It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
Originally posted by jimmyfromreality
reply to post by sealing
DEMOCRAT,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
COMMUNIST,,,,,,,,,,,,
Whats the difference????????
Originally posted by DirtyD
Of course Bush came along and spent trillions on two wars
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.
reply to post by queenannie38
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
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.
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...
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.
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?
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.