Bill Clinton Is Right: The Economy Really Does Do Better Under Democrats

reply to post by sealing


DEMOCRAT,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

COMMUNIST,,,,,,,,,,,,

Whats the difference????????

reply to post by buster2010


Let us not forget that Clinton is largely to blame for the economic mess we are currently in. It was during the Clinton administration that Glass-Steagall was dismantled, allowing investment banks to merge with depositor banks which led to the current era of "too big to fail". Then there was the Community Reinvestment Act, which was rewritten by Clinton and used to strong arm lenders like Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae into making subprime mortgage loans. This led to the housing bubble, which greatly aided the illusion of a strong economy under Clinton, but which eventually popped under Bush's watch. Clinton was also aided greatly by the dot-com bubble, which also burst. The Clinton years of the 90's were great, but it was all a house of cards, and we're paying for that now.

Of course Bush came along and spent trillions on two wars then bailed out all his bankster buddies when the "too big to fail" thing failed and the housing market crashed. And Obama has further exasperated the problem with more bail outs and more war. So the end result of the two party system is absolute economic ruin.

If you still believe in the false left-right paradigm, you're a fool. Both sides are owned and operated by the same special interests. Regardless of who wins, we all lose.

Originally posted by DirtyD
reply to post by buster2010

 

Let us not forget that Clinton is largely to blame for the economic mess we are currently in. It was during the Clinton administration that Glass-Steagall was dismantled, allowing investment banks to merge with depositor banks which led to the current era of "too big to fail". Then there was the Community Reinvestment Act, which was rewritten by Clinton and used to strong arm lenders like Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae into making subprime mortgage loans. This led to the housing bubble, which greatly aided the illusion of a strong economy under Clinton, but which eventually popped under Bush's watch. Clinton was also aided greatly by the dot-com bubble, which also burst. The Clinton years of the 90's were great, but it was all a house of cards, and we're paying for that now.

Of course Bush came along and spent trillions on two wars then bailed out all his bankster buddies when the "too big to fail" thing failed and the housing market crashed. And Obama has further exasperated the problem with more bail outs and more war. So the end result of the two party system is absolute economic ruin.

If you still believe in the false left-right paradigm, you're a fool. Both sides are owned and operated by the same special interests. Regardless of who wins, we all lose.

Clinton didn't force the bank to falsify information on derivatives did he? This is what really caused the housing bubble.

Originally posted by jimmyfromreality
reply to post by sealing

 

DEMOCRAT,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

COMMUNIST,,,,,,,,,,,,

Whats the difference????????

Here you go knock yourself out if you have problems with the big words give a shout.

online dictionary

reply to post by thesungod


I am very sorry about the loss of your aunt...perhaps a bit more difficult for you to have reconciled considering she was not at ground zero...and certainly no less, for sure.

Your military experience in the aftermath of your loss added to that gives you a more intimate perspective on the profound cause and effect situation we were pulled into nearly 11 years ago, in 4 days.

Having said that you felt a duty to your aunt, and lost your christian faith in the process...I'm very interested in what you see as far as the more expansive consequences of that day beyond these very personal effects on your own life. And I'm sure your own evolving feelings/opinions on the whole thing has given you insight into how we have all been affected even if not as personally and as tragically as you were...I did not lose anyone that day and I live far from NYC...no one in my close circle of friends and family were immediately affected by the wars that immediately ensued although now my boyfriend has a new son in law with a baby on the way and being just discharged from Iraq, the couple are having problems that I see as far reaching ripples out of that same pond.

There isn't anyone, then, I don't think, that hasn't somehow been affected profoundly because I think that we are all suffering economically directly because of the consequences of our reactions, as a nation, to that attack.

I remember around that time that I was able to go to WalMart with just a ten dollar bill and buy enough food to last about 3 days for my boyfriend and me, who were perhaps exceptions to the general prosperity of that time right before 9/11 in that neither one of us were employed despite our best efforts and there were other factors that made our situation much more leaner and at times desperate compared to anything we've experienced since then. We did eat a lot of tuna noodles but what I could buy with that ten bucks got us by whereas today I could not do the same for the same amount...there is no way.

So even though it was bad for he and I, it was more of a personal downturn and I can't imagine if we were in the same position right now...we'd be in terrible trouble and who knows how we would be trying to cope with it.

The only thing that really changed outside of personal circumstances was our going to war in Afghanistan and Iraq. These other things that everyone is bringing up were not nearly as pivotal and I can't help but think that they could have been dealt with easily enough if there had been no other significant influences to compound them.

You felt the war because you lived it...but most of us, if we have not had family who served, have been more or less isolated, in a sense, from the reality and impact of war. 11 years now in Afghanistan and almost that in Iraq and all of it has been financed by borrowing....we continue to borrow even as the costs continue to pile up and the interest just gets bigger and bigger as it is also added to the pile.

What are your thoughts on all this?

Originally posted by DirtyD
Of course Bush came along and spent trillions on two wars

And where did Bush get the trillions that he spent on those wars?

And with our consent, I should add...we all knew what he wanted to do and he did not do it without some degree of approval from the American people. Even if done through congress...congress ideally is employed by all of us and only one person present for the vote on whether or not to go to war in Afghanistan following 9/11 voted against it. 10 were absent and the rest voted in favor of that war which is still going on. Her name is Barbara Lee, in case anyone is interested.

When you (and many others, too) say that Obama has brought even more war following after Bush...I'm not sure what is really meant. There were no new wars started but there has been a lot of healthy resistance in congress to pulling out of Afghanistan not to mention the snafu over Guantanamo Bay.

Bush had to get congressional approval to begin both wars...and Obama likewise must appeal to congress concerning the end of the one still going on.

The last attempts at that are discussed here.

The top ten government contractors on the record are ALL defense/military related and they also have been exerting as much pressure as they can to keep the war going because they are the only ones in the world who are profiting from the continuance of what is now way beyond unnecessary. There is a list naming all those contractors, at Wiki, and it was sourced directly from the official gov site which is required to disclose that information.

Here is the list.

The government is borrowing money to pay these companies...and the people in charge of running these companies are exerting pressure on Congress while *we the people* are not.

reply to post by thesungod


Very well said and I agree. The Dems sure aren't without fault here.

I was simply speaking to the claim that this was a Clinton policy etc......I'm sure you understand.

Originally posted by buster2010
Bill Clinton Is Right: The Economy Really Does Do Better Under Democrats

Clinton pointed out that under Democratic presidents since 1961, the economy has added 42 million private-sector jobs, while under Republicans it has added just 24 million. He used the same concept to argue that President Obama has outscored both congressional Republicans and his GOP presidential opponent, Mitt Romney, in terms of creating jobs. Clinton has some intriguing facts on his side. Aside from a rounding error, his historical numbers are accurate (figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that the tally under Democrats since 1961 rounds to 41 million, not 42 million). I crunched the numbers a few different ways to see if Clinton was cherry-picking the best numbers. His figures measure job gains from the month a president took office until the month he left. Since it takes a year or so for any president's policies to go into effect, I also measured job gains from one year after each president took office till one year after he left. Here's the score by that measure: Democrats: 38 million new jobs, Republicans, 27 million.

No wonder the GOP hates fact checking. It shows how much they fail at their jobs small wonder why they always scream Reagan created 16 million jobs.

My gosh, if you believe that I have land in florida I will sell you cheap.

Jimmy Carter was the worst President until Clinton took office. Unemployment was so high, gasoline was rationed, the country was in economic shambles during the Carter Administration. Ronald Reagan fixed it all.
Go read some history and quit taking the word of a habitual womanizer and liar that was IMPEACHED by the US Congress. NO ONE in their right mind trusts BILL CLINTON, not even today.

reply to post by buster2010


Oh my God yes, I remember when Clinton opened up the housing market with No Money Down and every Tom Dick and Harry decided they wanted a house and they lived in that house not making payments until the Banks finally foreclosed and kicked them out, that gave us the Derivatives Market which still hasn't been dealt with...now how many Trillions was that again?

Just a side note...when Bill and Hilary got into office they were financially in the toilet, when they left office they were now worth over 100 Million, I've read estimates that Al Gore is now worth close to 500 Million thanks to Global Warming.

biggest liberal circle jerk ever on ats.

Facts in graphs and charts can be manipulated to show bias results

first you need to take into account the company supplying the study with money. Next you need to understand the big picture or all parts of the whole. Every bar or graph has flaws. What was the house majority at the time? What actions from that current administration lead to positive results in job growth. Was it spillover from a previous admin? Was it privet industry growth or government industry growth? what are the actual factors that relate to a good economy.

The truth is when our country was on the forefront of technological advances we saw a huge jump in economic progress. First trains and railroads, industrial revolution, aviation, computers ect anything that spilled over into the public note i didn't address space flight because its just a government thing at the moment. Once these bubble burst we start to dip back into the red

reply to post by buster2010


No, but he forced lenders into giving those sub prime mortgage loans by threatening to cut off government aid, which in turn tanked the housing market. And had he not dissolved the Glass-Steagall act, there would be no derivatives and credit-default swaps to speak of. Glass-Steagall was a safeguard put in place in 1933 to keep the flood waters of greed and corruption at bay, but Clinton's legislation busted that levee, letting loose a tidal wave of theft by the international banksters who just roared ashore and robbed us blind while we were all left holding up our pants wondering what the fu** just happened. And when it went all sideways on the banksters, the next puppet rolled in with a little (R) next to his name and gave all their money back. Screwed from the left, screwed from the right. Get the picture?

When you (and many others, too) say that Obama has brought even more war following after Bush...I'm not sure what is really meant. There were no new wars started

reply to post by queenannie38


Since you've had your head buried in the sand for the last four years let me enlighten you. First there is the most obvious, it's called a little country in northern Africa called Libya. Under a UN resolution, and with no approval from Congress, Obama committed US forces in a military campaign against this African nation.

Over the last six months, NATO has flown 24,682 sorties over Libya including 9,204 strike sorties. That's when a military jet actually drops a bomb on something. The mission has lasted 195 days to date (the October 2nd NATO statistics), so 9,204 strike sorties divided by 195 equals 47.21 bombing strikes PER DAY on Libya over the last six months. Nearly fifty bombing strikes per day for six months on a country with a population of Indiana. Imagine that.

reference

And after three months, when Congress demanded a vote on whether to approve the war in Libya under the War Powers Act, which states that after three months a standing President must get Congressional authorization for continued military action, good ol' President O'bomb'em said I don't need authorization, because this isn't a war, it's a "kinetic military action".

Next let's move on to Yemen which has also been the victim of Obama's drone strikes, where using his secret kill list he drone bombed a U.S. citizen named Anwar Awlaki under suspicion of terrorism. Oddly enough, Anwar dined at the Pentagon just days after 9/11, and what's hardly reported is that when Obama's drones struck him down, his 16 year old American citizen son just so happened to be caught in the crossfire as well. We'll call this boy collateral damage.

Then there's the endless parade of drone strikes in Pakistan, a country we're also not officially at war with, and the fact that the war in Iraq hasn't really been ended, it's just been turned over to the PMC's. And let us not forget Guantanamo which is still open as always for business, and graciously accepting new customers. CIA rendition and torture is still on the menu. And our spooks are in full force in Syria, supplying arms to our al-Qaeda brethren, supplying covert military aid to them and our new Muslim Brotherhood pals in Egypt. It's business as usual. But I better not say anymore, otherwise I could be indefinitely detained as an enemy of the state under our gracious leader's National Defense Authorization Act, more commonly known as the NDAA, which gives the state the power to arrest U.S. citizens without due process. But who needs due-process when our leader is so benevolent. All hail O'bomb'em and his Nobel peace prize, for he would never do no one no harm. Just bury your head in the sand and click your heels -- "there's no place like home".

Originally posted by RealSpoke
You'd figure everyone by now would realize that nothing trickles down. Just look at New Jersey.

Christ Christie gave millions of corporate tax breaks to create jobs,..and it FAILED. The corporations cut jobs, hoarded the wealth, and outsourced.

Under the program, the Christie administration has granted more than $900 million in state tax credits over 10 years to 15 companies, including Panasonic, Goya, Prudential and Campbell’s Soup.

Another agreement has also stirred criticism. In February 2011, the state approved a $42 million tax break for Campbell’s Soup to renovate its longtime headquarters in Camden and add new jobs.

Campbell’s then announced in June that it would eliminate 130 jobs in Camden

www.nytimes.com...

The ONLY way to stop this FREIGHT TRAIN is to REPEAL or REMOVE us from the NAFTA/GATT Treaty. That would FORCE jobs to come home and stay home.

Bull crap! Both the Democrats and Republicans are equally as guilty of putting us in debt. We are 16 Trillion dollars in debt to the International bankers and Chins owns a big majority of America already. If the Democrats are so good at the economy why are we so much in debt. It hasn't gone down any. Both parties could have gotten rid of the Federal Reserve and the International Bankers....but they didn't...the Democrats did not either..therefore they are horrible for the economy and life, in general.

Bull crap! Both the Democrats and Republicans are equally as guilty of putting us in debt. We are 16 Trillion dollars in debt to the International bankers and China owns a big majority of America already. If the Democrats are so good at the economy why are we so much in debt. It hasn't gone down any. Both parties could have gotten rid of the Federal Reserve and the International Bankers....but they didn't...the Democrats did not either..therefore they are horrible for the economy and life, in general.

Both parties are shills and equally guilty of greed, corruption, and playing to the tune of the corporations. The nature of the beast is that information can be manipulated to suit one's own needs. The victor is always the best manipulator of information. Look at this week's job numbers. The economy only added 98,000 jobs, which is absolutely atrocious......but the unemployment number went down. Odd. Unemployment went down because they stopped counting 368,000 workers.

www.zerohedge.com...
Curious why the unemployment rate dropped from 8.3% to 8.1%, even as just 96,000 jobs were added? The labor participation rate declined from 63.7% to 63.5%, the lowest since 1981. It means that somehow in August the labor force declined by 368,000 people, which is a paradox since according to the household survey 119,000 jobs were lost in August, yet at the same time the unemployment rate dropped. Remember: it is an election year.

So yes, created jobs can be named by the numbers.......but the overall picture of what we are facing is always much more complicated (because of complicated methods that our leaders have chosen so the dumbed down masses couldn't possibly understand).

reply to post by DirtyD


Since this thread isn't about war, per se, but economics and party influence, etc...and because I just reigned myself in on getting off topic in another thread...and partially on the subject of Anwar Al-Awlaki, as it turns out....I'm only going to address the economic aspects of what I was hoping to get your comments on. I am going to make a thread about this other stuff...Obama-war, basically, hopefully today and it would be great if we could carry on with the Libya part in that one, too...if you're willing.


My main question, to keep it simple, was about where those trillions that Bush started these 2 wars out with, came from.
Do you know?

My question exactly. Are we going to give Obama a 2nd term to out do Bush?

Originally posted by queenannie38
reply to post by DirtyD

 

Since this thread isn't about war, per se, but economics and party influence, etc...and because I just reigned myself in on getting off topic in another thread...and partially on the subject of Anwar Al-Awlaki, as it turns out....I'm only going to address the economic aspects of what I was hoping to get your comments on. I am going to make a thread about this other stuff...Obama-war, basically, hopefully today and it would be great if we could carry on with the Libya part in that one, too...if you're willing.

My main question, to keep it simple, was about where those trillions that Bush started these 2 wars out with, came from.
Do you know?

reply to post by RELDDIR


No, we are going to give him his second term so that he can hopefully somehow get the international community to do their part in dealing with the remaining prisoners at Gitmo that either need to be charged or released...and get those in congress who are, for whatever reason, not doing what they've been instructed to do as far as legal proceedings or disposition...to do what he told them to do...over 3 years ago!

And the other major obstacle he's been fighting against the reluctance that is turning into outright refusal to even have a vote in the house about pulling out of Afghanistan as far as aggression and combat...those defense contractors have quite the grip on everyone's cajones, it seems...and the thought of ending these wars that have made them rich while the rest of get poor...and I'm not talking about Romney...he isn't getting any of this action...I don't think....however, Paul Ryan's family wealth is a great deal profits from defense contracts.

Which means that I don't care even about slinging mud at anyone for being rich or dumb or whatever...my concern is about keeping someone out of the White House who is going to turn a blind eye to this blatant embezzlement of the American people in the name of 'defense' and war and not even offer token resistance.

So even if I didn't like Obama...I would vote for him this year for the same reason I planned to vote for him last time (except I had the flu and so didn't go)...and that was because I did NOT want McCain in that position since he was even more about war than George W was.

And Romney is so out of touch with ideas such as war in the first place...he made a comment last fall about Obama's horrible "peacetime spending"...and he was talking in the present sense!

Even if Mitt truly cared enough to try to keep it from ruining us....I'm not sure he'd even realize where the economy was going to $#it if he isn't even fully aware at all times that we are presently engaged in a war...on an official national basis...

This is NOT peacetime and I really think we need a President who won't get that wrong at any time of the day or night that it comes up as an issue. He would be such an embarrassing POTUS, imo. We'd have to hire a ventriloquist for all public engagements so we didn't have to worry about what he might spurt out of his mouth if given the chance to contribute. And we could never ever let him go on BillO's show!

Originally posted by buster2010
Bill Clinton Is Right: The Economy Really Does Do Better Under Democrats

Clinton pointed out that under Democratic presidents since 1961, the economy has added 42 million private-sector jobs, while under Republicans it has added just 24 million. He used the same concept to argue that President Obama has outscored both congressional Republicans and his GOP presidential opponent, Mitt Romney, in terms of creating jobs. Clinton has some intriguing facts on his side. Aside from a rounding error, his historical numbers are accurate (figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that the tally under Democrats since 1961 rounds to 41 million, not 42 million). I crunched the numbers a few different ways to see if Clinton was cherry-picking the best numbers. His figures measure job gains from the month a president took office until the month he left. Since it takes a year or so for any president's policies to go into effect, I also measured job gains from one year after each president took office till one year after he left. Here's the score by that measure: Democrats: 38 million new jobs, Republicans, 27 million.

No wonder the GOP hates fact checking. It shows how much they fail at their jobs small wonder why they always scream Reagan created 16 million jobs.

Thats like saying red snakes are better than blue snakes because they are faster.
it is still a snake, all politics is BS, disengage yourselves, everytime they open their mouths it becomes more evident by the lies they spout, and the lack of truth about anything, that all that matters is them having lots of money, and, making sure the masses don't.