, (no sarcasm this time) the markets weren't fooled by the Clinton tricks forever. Sure, they over-accelerated on the phony numbers, but not for long. 2000 was a down year for the DOW, NASDAQ and S&P, despite the rosy predictions from the Clinton administration. It seems that the REAL analysts know what the meaning of "Is" is, and react accordingly. Of course, the 2000 election cycle was in full swing, and there was no mention of the market downturn in the liberal media. Remember of course, we're talking about the same media that reported "It's the economy stupid" when G HW Bush handed Clinton an economy the Democrats couldn't sustain, but just imagine how they would have reported it nightly if there had been a REPUBLICAN incumbent president!
Funny, (not really) but it turns out the REAL decade of greed wasn't the 80's, as Slick claimed, but between 1992-2000, when the Clintons showed us how to turn $1,000 into $100,000 in cattle futures with NO trading experience, (just insider help,) how to pillage the economy for political gain, how to trade pardons of crooks and terrorists for dollars and votes, and how to literally steal the silverware and artwork from the White House when they left. Hell, it was a veritable "How To" book on corruption that would have made John Gotti and Al Capone proud. Bill and Hillary lied about who they were BEFORE they were elected, but they showed their true colors....AFTER they were elected.
ODanksta
Well-Known Member
If you are talking to me, JFK was against the FED reserve. Atleast that's what I've read.
trippnface
Well-Known Member
ah ; didn't realize you started the thread. i agree JFK was an excellent president. the CIA hated him very much ; and most definitely murdered him. he actually planned to dismantle them at one point i believe. he was furious over the bay of pigs invasion from what iv'e read. i also recall him attempting to allow the treasurey to mint money again ( as it should be) as opposed to the "federal" reserve; so you are definitely correct.
i guess i will say Andrew Jackson though. ruthless opponent of the Rothschilds and FED; actually dismantling their second attempt at its creation. ( though they were clearly later successful )
"The bank, Mr. Van Buren is trying to kill me but I will kill it".