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

reply to post by MidnightTide


Amen to that, but unfortunately I think we are at the point of apathy of the masses and those of us that do care are tired of trying to change others mental programming.

Those of us that have and do fight have almost given up to as a whole. I personally am done shedding another Human's blood, unless it's to keep it out my back yard. Unfortunately I think more and more that, that's what it will take to really change. Bloodshed.

How about we talk about the correlation between low IQ's and republican voters. It's a proven fact that blue states (on average except to, two red states that go against the rule) have a higher IQ rate, then red states. If you'd like the information on that I'd be more then happy to provide it and my sources are numerous and both liberal and conservative. I'm waiting.

reply to post by thesungod


So then you agree that the rich in this country should be paying there far share in taxes then. Since clearly we are America and as Americans we help people, we do it all over the world, so what's good for the world isn't good enough for our own people? So since the rich have been getting tax breaks well... forever, I think we should start taking more from them then the average American how about an average of 25% for the next 20 years, that should put this country on track. But since the rich, aka republicans, don't want to pay more and would rather abolish programs that would help many in this country especially the lower and middle class, I would call that anti-american. Also there is a reason the republicans would like to privatize everything, why, to line their pockets more and no argument can dispute this fact especially when talking about Romney. Bain capital uses Mob tactics much like the same Al Capone did, to buy out companies and then load them with debt and drive them under until they can't pay the investment firm any longer. Did you know a single dunkin donuts franchise has to sell 1 million plus small coffees a month to even turn a profit? Thank Bain Capitol.

This is basically what the vitriol is about entirely.
The Cons screwed everything up starting at Reagan-each time has gotten a bit worse until Bush jr.

Until Bush and the 9/11 event: The Republicans were on the death bed. Nobody took their obsolete ideas seriously. That in my opinion is why they decided to pilfer as much as possible. They realize now that if they allow the democrats to fix the mess they made-they will never get elected again.

Originally posted by NoJoker13

 

How about we talk about the correlation between low IQ's and republican voters. It's a proven fact that blue states (on average except to, two red states that go against the rule) have a higher IQ rate, then red states. If you'd like the information on that I'd be more then happy to provide it and my sources are numerous and both liberal and conservative. I'm waiting.

Was this directed at me? If so I point you to this previous post in this thread. Post Also to my signature about assumptions.

So then you agree that the rich in this country should be paying there far share in taxes then. Since clearly we are America and as Americans we help people, we do it all over the world, so what's good for the world isn't good enough for our own people? So since the rich have been getting tax breaks well... forever, I think we should start taking more from them then the average American how about an average of 25% for the next 20 years, that should put this country on track. But since the rich, aka republicans, don't want to pay more and would rather abolish programs that would help many in this country especially the lower and middle class, I would call that anti-american. Also there is a reason the republicans would like to privatize everything, why, to line their pockets more and no argument can dispute this fact especially when talking about Romney. Bain capital uses Mob tactics much like the same Al Capone did, to buy out companies and then load them with debt and drive them under until they can't pay the investment firm any longer. Did you know a single dunkin donuts franchise has to sell 1 million plus small coffees a month to even turn a profit? Thank Bain Capitol.

My opinion? Flat tax. If you (or your parents if you can still be claimed by them on their taxes) have never paid taxes then you shouldn't get any benefits. I think that this would be the "fairest" system of all. Again opinion though, since it has NEVER been tried.

ETA: Also no foreign aid, without some sort of reciprocation. That money could be going to feed Americans.

reply to post by lordtyp0


What are your feelings on the dem repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act?

reply to post by NoJoker13

You have a couple of interesting posts in a row. One concerns the belief that that Repulicans have lower IQs than Democrats, and you do that by looking at state averages. It is not a proven fact. There may be people who claim it is, but that's it. There really isn't any difference. super-economy.blogspot.com...

Your second post makes more claims.

So then you agree that the rich in this country should be paying there far share in taxes then. Since clearly we are America and as Americans we help people, we do it all over the world, so what's good for the world isn't good enough for our own people?

Please compare the amount of money we spend on entitlement programs in the US to the amount we spend on foreign aid. The ratio is roughly 62 to 1. If we helped our citizens as much as we helped the rest of the world, our citizens would be dying of hunger, exposure, violence, and disease.

So since the rich have been getting tax breaks well... forever, I think we should start taking more from them then the average American how about an average of 25% for the next 20 years, that should put this country on track.

I love that solution. How much do you think the top 5% are paying now in federal taxes alone? 25%. www.pgpf.org... I'm very glad your position is NOT to raise taxes on the very rich. You must be Republican.

Bain capital uses Mob tactics much like the same Al Capone did, to buy out companies and then load them with debt and drive them under until they can't pay the investment firm any longer.

72% of the Bain investments resulted in recovered companies. 100% of the companies they invested in would have declared bankruptcy had Bain not agreed to help them.

But since the rich, aka republicans, don't want to pay more and would rather abolish programs that would help many in this country especially the lower and middle class, I would call that anti-american. Also there is a reason the republicans would like to privatize everything, why, to line their pockets more and no argument can dispute this fact especially when talking about Romney.

So the rich are Republicans, and they're tight-fisted? Things must have changed drastically since 2008 when Republicans had a lower household income, and donated more money and blood to charity. wiki.answers.com...

Did you know a single dunkin donuts franchise has to sell 1 million plus small coffees a month to even turn a profit? Thank Bain Capitol.

In the midwest, the average Dunkin' Donuts had $600,000 in sales. That means $50,000 a month. And you're claiming they have to sell more than a million cups of coffee to reach $60,000 in sales? Oh, and Bain is only one of three investors. articles.businessinsider.com...

It seems that your source of information is faulty beyond words. I don't know who gave you that information, but you should never, ever, trust them again in anything.

reply to post by thesungod


I absolutely agree with that and I didn't mean to reply to you in the other post. Cut aid to foreign communities if we can't feed ourselves. I don't think people should be punished or rewarded for their parent's lives, I also don't believe the helpless should receive no aid either. Again we are Americans we help people all over the world, time to start doing it here more and to the world less. Then maybe I'd favor your solution if the cut to foreign aid didn't stabilize our welfare system.

reply to post by charles1952


Regardless of what the rich are paying, it still isn't the same rate. Also they may be estimates, but they are covered by facts: sq.4mg.com... Also I sited one source for Bain capital, Dunkin Donuts, far from being 'bankrupt' when Bain purchased them. Keep reading conservative news sources, their awesome. Clearly whatever your reading about Bain is not factual, get me none conservative sources saying Bain didn't drive profits out of companies then tank them and didn't care a thing for their employees. Awesome article Bain is fool of Mob STAR crooks:www.rollingstone.com...

reply to post by NoJoker13

Dear NoJoker13,

My only purpose is to find as much information as I can, then discuss it to determine it's meaning.

Regardless of what the rich are paying, it still isn't the same rate.

You're right, they are paying more. If I recall, my source was the Office of Management and Budget. If you have better information, I'd like to know about it.

Also they may be estimates, but they are covered by facts: sq.4mg.com...

But those numbers don't tell you much at all about the intelligence of those who voted Republican and those who voted Democrat. Look at D.C., one of the most thoroughly Democrat places in the country, if not the most. They're at the bottom of the nation for the SAT scores you linked to. And one of the three lowest places for I.Q. Does that prove that the dumbest people in the country vote Democrat? I don't think it does. These numbers are fun, but they don't show anything significant. The source I linked to, showed the people who voted Republican vs. the people who voted Democrat, has more meaning. That meaning was that there wasn't any real difference between the two.

Also I sited one source for Bain capital, Dunkin Donuts, far from being 'bankrupt' when Bain purchased them.

Bain buys companies in trouble and tries to make them profitable. They don't have to be bankrupt. The management of the company decides they need more cash, and Bain is one of many companies that is willing to give it to them. Bain never sticks a gun to anyone's head, they get asked.

Clearly whatever your reading about Bain is not factual, get me none conservative sources saying Bain didn't drive profits out of companies then tank them and didn't care a thing for their employees.

For this, no one needs any sources, you just have to stop and think a moment. If the company is profitable, why would they go to Bain for help? But, regardless, I think Bain is a little off the current topic and has been, and probably will be, discussed elsewhere on ATS.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by NoJoker13

Regardless of what the rich are paying, it still isn't the same rate. Also they may be estimates, but they are covered by facts: sq.4mg.com...

While your statement is still overall true in regards to IQs, here's the original report, from the same source. That break down on the link you provided is a little misleading.

Prof. McDaniel's actual study

Here is good resources for searching academic stuff -> Resource

reply to post by charles1952


They pay a higher tax rate? No they don't discussion over. Talking percentages not dollars and cents. O and you most of missed where I said 'exceptions to the rule when dealing with IQ', not many but a few DC being one of them. An yes it's not about voters just peoples general intelligence by state, blue states vote overall democratically, so common sense would tell me that those states are more intelligent (on average) for that reason. Also part of the article I posted that says otherwise about Bain: "So Tricycle Inc. now has two gigantic new burdens it never had before Bain Capital stepped into the picture: tens of millions in annual debt service, and millions more in "management fees." Since the initial acquisition of Tricycle Inc. was probably greased by promising the company's upper management lucrative bonuses, all that pain inevitably comes out of just one place: the benefits and payroll of the hourly workforce."

And many other Bain investments have had and continue to have the same fate. Get me a link where Obama is this involved in a firm that does this to at least one company. Then maybe there would be an argument here.

reply to post by NoJoker13

They pay a higher tax rate? No they don't discussion over. Talking percentages not dollars and cents.

The OMB says they pay a greater percentage of their income into federal taxes. That's what I based my information on. Of course you may be right, but I'd really like to see the information that forms the basis for your opinion. If there isn't any, just say so, and we can move on from there.

O and you most of missed where I said 'exceptions to the rule when dealing with IQ', not many but a few DC being one of them.

But that's my point. It is an exception. If a theory is tested and the data doesn't fit, the theory has to be modified or thrown out. Or at least a rational explanation has to be provided to explain why the data didn't fit.

An yes it's not about voters just peoples general intelligence by state, blue states vote overall democratically, so common sense would tell me that those states are more intelligent (on average) for that reason.

I don't get this at all. Yes, blue states vote Democrat overall, that's why they're called "blue states." And, red states vote Republican, for the same reason. After that, I'm completely lost.

Reading the report those I.Q. figures came from is worthwhile. All sorts of problems are acknowledged, including that the only information came from NAEP tests on 4th and 8th graders attending public schools. NAEP tests aren't intelligence tests, but the study thinks they're close enough. And if you like the intelligence measurements from that study, check out what he has to say about Blacks and intelligence. I won't repeat it here.

Anyway, are we drifting off topic a little? Mybe we should switch gears pretty soon.

reply to post by charles1952


Actually the link I posted about IQ had to do with ACT and SAT scores, Blue states scoring higher, so clearly that would mean higher intelligence right? Since the states with lower IQ's receive more federal funding then the majority of blue states, I'd say the intelligence gap is even larger because the Red states receive more funding on average. Also you didn't happen to say much about Bain Capitol and the quote I sited, since earlier you said a company like Bain wouldn't EVER do something, that... stupid? Was it?

reply to post by NoJoker13

I think the last thing I said about Bain was:

For this, no one needs any sources, you just have to stop and think a moment. If the company is profitable, why would they go to Bain for help? But, regardless, I think Bain is a little off the current topic and has been, and probably will be, discussed elsewhere on ATS.

But since the economy is the topic, why do you think the rich pay a lower per centage of their income in taxes?

reply to post by thesungod


Dems didn't seek to repeal Glass-Steagall. The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act did that.

The authors of the repeal of the Glass-Steagall act are: Sen. Phil Gramm (R, Texas), Rep. Jim Leach (R, Iowa), and Rep. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. (R, Virginia).

It was part of a financial services overhaul act and a compromise deal between Dems and Repubs - and remember, the Repubs were holding budget talks hostage back then as well, causing two government shutdowns.

Another proponent pushing the repeal of the Glass-Steagall act via the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act was Traveler's Insurance Sanford Weill, so he could merge Traveler's Insurance with CitiCorp. Weill has a plaque in his office that reads "The Shatterer of Glass–Steagall". He also recruited former president Gerald Ford to help convince Congress to repeal it.

From this comment at: Bill Clinton's Stunning Jobs Claim At DNC Actually True

Now, as for the real truth, Greenspan revised gutted Section 20 of the act in order to allow holding companies to invest TWICE as much as previously allowed, in essence making Glass-Steagall obsolete. That's in Byron Dorgan's book "Reckless", and Byron should know because he stood as a lone voice against the repeal of the act in 1999. And in fact, Weill made a call to Clinton the subject of which was a compromise on the Community Reinvestment Act which Phil Gramm was actually trying to gut.

The House version differed in two important ways:

1) It took regulatory authority from the Federal Reserve and gave it to the Secretary of the Treasury.

2) It refused to extend to insurance companies obligations under the Community Re-investment Act to provide information about their patterns of mortgage lending.

It was the Community Reinvestment Act provision in particular that threatened to derail the conference committee. The Community Reinvestment Act required regulated banks and thrifts to offer loans and banking services throughout their service areas, including lower-income communities. But here is the wrinkle - the CRA essentially served to protect low and moderate income communities from predatory lending, such as subprime mortgages. If anyone has doubts about Sandy Weill's connections between GLB and the subprime market, just a year after the passage of the bill repealing Glass-Steagall, Citigroup had become the number one subprime lender in the country. Its vehicle for this was the newly formed CitiFinancial.

And:
The Long Agony of Glass-Steagall in the hands of financial oligarchy and corrupt Reaganites

While Phil Gramm and Sandy Weill played an important and pretty dirty role in repeal of the act, the repeal became possible because financial industry was united in this desire and at the moment did not have substantial opposition. On the contrary, "Main street" (aka big business) was neutral, if not supportive and Congress was split along the party lines all Republican voted for the repeal). Also the means to bypass Glass-Steagal already were invented and widely used. Here is one insightful comment which shows the complex history of the act repeal: (read source for rest of text)

Weill has since renounced his belief in merging banks with investment banks.

reply to post by Blackmarketeer

The Clinton Administration issued a veto threat, in part because the bill would eliminate “the longstanding right of unitary thrift holding companies to engage in any lawful business,” but primarily because the bill required national banks to conduct expanded activities through holding company subsidiaries rather than the bank “operating subsidiaries” authorized by the OCC in 1996.[340]

On September 11, 1998, the Senate Banking Committee approved a bipartisan bill with unanimous Democratic member support that, like the House-passed bill, would have repealed Glass-Steagall Sections 20 and 32.[341] The bill was blocked from Senate consideration by the Committee’s two dissenting members (Phil Gramm (R-TX) and Richard Shelby (R-AL)), who argued it expanded the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). Four Democratic senators (Byron Dorgan (D-ND), Russell Feingold (D-WI), Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), and Paul Wellstone (D-MN)) stated they opposed the bill for its repeal of Sections 20 and 32.[319][342]

Source

After these compromises, a joint Senate and House Conference Committee reported out a final version of S. 900 that was passed on November 4, 1999, by the House in a vote of 362-57 and by the Senate in a vote of 90-8. President Clinton signed the bill into law on November 12, 1999, as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Modernization Act of 1999 (GLBA).[350]

Source

"More than a decade ago, the big Wall Street banks came to Congress and asked us to repeal an important law called Glass-Steagall, allowing them to gamble like hedge funds, said Baldwin, who is now running for the U.S. Senate. "Too many in Washington said 'Yes.'"

What Baldwin didn't mention was that many of those who said 'Yes' were her fellow Democrats, 11 of whom also spoke at the party's convention in Charlotte.

That list is a Who's Who of top Democrats in D.C.: Vice President Joe Biden; Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid; House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi; House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer; onetime presidential candidate John Kerry; Sens. Charles Schumer and Richard Durbin; and Reps. Carolyn Maloney, Nydia Velazquez, Mel Watt, and Diana DeGette.

Source

Once again both evil sides united.

reply to post by charles1952


Okay so Bain didn't do what researchers have found them to do... Curious, I don't understand that thought process. Also they do this to make money, yeah it's dumb, to the companies they do it, but for Bain it's all profit and most of it goes over seas. Nice of you to site the same side step comment again, clearly you don't know what facts or research is when talking about Bain. How bout we also talk about the fact that the Salt Lake City Olympics that Romney spear headed cost far more then any other in resent history... Even this years London Olympics. The guy wastes money and can't hold a candle to Clinton, or his opinions because he's crook and so is his running partner. The only thing there good at is not answering any questions at all: www.youtube.com...

Also Romney's work with Bain is clearly a topic of the economy, since that is his most recent business endeavor and he still continues to work for them. Embezzling money, using Mob tactics... sounds about right to run this country. If that's the case find the leader of the New York mob and put him as the front runner for the R party, then at least he won't act like he isn't a crook.

reply to post by NoJoker13

[Also Romney's work with Bain is clearly a topic of the economy, since that is his most recent business endeavor and he still continues to work for them. Embezzling money, using Mob tactics... sounds about right to run this country.

I'm sure you seriously believe that. I am so far separated from your beliefs that I don't know what common ground we can find to start from. I don't think Bain is all that important, you do. You don't think the tax structure is important, I do.

I don't know where to start to have a conversation.

reply to post by charles1952

current.com...