Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 06-08-2011, 05:25 AM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
19,792 posts, read 13,954,445 times
Reputation: 5661

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bideshi View Post
Then let's clarify that the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991 and Clinton was President in 1992. Bush had a four year term beginning in 1988 (as I recall, unless that has also been revised..) Bush could see and declare it coming but didn't get to enjoy the benefits.
Where is this peace dividend exclusively in the Clinton Admin? As you can see, defense spending was on the same declining slope since 1986.


Last edited by MTAtech; 06-08-2011 at 05:57 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-08-2011, 08:29 AM
 
Location: The land where cats rule
10,908 posts, read 9,558,564 times
Reputation: 3602
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
So, based upon your recollection, your argument is that the reason Clinton had a surplus in his second term was because Bush1 had a peace dividend, that skipped over his term entirely and also the first term of Clinton, to show up in his 2nd term, and then coincidentally disappeared at the same time Bush2 lowered taxes?

Just wanted to clarify.
Seems to be the same frame of argument that your side takes when defending 0bama. Just in reverse. Nothing is his fault, he inherited it. Just because nothing he has done has shown any positive impact on the situation, it is still someone else respondsible for the situation.

Talk about revisionist.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2011, 08:44 AM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,767 posts, read 28,827,269 times
Reputation: 12341
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arjay51 View Post
Seems to be the same frame of argument that your side takes when defending 0bama. Just in reverse. Nothing is his fault, he inherited it. Just because nothing he has done has shown any positive impact on the situation, it is still someone else respondsible for the situation.

Talk about revisionist.
Was it Reagan's fault that the economy was in a bad shape in 1981? And how long did it take for him to turn the ship around, if he actually did that?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2011, 02:20 PM
 
Location: Texas
37,949 posts, read 17,875,145 times
Reputation: 10371
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
Except that when Bill Clinton proposed tax increases, the right-wing predicted that the result would be slow growth, reduce tax revenues, and likely cause a recession. Instead, of course, the economy boomed and revenue skyrocketed. Then George W. Bush cut upper-bracket tax rates, and the right-wing predicted that this would cause the economy to grow even faster. Instead, the economy didn't grow and tax-revenue not only didn't grow but fell. It is rare that events so utterly repudiate an economic theory.

You would think that faced with evidence that repudiated there foundation ideology, conservatives would stand back and re-evaluate that ideology's truth. If I had a belief that the sky was red, looking up would conclude that theory is wrong. Instead, the right-wing faced with the choice of admitting that the ideology they followed for years is wrong or saying the evidence doesn't matter, find it more convenient to disregard the evidence. It's like a smoker presented with evidence of the dangers of smoking and then responding, "I know a 70 years old man who smokes since he was 20 and who is very healthy".

Psychologists call that cognitive dissonance and that's exactly what "the economy was doing well for most of Clinton's term(s) despite him, not because of him," sounds like.
The economy boomed because of the dot com bubble. lol funny how people think bubbles are good. History has told us many times the busts are always worse than the booms. Sooner or later people need to catch on to the fact government manipulating business and the economy doesn't work. It never has.

Why would anyone in their right mind want tax revenue to grow? The idea is to make government smaller, less tax revenue meaning keeping more money in the hands of the people who know how to use it efficiently. Quit stealing my money for your causes. The money is wasted and not put to good use. Thieves spend carelessly when they know they have a endless supply of my money.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2011, 02:58 PM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,767 posts, read 28,827,269 times
Reputation: 12341
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry View Post
The economy boomed because of the dot com bubble.
It was credit boom in the 1980s, it was tech boom in the late 90s, and it was credit boom in the 2000s (for 2-3 years anyway). At least there was something more concrete about the tech boom, as proliferation of teh internets would tell you. Now only if Wall Street and its speculative model could be kept out of the picture...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2011, 03:05 PM
 
21,026 posts, read 22,155,997 times
Reputation: 5941
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene View Post
A disaster, that's what we have in the obama recovery. With all the OTHER horrible economic news coming this past week, this is the only conclusion.

Job growth slows to 54,000 in May, rate up to 9.1% - MarketWatch



Are they ever right or unsurprised anymore?
YES! WHAT HAVE those Republicans who were lected in 2010 to much fanfare...WHAT are they doing about jobs???

They've had 6 months now and no progress! I thought being Republicans and all they'd be so much faster than Democrats and have everything just peachy by now...why are they dragging their feet???? What's wrong with them??
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2011, 04:59 PM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
19,792 posts, read 13,954,445 times
Reputation: 5661
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry View Post
The economy boomed because of the dot com bubble. lol funny how people think bubbles are good. History has told us many times the busts are always worse than the booms. Sooner or later people need to catch on to the fact government manipulating business and the economy doesn't work. It never has.

Why would anyone in their right mind want tax revenue to grow? The idea is to make government smaller, less tax revenue meaning keeping more money in the hands of the people who know how to use it efficiently. Quit stealing my money for your causes. The money is wasted and not put to good use. Thieves spend carelessly when they know they have a endless supply of my money.
Google wasn't created by government nor were any of the companies that hatched during the dot.com boom, like Amazon.

And to have this Clinton derangement syndrome, where anything good between 1992 and 2000 is assigned to the dot com bubble is ludicrous. Even if a portion of the economies gains were dot com, dot coms were not the majority of the economy. Lots of cars were sold,TVs and houses too. In short, there was plenty of other economic activity going on, with an average employment gain of 250,000/mo. -- those weren't all dot.coms.

If you think taxes is stealing then you are necessarily against taxation. Without taxes, we don't have a government. Without a government we don't have police to protect us; Without a government we don't have courts to settle legal disputes; Without a government we can't build roads; Without a government we don't have public education; Without a government we don't have an army to protect us from foreign invasion, etc., etc.

The above is the way it is in weak government nations, like the outskirts of Afghanistan and Somalia. I'd rather not have to worry that when I travel the roads that I'll be attacked by bandits, thank you -- or not have to worry that farmers are using dangerous chemicals in the food that I buy.

Thomas Aquinas and Thomas Hobbs wrote about the time before organized society called the state of nature. There were no laws. Societies formed by the individual giving up certain rights, like the right to attack another person, for the security that the state will protect you against attack. Essentially, you want to return us to a state of nature as you don't think we should fund a government.

If you believe in the United States you must believe in the Constitution which gives Congress the power to lay and collect taxes because if one is going to have a viable nation, we need taxation. If you don't believe in that, you are an anarchist not a conservative. The Founders of this nation didn't think taxation was stealing.

Quite frankly, the notion that taxation is the equivalent of theft is idiotic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2011, 07:31 PM
 
Location: The land where cats rule
10,908 posts, read 9,558,564 times
Reputation: 3602
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
Was it Reagan's fault that the economy was in a bad shape in 1981? And how long did it take for him to turn the ship around, if he actually did that?
What exactly does Reagan have to do with the employment situation right now?

I know that it is hard for you, but please try to stay on topic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2011, 08:07 PM
 
Location: Chicagoland
41,325 posts, read 44,956,928 times
Reputation: 7118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Who?Me?! View Post
YES! WHAT HAVE those Republicans who were lected in 2010 to much fanfare...WHAT are they doing about jobs???

They've had 6 months now and no progress! I thought being Republicans and all they'd be so much faster than Democrats and have everything just peachy by now...why are they dragging their feet???? What's wrong with them??
The democrats control the Senate and WH...but that will likely change in 2012.

See, obama and the dems want to double down on policies that have brought us 9.2% UE, $4.50+ Gas, $1.6 Trillion deficit, $14+ trillion debt, the most anti-business climate EVER in this countries history.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-09-2011, 02:25 AM
 
16,431 posts, read 22,204,998 times
Reputation: 9623
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene View Post
The democrats control the Senate and WH...but that will likely change in 2012.
Yes, it will. But the GOP and Tea Party can't create jobs either. Face it, we've given up our manufacturing base and bet all in on a "service economy" that now can't compete with China or India. We're screwed and no one in Washington can fix it no matter how many phoney promises they make. Solomon himself couldn't get us out of this hole. What we must resist is the continued erosion of our liberty and basic freedom during this economic crisis. They will use any crisis to increase control.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:21 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top