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

reply to post by thepresident


Once again, THEY ALL VOTED FOR IT BEFORE VOTING AGAINST IT.

What doesn't make sense about this about this? This isn't opinion, this is fact. The ALL voted for it, then after the media pushed stories out, they voted against it in the House, but not the Senate. Why only in the House?

reply to post by thesungod


It jsut frustrates me that we could have dealt with the man years before it happened. Either by leaving the middle east alone, or offing him.

Yes, the economy does do better under Democrats.......but these Democrats want to BAN PROFITS?

How brainwashed are these idiots?

reply to post by thesungod


Form experience in my state:
The whole of South Louisiana is bound, for Senate seats, by New Orlean's vote. Yes, we CAN get Republicans in, but they have to be liberal enough to survive New Orleans. And it's frustrating. The Senate used to be chosen by our State Legislators, which would mean that theoretically, the Senate used to reflect the whole of a state's Legislature. This, of course is ignoring corruption.

reply to post by CynicalDrivel

It jsut frustrates me that we could have dealt with the man years before it happened. Either by leaving the middle east alone, or offing him.

Amen to that, but maybe we didn't have the Bin Laden families approval yet?
www.texasobserver.org..." target="_blank" class="postlink">The connection

Maybe HW got it on 9/11?
The Breakfast Meeting

Anyway, I agree, should have took them down back in 1998, but c'est la vie.

Form experience in my state: The whole of South Louisiana is bound, for Senate seats, by New Orlean's vote. Yes, we CAN get Republicans in, but they have to be liberal enough to survive New Orleans. And it's frustrating. The Senate used to be chosen by our State Legislators, which would mean that theoretically, the Senate used to reflect the whole of a state's Legislature. This, of course is ignoring corruption.

Same in TX. You live here and you vote Republican, doesn't matter what you actually vote. Only the primaries count... Well they can be cheated too. But you get my meaning.

Originally posted by thesungod
reply to post by thepresident

 

Once again, THEY ALL VOTED FOR IT BEFORE VOTING AGAINST IT.

What doesn't make sense about this about this? This isn't opinion, this is fact. The ALL voted for it, then after the media pushed stories out, they voted against it in the House, but not the Senate. Why only in the House?

You are making one excuse after the other.

They needed to pass the appropriations and the tacked on
An amendment, it happens all the time.

The GOP could have voted to amend but they did
Not because it is their agenda. That is the point, when
You do something wrong you fix it when you have the chance.

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
reply to post by Mickierocksman

 

How much of that 16 trillion debt is from short-sighted GOP policies?

The Breakdown of the Deficit

81.2% Increase in National Debt under Bush:

$5.871 Trillion in 2001
$10.640 Trillion in 2008
= $4.769 Trillion Increase (81.2% Increase in National Debt)

44% Increase in National Debt Under Obama:

$10.569 Trillion Jan 31st 2009
$15.223 Trillion Jan 14th 2012
= $4.659 Trillion Increase (44.1% Increase in National Debt)

Increase Since 2001 = $15.223 - $5.871 = $9.532 Trillion

Bush's PERCENTAGE of increase $4.769 Trillion / $9.532 Trillion = 50%

BUT:

$3.56 Trillion or 76% (3.56/4.659) of the increase was Bush CARRY OVER:

$910 Billion = Interest on BUSH Debt 2009/2011
$360 Billion = BUSH Iraq War Spending 2009/2011
$319 Billion = BUSH TARP/Bailout Balance from 2008 (as of May 2010)
$419 Billion = Bush Recession Caused Drop in Taxes
$190 Billion = Bush Medicare Drug Program 2009/2011
$211 Billion = Bush Medicare Part-D 2009/2011
$771 Billion = Bush Tax Cuts 2009/2011

$4.769 TRILLION from 8 YEAR's BUSH
$3.560 TRILLION of Bush Carry Over

$8.329 TRILLION - Due to BUSH

Bush's PERCENTAGE (Corrected) $8.329 Trillion / $9.532 Trillion = 87.4%

87.4% of National Debt Increase caused By Bush's Programs (2001 to 2012)
12.6% of Increase caused by Obama’s Programs.



Republican National Convention: The one graph you need to see before watching

On the Republican convention stage tonight, you're going to see a really large clock. But the clock isn't for keeping time. The idea isn't to stop speakers from going over their allotted time, or the convention from running late. It's a debt clock. And the idea is to blame President Obama and the Democrats for the national debt.

But in doing so, the Republicans will end up blaming Obama for the policies they pushed in the Bush years, and the recession that began on a Republican president’s watch, and a continuation of tax cuts that they supported. They’ll have to. Because if they took all that off the debt clock, there wouldn’t be much debt there to blame him for at all.

Great, but still did not answer my question, here it is again.

"Can you OP (or anyone) please explain to me how your economy with over 16 Trillion in debt can be made financially viable under either party platform?

I don’t want to hear about jobs, I want to hear about America fixing its atrocious debt problem before it sinks and drags the rest of the world into oblivion...... & just how long do you think it will take, 1 year, 100 years?

Thanks

Mickierocksman

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.

I thinks this is true and I want to see Obama get in because I DON"T like what Romney represents and that is the 1%. But being that it is so OBVIOUS that the economy is terrible even under the democrats with trying to pick up the pieces the republicans (Bush) made from right before Obama.

I think during Bushes term you would think that regime seems more like OBOMBa as for as word analogy.
No wonder the ufo's stay away from us (notice you only see far away craft) like the plague only visiting the few to the point were it hardly seems recognizable..

I really think because of the monetary system is truly broken and even if Obama gets in and I think he will probably with a landslide victory. I think it is futile for anybody to vote any other way.

It is clear I think that Obama's heart is in the riight direction that he is more for the poor and middle class but time will show that the TWO party system is just plain and simply WRONG!

Again this two party system is BROKEN, and Jesse Ventura _+ Rob Paul type (NO FEDERAL RESERVE) plus so much more way of life needs to be implemented .

One thing that Jesse Ventura has proven is that you have got to get ALL future presidents OFF the lobbyists baby bottle ! The 1% are truly destroying our country the way it should be. THE POWER HAS GONE TO THE WRONG PEOPLE.

It has GOT to get back into the hands of the masses. Again the two party system is broken and you will understand this more and more as years go by.

Way too much deadlock between the two parties, Decade after decade you see this over and over and I am sick of it.
Having just democrats and republicans to chose from is like having grease and mud to wash yourself off with taking a shower. You need *soap that truly cleans!

reply to post by thepresident


My excuse didn't change. They ALL voted for it before against it, but only after it got media attention. I sourced it and everything.

Your also glossing over the fact that the Armed Forces committee and your beloved B. Hussein Obama Administration both asked for the language regarding us citizens and lawful residents not being affected by the bill to be removed from the original 1031.

According to Senator Carl Levin, "the language which precluded the application of section 1031 to American Citizens was in the bill that we originally approved in the Armed Services Committee and the Administration asked us to remove the language which says that US Citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section".[27] The Senator refers to section 1021 as "1031" because it was section 1031 at the time of his speaking.

Source

Wanna hear the Dems actually saying it?
Video of Session

So you keep sticking to the ONE vote were Dems made some political theater. I'll stick with whole situation which ranged over months and multiple votes, not one vote. Proving once again that Dems are just as evil Repubs.

The way things have been done for as long as I remember is that the Democrats are said to tax and spend... The Republicans spend and spend, never getting around to taxing anyone but people that are struggling to make it to the next paycheck....Next a Democrat gets voted into the oval office and is blamed for the debt and accumulation of interest owed on it ( which is the largest debt owed), the wars, and everything else, more if he is 50% black... I'll be 63 years old in 5 months and have watched how the game has been played for a very long time.... It was Ronald Reagan that called tax cats for the rich and trickle down theory Voo Doo Economics... Probably the last time a Republican told the voters the truth about anything.

Originally posted by thesungod
reply to post by thepresident

 

My excuse didn't change. They ALL voted for it before against it, but only after it got media attention. I sourced it and everything.

Your also glossing over the fact that the Armed Forces committee and your beloved B. Hussein Obama Administration both asked for the language regarding us citizens and lawful residents not being affected by the bill to be removed from the original 1031.

According to Senator Carl Levin, "the language which precluded the application of section 1031 to American Citizens was in the bill that we originally approved in the Armed Services Committee and the Administration asked us to remove the language which says that US Citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section".[27] The Senator refers to section 1021 as "1031" because it was section 1031 at the time of his speaking.

Source

Wanna hear the Dems actually saying it?
Video of Session

So you keep sticking to the ONE vote were Dems made some political theater. I'll stick with whole situation which ranged over months and multiple votes, not one vote. Proving once again that Dems are just as evil Repubs.

Oh Please

You are ridiculous, if it was good "political theatre", the GOP would have had no reason to
keep indefinite detention.

You are defending the indefensible, even when there was a chance to correct the mistake, the
GOP did not reverse it's position.

Clinton presided over a time of relative peace (no
official ‘wars’ but plenty of trouble:

World Trade Center Bombing

Waco

Somalia

The Khobar Towers bombing

Haiti invasion (aborted at last minute with planes in the air)

Bosnian War (Us used “black’ C130’s to smuggle arms to Bosnian-Muslim forces)

Kosovo War

Bombing of US embassies in Tanzania and Kenya

Bombing of the USS Cole

There was a dot.com bubble that created a rescission late in Clinton’s second term.

Sudan offered us bin laden but Clinton turned them down

Clinton never balanced the budget. He cut military spending and essential programs
and when that wasn’t enough be borrowed from the SSI Trust Fund, an accounting
slight of hand.

Clinton abolished the provisions in the Glass-Steagall Act, which set up a firewall between
Commercial and investment banking. He also signed the Commodities futures Modernization
Act, which deregulated derivatives.

Clinton also pardoned Marc Rich the biggest tax cheat in American history, I won’t
elaborate on his personal scandals.

Impeachment and disgrace. Strange how he’s looked on nostalgically.

reply to post by thepresident


So these are your sources for your quote? Bing search of your exact quote.

Spin, spin, spin.

Let's set the record straight shall we?

In two votes Friday morning, the House backed the president’s powers to indefinitely detain terror suspects captured on U.S. soil.

Lawmakers rejected an amendment that would have barred military detention for terror suspects captured in the United States on a 182-231 vote, beating back the proposal from a coalition of liberal Democrats and libertarian-leaning Republicans led by Reps. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) and Justin Amash (R-Mich.).

Instead, the House passed, by a vote of 243-173, an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) sponsored by Reps. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), Jeff Landry (R-La.) and Scott Rigell (R-Va.) that affirmed U.S. citizens would not be denied habeas corpus rights. Smith and Amash had hoped to attract enough support from libertarian-leaning Republicans to pass their measure, but only 19 Republicans voted for it, while 19 Democrats voted against.

The detainee fight is shaping up to be one of the biggest for this year's $643 billion defense authorization bill. The issue nearly derailed passage of last year's version.

Smith’s amendment would have changed last year’s defense authorization legislation and the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) so that terror suspects captured on U.S. soil would be handled by civilian courts, not the military.

The debate on the detainee amendments began after midnight Thursday, as part of a late night on the House floor to get through more than 140 amendments to the defense authorization bill. Smith argued that indefinite detention gave the president an “extraordinary” amount of power, and said the federal courts have successfully prosecuted hundreds of terrorists since the Sept. 11 attacks.

Source

Interesting. So they didn't vote to repeal indefinite detention? They voted for civilian trails? No way.

Also Smith voted for it, before voting against MILITARY TRIALS, not indefinite detention.
Source

Originally posted by thesungod

Spin, spin, spin.

Ya, I can see you going round and round

Just because Republicans are all the rage in Texas, does not mean that you should
support them.

This website is here to learn, not spin.

reply to post by thepresident


Once again I will reiterate, I support no repubs or dems, nor libertarians. 99% of politicians are evil, bad, liars without any sort of moral fiber. I have claimed this view since arriving at ATS and have had this view since at least 07.

Get over yourself. Politicians are bad and none of them have any good answers, because the only thing they care about is making sure you blindly follow and be part of the system.

Besides you haven't given me any links to ANYTHING. I just have to take your word for what your saying. I have provided source after source. Link after link. A full accounting of all vote in congress in NDAA. You've chosen to focus on one part of an eighteen part situation and your not even pushing your one part accurately.

Get some sources and come back to me or you will be ignored.

Have a good one.

Fact checkers responded that they were "surprised" that EVERY claim Bill Clinton made during this speech checked out.

I've seen interviews with several ranking Democrats since this speech, and many of them are starting to point to long term trends rather than Obama's last four years.

If Obama can have a ton of long term FACTUAL numbers at his fingertips during the debates, he'll make Romney look like he's trying to hide under a rock.

I loved the line "we need to make Bill Clinton the Secretary in Charge of Explaining Stuff" in a second Obama administration.

Originally posted by Unidentified_Objective


I've voted republican in the past and am a social conservative but the GOP is full of clowns and greedy degenerates who care more about the top income bracket than what is best for the country as a whole. I will be voting for Obama in November. I don't agree with much of his social ideology but, he is the better choice on election day.

No sir, you are a liar, not a conservative. Conservatives seeks to conserve the Constitution. Liberals seek to take liberties with the Constitution.
They are polar opposites, completely unable to live with each other because the success of one destroys the other.
As a Conservative, I take the words of the Constitution to mean exactly what is stated. There is no room, nor is there a need for interpretation. We were supposed to evolve into the Constitution, not the Constitution into us. We have failed the Founding Fathers and look what it has gotten us...nothing but strife.
All Men are Created Equal...Do you mean to tell me that as a Conservative you see the democrats as the party who does not seek unequal treatment for one group of people over another?
Your claims of being a Conservative force me to call you a liar and I hope in the future you will refrain from repeating this falsehood any further

Originally posted by thesungod
reply to post by thepresident

 

Once again I will reiterate, I support no repubs or dems, nor libertarians. 99% of politicians are evil, bad, liars without any sort of moral fiber. I have claimed this view since arriving at ATS and have had this view since at least 07.

Get over yourself. Politicians are bad and none of them have any good answers, because the only thing they care about is making sure you blindly follow and be part of the system.

Besides you haven't given me any links to ANYTHING. I just have to take your word for what your saying. I have provided source after source. Link after link. A full accounting of all vote in congress in NDAA. You've chosen to focus on one part of an eighteen part situation and your not even pushing your one part accurately.

Get some sources and come back to me or you will be ignored.

Have a good one.

edit on 9-9-2012 by thesungod because: (no reason given)

Here we are again.

his morning, the House voted down the Smith-Amash amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which would have prohibited the government from indefinitely detaining U.S. citizens without trial. A vote of 182-237 struck down the bipartisan Amendment that Adam Smith (D-Wash.) and Justin Amash (R-Mich.) introduced. Only 19 Republicans, compared to 163 Democrats, supported the bill.

www.alternet.org...< br />
You have been the person spinning things endlessly

The GOP decided to reaffirm the indefinite detention claus, even after it was widely criticized as
a mistake.

You either vote it UP or vote it down

2 choices, NOT 18 sir

reply to post by thepresident


18 different votes over NDAA, not 18 choices. Only one time did dems as a whole vote like that and it was for CIVILIAN TRIALS not INDEFINITE DETENTION.

Your own sources links to this source, spinning it. Source which I have already posted and says...

Smith’s amendment would have changed last year’s defense authorization legislation and the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) so that terror suspects captured on U.S. soil would be handled by civilian courts, not the military.

You want me to get the body of the amendment and post it?

HR 4310 – Smith/Amash Amendment #46: YES. This amendment restores the Constitutional rights of due process and trial by jury that were decimated by section 1021 of the NDAA of 2012. Opponents argue that this would require suspected terrorists in the United States to be treated like ordinary criminals when in fact they are spies and saboteurs. That is true, but of course we have very good criminal laws under which to prosecute spies and saboteurs. The alternative is unthinkable: to sacrifice our most sacred liberties on the altar of an ill-defined, open-ended and perpetual war that knows neither victory nor defeat, subjecting our nation to indefinite detentions and military tribunals that are anathema to our Bill of Rights.

Source

Even the repubs that voted for the bill understand it was for civilian trials and civilian detention NOT indefinite detention.

Armed Services Committee Source

"The creation of such a 'perverse' incentive stems from a misconception on the scope of section 1021 of last year’s NDAA. Al Qaeda terrorist, regardless of citizenship, captured in the US, have the constitutional writ of habeas corpus to challenge their detention. In addition, the Supreme Court has ruled, '[a]bsent suspension, the writ of habeas corpus remains available to every individual detained within the United States.'

"The Smith-Amash Amendment does not 'fix' anything, but rather it partially disarms the commander in chief by eliminating the possibility of treating captured terrorists as enemy combatants and lawfully interrogating them. This denies the Commander-in-Chief the flexibility all Presidents have had during war time at exactly the same time al-Qaeda is actively recruiting Westerners to carry out a terrorist attack on American soil.

Your missing my point, yes that one time out of 18 different votes a majority of dems voted to change the bill.

BUT NOT THE INDEFINITE DETENTION PART. Just military trials and military holdings to civilian trials and civilian holdings, you don't think you could be indefinitely detained and questioned by the FBI or CIA or DHS?

Go tell that to Brandon Raub.

Oh and Smith of the "Smith/Amash" Amendment as well as several other dems have decided that since it's not in the media it must not matter anymore. So have voted FOR IT, several times since the one POLITICAL THEATER vote.

Admitted Amash is sticking to his guns though.
Source

So are the American people going just to sit back and let the left and right bicker while their country falls apart? Damn shame when so many people died to make sure they stay free.