Clinton just knocked it out of the park

It's the 17th Anniversary for T1B - Fuckin' A

Moderator: Jesus H Christ

User avatar
mvscal
Blank
Posts: 12040
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 4:14 am

Re: Clinton just knocked it out of the park

Post by mvscal »

Jsc810 wrote:Clinton made an incredible speech, absolutely amazing. He made a comprehensive argument why Romney should not next elected, and why Obama should be reelected.
No, he didn't.

Of course nothing says fucked up as a soup sandwich quite like having "Forward" as a campaign slogan while recyling an old, lying hack who hasn't had a single second of relevance in this century to deliver your keynote address.

Morons like you seem comfortable with the obvious contradictions. I guess it's because you are totally incapable of rational thought.
Screw_Michigan wrote: Fri Apr 05, 2019 4:39 pmUnlike you tards, I actually have functioning tastebuds and a refined pallet.
User avatar
Y2K
Internet Overlord
Posts: 2830
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 8:07 am
Location: Fresno CA.

Re: Clinton just knocked it out of the park

Post by Y2K »

Chip..will you please shut the fuck up?
Do you honestly think we all forgot the shit he said whem Momma was running against the current asshole in charge?
Being a party shill gets you nothing other than kudos from the sheep.
Jesus wake the fuck up outta your coma.
User avatar
mvscal
Blank
Posts: 12040
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 4:14 am

Re: Clinton just knocked it out of the park

Post by mvscal »

Jsc810 wrote:Even George Will admitted it was a great speech.
It was pure bullshit from stem to stern. That's what constitutes a "good speech" in your opinion? Was it as good as the speech where he reassured America that he didn't have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky? Was this so great a speech that it just made you forget that Clinton himself was one of the primary architects of the financial collapse? I could have sworn he was the one who signed the repeal of Glass-Steagall into law among his other contributing acts.

He's a fucking joke and it's on idiots like you.
Screw_Michigan wrote: Fri Apr 05, 2019 4:39 pmUnlike you tards, I actually have functioning tastebuds and a refined pallet.
User avatar
mvscal
Blank
Posts: 12040
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 4:14 am

Re: Clinton just knocked it out of the park

Post by mvscal »

Jsc810 wrote:President Clinton has the Republicans reeling now, deservedly so.
:lol: :lol: :lol:

Oh...OK.

Image

Hmm, yeah we've seen this movie before.

Image

The next time that clown isn't lying his ass off will be the first.
Screw_Michigan wrote: Fri Apr 05, 2019 4:39 pmUnlike you tards, I actually have functioning tastebuds and a refined pallet.
User avatar
Atomic Punk
antagonist
Posts: 6636
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 5:26 pm
Location: El Segundo, CA

Re: Clinton just knocked it out of the park

Post by Atomic Punk »

Chip, take a wild guess why Slick Willy did this. Hint: Who is going to run for .resident in 2016? Another hint: She is married to a former .resident.
BSmack wrote:Best. AP take. Ever.

Seriously. I don't disagree with a word of it.
User avatar
Y2K
Internet Overlord
Posts: 2830
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 8:07 am
Location: Fresno CA.

Re: Clinton just knocked it out of the park

Post by Y2K »

Alex Castellanos (Republican analyst on CNN) just said this was the moment that Obama won.
:lol: Well there you have it!

Really JSC..the cliffs not that high, maybe you'll survive the fall...maybe
User avatar
Atomic Punk
antagonist
Posts: 6636
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 5:26 pm
Location: El Segundo, CA

Re: Clinton just knocked it out of the park

Post by Atomic Punk »


Jack, I ripped this from a friend of yours. 8)
BSmack wrote:Best. AP take. Ever.

Seriously. I don't disagree with a word of it.
User avatar
poptart
Quitty McQuitface
Posts: 15211
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 1:45 pm

Re: Clinton just knocked it out of the park

Post by poptart »

Jsc wrote:Alex Castellanos (Republican analyst on CNN) just said this was the moment that Obama won.

Oh, ok.



PSA: Put some headphones on before you open that link in public. :)
User avatar
mvscal
Blank
Posts: 12040
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 4:14 am

Re: Clinton just knocked it out of the park

Post by mvscal »

Forward to the Past!!
Screw_Michigan wrote: Fri Apr 05, 2019 4:39 pmUnlike you tards, I actually have functioning tastebuds and a refined pallet.
User avatar
poptart
Quitty McQuitface
Posts: 15211
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 1:45 pm

Re: Clinton just knocked it out of the park

Post by poptart »

88 wrote:
Der Slickmeister wrote: (CNN) - In his remarks at the Democratic National Convention on Wednesday, former President Bill Clinton offered a spirited defense of President Barack Obama and officially entered his name into nomination for reelection.

"In Tampa, the Republican argument against the President's re-election was pretty simple: we left him a total mess, he hasn't cleaned it up fast enough, so fire him and put us back in," Clinton said.

– Follow the Ticker on Twitter: @PoliticalTicker

– Check out the CNN Electoral Map and Calculator and game out your own strategy for November.

His remarks, as released by the DNC:

We're here to nominate a President, and I've got one in mind.

I want to nominate a man whose own life has known its fair share of adversity and uncertainty. A man who ran for President to change the course of an already weak economy and then just six weeks before the election, saw it suffer the biggest collapse since the Great Depression. A man who stopped the slide into depression and put us on the long road to recovery, knowing all the while that no matter how many jobs were created and saved, there were still millions more waiting, trying to feed their children and keep their hopes alive.

I want to nominate a man cool on the outside but burning for America on the inside. A man who believes we can build a new American Dream economy driven by innovation and creativity, education and cooperation. A man who had the good sense to marry Michelle Obama.

I want Barack Obama to be the next President of the United States and I proudly nominate him as the standard bearer of the Democratic Party.

In Tampa, we heard a lot of talk about how the President and the Democrats don't believe in free enterprise and individual initiative, how we want everyone to be dependent on the government, how bad we are for the economy.

The Republican narrative is that all of us who amount to anything are completely self-made. One of our greatest Democratic Chairmen, Bob Strauss, used to say that every politician wants you to believe he was born in a log cabin he built himself, but it ain't so.

We Democrats think the country works better with a strong middle class, real opportunities for poor people to work their way into it and a relentless focus on the future, with business and government working together to promote growth and broadly shared prosperity. We think "we're all in this together" is a better philosophy than "you're on your own."

Who's right? Well since 1961, the Republicans have held the White House 28 years, the Democrats 24. In those 52 years, our economy produced 66 million private sector jobs. What's the jobs score? Republicans 24 million, Democrats 42 million!

It turns out that advancing equal opportunity and economic empowerment is both morally right and good economics, because discrimination, poverty and ignorance restrict growth, while investments in education, infrastructure and scientific and technological research increase it, creating more good jobs and new wealth for all of us.

Though I often disagree with Republicans, I never learned to hate them the way the far right that now controls their party seems to hate President Obama and the Democrats. After all, President Eisenhower sent federal troops to my home state to integrate Little Rock Central High and built the interstate highway system. And as governor, I worked with President Reagan on welfare reform and with President George H.W. Bush on national education goals. I am grateful to President George W. Bush for PEPFAR, which is saving the lives of millions of people in poor countries and to both Presidents Bush for the work we've done together after the South Asia tsunami, Hurricane Katrina and the Haitian earthquake.

Through my foundation, in America and around the world, I work with Democrats, Republicans and Independents who are focused on solving problems and seizing opportunities, not fighting each other.

When times are tough, constant conflict may be good politics but in the real world, cooperation works better. After all, nobody's right all the time, and a broken clock is right twice a day. All of us are destined to live our lives between those two extremes. Unfortunately, the faction that now dominates the Republican Party doesn't see it that way. They think government is the enemy, and compromise is weakness.

One of the main reasons America should re-elect President Obama is that he is still committed to cooperation. He appointed Republican Secretaries of Defense, the Army and Transportation. He appointed a Vice President who ran against him in 2008, and trusted him to oversee the successful end of the war in Iraq and the implementation of the recovery act. And Joe Biden did a great job with both. He appointed Cabinet members who supported Hillary in the primaries. Heck, he even appointed Hillary! I'm so proud of her and grateful to our entire national security team for all they've done to make us safer and stronger and to build a world with more partners and fewer enemies. I'm also grateful to the young men and women who serve our country in the military and to Michelle Obama and Jill Biden for supporting military families when their loved ones are overseas and for helping our veterans, when they come home bearing the wounds of war, or needing help with education, housing, and jobs.

President Obama's record on national security is a tribute to his strength, and judgment, and to his preference for inclusion and partnership over partisanship.

He also tried to work with Congressional Republicans on Health Care, debt reduction, and jobs, but that didn't work out so well. Probably because, as the Senate Republican leader, in a remarkable moment of candor, said two years before the election, their number one priority was not to put America back to work, but to put President Obama out of work.

Senator, I hate to break it to you, but we're going to keep President Obama on the job!

In Tampa, the Republican argument against the President's re-election was pretty simple: we left him a total mess, he hasn't cleaned it up fast enough, so fire him and put us back in.

In order to look like an acceptable alternative to President Obama, they couldn't say much about the ideas they have offered over the last two years. You see they want to go back to the same old policies that got us into trouble in the first place: to cut taxes for high income Americans even more than President Bush did; to get rid of those pesky financial regulations designed to prevent another crash and prohibit future bailouts; to increase defense spending two trillion dollars more than the Pentagon has requested without saying what they'll spend the money on; to make enormous cuts in the rest of the budget, especially programs that help the middle class and poor kids. As another President once said – there they go again.

I like the argument for President Obama's re-election a lot better. He inherited a deeply damaged economy, put a floor under the crash, began the long hard road to recovery, and laid the foundation for a modern, more well-balanced economy that will produce millions of good new jobs, vibrant new businesses, and lots of new wealth for the innovators.

Are we where we want to be? No. Is the President satisfied? No. Are we better off than we were when he took office, with an economy in free fall, losing 750,000 jobs a month. The answer is YES.

I understand the challenge we face. I know many Americans are still angry and frustrated with the economy. Though employment is growing, banks are beginning to lend and even housing prices are picking up a bit, too many people don't feel it.

I experienced the same thing in 1994 and early 1995. Our policies were working and the economy was growing but most people didn't feel it yet. By 1996, the economy was roaring, halfway through the longest peacetime expansion in American history.

President Obama started with a much weaker economy than I did. No President – not me or any of my predecessors could have repaired all the damage in just four years. But conditions are improving and if you'll renew the President's contract you will feel it.

I believe that with all my heart.

President Obama's approach embodies the values, the ideas, and the direction America must take to build a 21st century version of the American Dream in a nation of shared opportunities, shared prosperity and shared responsibilities.

So back to the story. In 2010, as the President's recovery program kicked in, the job losses stopped and things began to turn around.

The Recovery Act saved and created millions of jobs and cut taxes for 95% of the American people. In the last 29 months the economy has produced about 4.5 million private sector jobs. But last year, the Republicans blocked the President's jobs plan costing the economy more than a million new jobs. So here's another jobs score: President Obama plus 4.5 million, Congressional Republicans zero.

Over that same period, more than more than 500,000 manufacturing jobs have been created under President Obama – the first time manufacturing jobs have increased since the 1990s.

The auto industry restructuring worked. It saved more than a million jobs, not just at GM, Chrysler and their dealerships, but in auto parts manufacturing all over the country. That's why even auto-makers that weren't part of the deal supported it. They needed to save the suppliers too. Like I said, we're all in this together.

Now there are 250,000 more people working in the auto industry than the day the companies were restructured. Governor Romney opposed the plan to save GM and Chrysler. So here's another jobs score: Obama two hundred and fifty thousand, Romney, zero.

The agreement the administration made with management, labor and environmental groups to double car mileage over the next few years is another good deal: it will cut your gas bill in half, make us more energy independent, cut greenhouse gas emissions, and add another 500,000 good jobs.

President Obama's "all of the above" energy plan is helping too – the boom in oil and gas production combined with greater energy efficiency has driven oil imports to a near 20 year low and natural gas production to an all time high. Renewable energy production has also doubled.

We do need more new jobs, lots of them, but there are already more than three million jobs open and unfilled in America today, mostly because the applicants don't have the required skills. We have to prepare more Americans for the new jobs that are being created in a world fueled by new technology. That's why investments in our people are more important than ever. The President has supported community colleges and employers in working together to train people for open jobs in their communities. And, after a decade in which exploding college costs have increased the drop-out rate so much that we've fallen to 16th in the world in the percentage of our young adults with college degrees, his student loan reform lowers the cost of federal student loans and even more important, gives students the right to repay the loans as a fixed percentage of their incomes for up to 20 years. That means no one will have to drop-out of college for fear they can't repay their debt, and no one will have to turn down a job, as a teacher, a police officer or a small town doctor because it doesn't pay enough to make the debt payments. This will change the future for young Americans.

I know we're better off because President Obama made these decisions.

That brings me to health care.

The Republicans call it Obamacare and say it's a government takeover of health care that they'll repeal. Are they right? Let's look at what's happened so far. Individuals and businesses have secured more than a billion dollars in refunds from their insurance premiums because the new law requires 80% to 85% of your premiums to be spent on health care, not profits or promotion. Other insurance companies have lowered their rates to meet the requirement. More than 3 million young people between 19 and 25 are insured for the first time because their parents can now carry them on family policies. Millions of seniors are receiving preventive care including breast cancer screenings and tests for heart problems. Soon the insurance companies, not the government, will have millions of new customers many of them middle class people with pre-existing conditions. And for the last two years, health care spending has grown under 4%, for the first time in 50 years.

So are we all better off because President Obama fought for it and passed it? You bet we are.

There were two other attacks on the President in Tampa that deserve an answer. Both Governor Romney and Congressman Ryan attacked the President for allegedly robbing Medicare of 716 billion dollars. Here's what really happened. There were no cuts to benefits. None. What the President did was save money by cutting unwarranted subsidies to providers and insurance companies that weren't making people any healthier. He used the saving to close the donut hole in the Medicare drug program, and to add eight years to the life of the Medicare Trust Fund. It's now solvent until 2024. So President Obama and the Democrats didn't weaken Medicare, they strengthened it.

When Congressman Ryan looked into the TV camera and attacked President Obama's "biggest coldest power play" in raiding Medicare, I didn't know whether to laugh or cry. You see, that 716 billion dollars is exactly the same amount of Medicare savings Congressman Ryan had in his own budget.

At least on this one, Governor Romney's been consistent. He wants to repeal the savings and give the money back to the insurance companies, re-open the donut hole and force seniors to pay more for drugs, and reduce the life of the Medicare Trust Fund by eight years. So now if he's elected and does what he promised Medicare will go broke by 2016. If that happens, you won't have to wait until their voucher program to begins in 2023 to see the end Medicare as we know it.

But it gets worse. They also want to block grant Medicaid and cut it by a third over the coming decade. Of course, that will hurt poor kids, but that's not all. Almost two-thirds of Medicaid is spent on nursing home care for seniors and on people with disabilities, including kids from middle class families, with special needs like, Downs syndrome or Autism. I don't know how those families are going to deal with it. We can't let it happen

Now let's look at the Republican charge that President Obama wants to weaken the work requirements in the welfare reform bill I signed that moved millions of people from welfare to work.

Here's what happened. When some Republican governors asked to try new ways to put people on welfare back to work, the Obama Administration said they would only do it if they had a credible plan to increase employment by 20%. You hear that? More work. So the claim that President Obama weakened welfare reform's work requirement is just not true. But they keep running ads on it. As their campaign pollster said "we're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact checkers." Now that is true. I couldn't have said it better myself – I just hope you remember that every time you see the ad.

Let's talk about the debt. We have to deal with it or it will deal with us. President Obama has offered a plan with 4 trillion dollars in debt reduction over a decade, with two and a half dollars of spending reductions for every one dollar of revenue increases, and tight controls on future spending. It's the kind of balanced approach proposed by the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles commission.

I think the President's plan is better than the Romney plan, because the Romney plan fails the first test of fiscal responsibility: The numbers don't add up.

It's supposed to be a debt reduction plan but it begins with five trillion dollars in tax cuts over a ten-year period. That makes the debt hole bigger before they even start to dig out. They say they'll make it up by eliminating loopholes in the tax code. When you ask "which loopholes and how much?," they say "See me after the election on that."

People ask me all the time how we delivered four surplus budgets. What new ideas did we bring? I always give a one-word answer: arithmetic. If they stay with a 5 trillion dollar tax cut in a debt reduction plan – the – arithmetic tells us that one of three things will happen: 1) they'll have to eliminate so many deductions like the ones for home mortgages and charitable giving that middle class families will see their tax bill go up two thousand dollars year while people making over 3 million dollars a year get will still get a 250,000 dollar tax cut; or 2) they'll have to cut so much spending that they'll obliterate the budget for our national parks, for ensuring clean air, clean water, safe food, safe air travel; or they'll cut way back on Pell Grants, college loans, early childhood education and other programs that help middle class families and poor children, not to mention cutting investments in roads, bridges, science, technology and medical research; or 3) they'll do what they've been doing for thirty plus years now – cut taxes more than they cut spending, explode the debt, and weaken the economy. Remember, Republican economic policies quadrupled the debt before I took office and doubled it after I left. We simply can't afford to double-down on trickle-down.

President Obama's plan cuts the debt, honors our values, and brightens the future for our children, our families and our nation.

My fellow Americans, you have to decide what kind of country you want to live in. If you want a you're on your own, winner take all society you should support the Republican ticket. If you want a country of shared opportunities and shared responsibilities – a "we're all in it together" society, you should vote for Barack Obama and Joe Biden. If you want every American to vote and you think its wrong to change voting procedures just to reduce the turnout of younger, poorer, minority and disabled voters, you should support Barack Obama. If you think the President was right to open the doors of American opportunity to young immigrants brought here as children who want to go to college or serve in the military, you should vote for Barack Obama. If you want a future of shared prosperity, where the middle class is growing and poverty is declining, where the American Dream is alive and well, and where the United States remains the leading force for peace and prosperity in a highly competitive world, you should vote for Barack Obama.

I love our country – and I know we're coming back. For more than 200 years, through every crisis, we've always come out stronger than we went in. And we will again as long as we do it together. We champion the cause for which our founders pledged their lives, their fortunes, their sacred honor – to form a more perfect union.

If that's what you believe, if that's what you want, we have to re-elect President Barack Obama.

God Bless You – God Bless America.
Funny thing, Bill Clinton went off script and went... BIRTHER!! :)


Right after he said, "In Tampa, the Republican argument against
the President's re-election was pretty simple: we left him a total mess,
he hasn't cleaned it up fast enough, so fire him and put us back in."


... he decided to editorialize a bit, ad-lib, and birther it up for Amerika.





He knows - and he's known for a very long time.
User avatar
poptart
Quitty McQuitface
Posts: 15211
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 1:45 pm

Re: Clinton just knocked it out of the park

Post by poptart »

Jsc wrote:"Since 1961, for 52 years now, the Republicans have held the White House 28 years, the Democrats 24," Clinton said. "In those 52 years, our private economy produced 66 million private-sector jobs. So what's the jobs score? Republicans 24 million, Democrats 42 million."
You're a joke.

To begin with, the numbers are skewed because of the very large 20.8 million private sector yobs said to have been produced during the Bubba years.

And it needs to be known that in the bulk of the Bubba years ('94 election to the end of his 2nd term in 2001) both the house and senate were REPUBLICAN held.

Yeah, minor detail. :lol:


You ASShat.
User avatar
poptart
Quitty McQuitface
Posts: 15211
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 1:45 pm

Re: Clinton just knocked it out of the park

Post by poptart »

Jsc810 wrote:George W. Bush: Decline of 646,000 jobs
Barack Obama: Increase of 332,000 jobs

You were saying?
Bush is not running for prez - and neither is Bill Clinton.

Barry is.
Barry is said to have added 332,000 private sector jobs.

And we only had to go 6 trillion dollars further in debt to get that kind of... progress. :doh:


You dumbshit.
User avatar
Y2K
Internet Overlord
Posts: 2830
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 8:07 am
Location: Fresno CA.

Re: Clinton just knocked it out of the park

Post by Y2K »

Barry is said to have added 332,000 private sector jobs.
and it only took several trillion dollars to do it, the man is a god. :lol:
User avatar
SG's Son
Has BODE
Posts: 361
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 9:33 pm

Re: Clinton just knocked it out of the park

Post by SG's Son »

88 wrote: And the polls show that the answer to that question is a resounding "NO!" right now.
No they don't, dumbass.
User avatar
PSUFAN
dents with meaning
Posts: 18324
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 10:42 pm
Location: BLITZBURGH

Re: Clinton just knocked it out of the park

Post by PSUFAN »

Do you honestly think we all forgot the shit he said whem Momma was running against the current asshole in charge?
What the fuck is dribbling out of your pneumatic dicktube now, you godawful simpleton?
King Crimson wrote:anytime you have a smoke tunnel and it's not Judas Priest in the mid 80's....watch out.
mvscal wrote:France totally kicks ass.
User avatar
PSUFAN
dents with meaning
Posts: 18324
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 10:42 pm
Location: BLITZBURGH

Re: Clinton just knocked it out of the park

Post by PSUFAN »

the polls show that the answer to that question is a resounding "NO!" right now.
Polls show Romney ahead? Where?
King Crimson wrote:anytime you have a smoke tunnel and it's not Judas Priest in the mid 80's....watch out.
mvscal wrote:France totally kicks ass.
BSmack
2005 and 2010 JFFL Champion
Posts: 29339
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 2:21 pm
Location: Lookin for tards

Re: Clinton just knocked it out of the park

Post by BSmack »

mvscal wrote:Of course nothing says fucked up as a soup sandwich quite like having "Forward" as a campaign slogan while recyling an old, lying hack who hasn't had a single second of relevance in this century to deliver your keynote address.
No relevance? How much money for Tsunami relief did YOU raise? Or for Earthquake relief in Hati? For Katrina alone, Bill Clinton helped raise 150 MILLION dollars. Then of course there is the CGI, which has leveraged billions of dollars and thousands of man hours to improve the lives of millions of people around the world.

You're either lying or an idiot. Which is it?
"Once upon a time, dinosaurs didn't have families. They lived in the woods and ate their children. It was a golden age."

—Earl Sinclair

"I do have respect for authority even though I throw jelly dicks at them.

- Antonio Brown
BSmack
2005 and 2010 JFFL Champion
Posts: 29339
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 2:21 pm
Location: Lookin for tards

Re: Clinton just knocked it out of the park

Post by BSmack »

Y2K wrote:
Barry is said to have added 332,000 private sector jobs.
and it only took several trillion dollars to do it, the man is a god. :lol:
Considering the financial collapse sucked more than that out of the global economy, I'd say he's aces.
"Once upon a time, dinosaurs didn't have families. They lived in the woods and ate their children. It was a golden age."

—Earl Sinclair

"I do have respect for authority even though I throw jelly dicks at them.

- Antonio Brown
User avatar
LTS TRN 2
I suck Jew cock
Posts: 8802
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 7:42 pm
Location: Here

Re: Clinton just knocked it out of the park

Post by LTS TRN 2 »

It was a good speech strictly in terms of oration, but compared to what? There hasn't been a great GOP orator since....well...Lincoln? Seriously, along with the putrid hypocrisy and utter cowardice of the whole Reagan paradigm of "conservatism" in the past decades, we've seen a serious dearth of rhetorical talent. Can you name one GOP candidate who has displayed any real skill at the podium? Go ahead think it over? Rick Perry? Newt? Of course Bubba is a sociopath rapist as well as a total corporate NAFTA/Wall St./AIPAC whore but he does have the talent to actually orate. Same with Barry.
Before God was, I am
BSmack
2005 and 2010 JFFL Champion
Posts: 29339
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 2:21 pm
Location: Lookin for tards

Re: Clinton just knocked it out of the park

Post by BSmack »

Lincoln wrote great copy, but from what the historical record shows, his voice wasn't exactly made for prime time. If you're looking for great GOP orators you can include Barry Goldwater, Ronnie Rayguns, Pat Buchanan and....

BTW: Here's the You Tube of Bill's speech.

"Once upon a time, dinosaurs didn't have families. They lived in the woods and ate their children. It was a golden age."

—Earl Sinclair

"I do have respect for authority even though I throw jelly dicks at them.

- Antonio Brown
BSmack
2005 and 2010 JFFL Champion
Posts: 29339
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 2:21 pm
Location: Lookin for tards

Re: Clinton just knocked it out of the park

Post by BSmack »

Best Democratic orators of my lifetime.

1. Mario Cuomo
2. Bill Clinton
3. Ted Kenedy
4. Jessie Jackson
5. Barack Obama
"Once upon a time, dinosaurs didn't have families. They lived in the woods and ate their children. It was a golden age."

—Earl Sinclair

"I do have respect for authority even though I throw jelly dicks at them.

- Antonio Brown
User avatar
Smackie Chan
Eternal Scobode
Posts: 7128
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 1:56 pm
Location: Inside Your Speakers

Re: Clinton just knocked it out of the park

Post by Smackie Chan »

poptart wrote:
Jsc wrote:"Since 1961, for 52 years now, the Republicans have held the White House 28 years, the Democrats 24," Clinton said. "In those 52 years, our private economy produced 66 million private-sector jobs. So what's the jobs score? Republicans 24 million, Democrats 42 million."
To begin with, the numbers are skewed because of the very large 20.8 million private sector yobs said to have been produced during the Bubba years.

And it needs to be known that in the bulk of the Bubba years ('94 election to the end of his 2nd term in 2001) both the house and senate were REPUBLICAN held.
OK, since we’re playing with stats that may or may not be skewed, and may or may not point to the credit/blame of either party, let’s look at the negative side (recessions) as opposed to the positive (job creation). Since the Great Depression (which, as I’m sure you know, was presided over by Hoover (R), who succeeded another Republican (Coolidge)), there have been 13 economic recessions in the US. The durations of these recessions ranged from 6 months (Jan-Jul 1980, under Carter), to 18 months (Dec 07-Jun 09, under Dubya & Obama), with an average duration of 11 months. Of the 13 recessions, the last (and longest) was the only one that spanned terms of Presidents from different parties. Roughly the first year of it was under Dubya, while the last 6 months were under Obama.

I know, since the economic indicators of recession are lagging, it’s not really fair to assign total blame for a recession on the sitting President, and one should also consider the make-up of Congress at the time and other factors, but let’s try to keep things simple and just look at the numbers.

FDR, Truman, Nixon, and Dubya all presided during one full recession and part of another. Ike is the only President to have sat during the entire duration of two recessions (Jul 1953 – May 1954, and Aug 1957-Apr 1958).

Of the Presidents since Hoover, only two have not presided during recessions – LBJ & Bubba (both Democrats). If we assume (and it may not be a safe assumption) that the time lag of the indicators does not extend to before the term of the sitting President’s immediate predecessor, LBJ’s “success” at not presiding over a recession can’t be credited, even in part, to a Republican, since he succeeded fellow Democrat JFK (who did preside over the Apr 1960-Feb 1961 recession, which began only a few months after he took over the office from Ike, a Republican). Bubba did succeed a Republican (Bush I), so perhaps it could be argued that partial credit for his success can be given to Bush I. The reason I pointed out earlier that Hoover succeeded another Republican is to eliminate the argument that part of the Depression could be blamed on a Democrat if we accept the time lag assumption.

If we apportion “blame” for the most recent recession to the parties who were in office during its duration, we can say about 70% was during Dubya’s administration, and 30% was under Obama’s. The rest, for the sake of simplicity and perhaps at the expense of accuracy, will be fully “credited” to the party of President(s) who were sitting at the time. Two of the recessions spanned different Presidents from the same party – the Feb-Oct 1945 recession was under FDR & Truman, and the Nov 1973-Mar 1975 recession was under Nixon & Ford. Given the assumptions and apportionment, of the 13 recessions, 5.3 occurred under Democrats, and 7.7 occurred under Republicans. The average duration of recessions under Democrats is 10.2 months, and 11.6 under Republicans. This may be meaningless and insignificant, but those are the numbers.

Let’s look at two sets of stats for the recessions – peak unemployment and GDP decline. Before we do, however, let’s take note of the fact that the figures for these stats for the first recession after the Depression are statistical outliers and probably should not be factored into averages. That recession, under FDR, was from May 1937-Jun 1938, and had peak unemployment of 19% and GDP decline of 18.2%. Peak unemployment during recessions since then ranged from 5.2 to 10.8 %. In fact, the GDP decline of 12.7% for the second recession (Feb-Oct 1945, under FDR & Truman), should probably also be considered an outlier. Since then, the range of GDP decline has been 0.3 to 5.1%. For this admittedly meaningless exercise, we should probably also exclude the 5.1% decline, since it occurred during the last recession, under Dubya & Obama, and is therefore difficult to assign fully or proportionately to either party.

So, given everything in the previous paragraph, for those two stats, we’ll consider only the figures for recessions 3-12. Of those 10 recessions (which occurred between Nov 1948 and Nov 2001), three were under Democrats, and seven were under Republicans. The average duration of the three Democratic recessions was 9 months, and for Republicans 11 months. (Overall average for the 10 was 10.4 months.) Average peak unemployment for the 10 recessions was 7.64%, with little difference between the two parties (7.60% for Democrats, 7.66% for Republicans). Average GDP decline for the 10 recessions was 2% (1.83% for Democrats, 2.07% for Republicans).

So what does all this mean as far as determining which party has historically done better regarding the economy? Depends on whom you ask. If I’m Jsc, BSmack, or PSUfan, I build on the argument that Democrats have created more jobs by saying that the only Presidents who haven’t presided during a recession since the Depression have been Democrats, that Republicans have presided over more recessions, and that since the end of WWII, Republican recessions have been more severe (if only slightly) in terms of duration, peak unemployment, and GDP decline. If I’m mvscal, poptart, or 88, I argue that the differences are statistically insignificant, and the factors that should be considered when analyzing the numbers render them completely meaningless. The rest of you can reach your own conclusions.
"I see everything twice!"
User avatar
PSUFAN
dents with meaning
Posts: 18324
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 10:42 pm
Location: BLITZBURGH

Re: Clinton just knocked it out of the park

Post by PSUFAN »

KC Scott wrote:Talk is cheap
Agreed, in spirit - but in fact, all of this convention talk is staggeringly expensive.
Image
King Crimson wrote:anytime you have a smoke tunnel and it's not Judas Priest in the mid 80's....watch out.
mvscal wrote:France totally kicks ass.
User avatar
Smackie Chan
Eternal Scobode
Posts: 7128
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 1:56 pm
Location: Inside Your Speakers

Re: Clinton just knocked it out of the park

Post by Smackie Chan »

Another potential indicator of how well or poorly the economy performs depending on which party is in the Oval Office is the stock market. Again, and as is pointed out in the linked article, the numbers are subject to interpretative debate.
Drummonds cites the results of the Bloomberg Government (or BGOV) barometer, which created a hypothetical $1,000 fund that tracked the S&P 500 (^GSPC) when Democrats sit in the White House versus when Republicans hold the office.

What the barometer reveals is that when tracking only the years a Democrat was president, starting with John F. Kennedy, the fund would now be worth some $10,920, representing an increase of 992%. Comparatively, beginning with Richard Nixon to the last day of George W. Bush’s term, the fund would only have reached $2,087, which represents a relatively paltry gain of 109%.

For the 23 years of Democratic presidencies we’ve had since Kennedy, the S&P-tracking fund would have brought an annualized return of 11%, compared to the 2.7% returned under 28 years of Republicans in the White House.

“The market does tend to do better under Democrats than under Republicans,” Sam Stovall, chief investment strategist at S&P Equity Research in New York, told Bloomberg. “Is it because Republicans mishandled the economy, or inherited a weak economy? I’ll leave that to others.”

Stovall does note that every post-WWII Republican president has faced a recession in his first term in the Oval Office (“Nine of 11 recessions that began since 1945 -- and seven of eight since Kennedy ran for president in 1960 -- started with Republicans in the Oval Office,” notes Drummond), which would go a long way in demonstrating that it was exogenous factors and not specific partisan presidential policies that affected the performance of the stock market.

While the sample size used in this study is probably too small for the results to have any significant meaning, it should at least put to rest any notion still out there that Democrats are in any way anti-capitalist.
http://www.minyanville.com/mvpremium/20 ... ch-better/
"I see everything twice!"
User avatar
Sirfindafold
Shit Thread Alert
Posts: 2939
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 4:08 pm

Re: Clinton just knocked it out of the park

Post by Sirfindafold »

Jsc810 wrote:Clinton made an incredible speech, absolutely amazing.
Too bad nobody watched it.
jiminphilly
2014 JFFL Champion
Posts: 4553
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 1:59 pm

Re: Clinton just knocked it out of the park

Post by jiminphilly »

KC Scott wrote: I was in Ohio Tues night

What part? I was in Columbus last week.. I also had the opportunity to meet quite a few small business owners. I could see Ohio going for Romney if the sentiment I heard among those people is indicative of how the majority of Ohio may vote..
User avatar
Mikey
Carbon Neutral since 1955
Posts: 29802
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 6:06 pm
Location: Paradise

Re: Clinton just knocked it out of the park

Post by Mikey »

Reading these threads is giving me a serious case of A Apolitical Blues
(the meanest blues of all)
User avatar
Smackie Chan
Eternal Scobode
Posts: 7128
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 1:56 pm
Location: Inside Your Speakers

Re: Clinton just knocked it out of the park

Post by Smackie Chan »

Stovall does note that every post-WWII Republican president has faced a recession in his first term in the Oval Office (“Nine of 11 recessions that began since 1945 -- and seven of eight since Kennedy ran for president in 1960 -- started with Republicans in the Oval Office,” notes Drummond), which would go a long way in demonstrating that it was exogenous factors and not specific partisan presidential policies that affected the performance of the stock market.
To elaborate on this point, of the 11 recessions since the end of 1945, five of them began within the first year of a new President's first term. In four of those five cases, it was a Republican succeeding a Democrat; the only case of it being the other way around was JFK's recession beginning about two months after succeeding Ike. The rest were:

Ike's first recession beginning ~5 months after succeeding Truman
Nixon's beginning ~10 months after succeeding LBJ
Reagan's beginning ~5 months after succeeding Carter
Dubya's beginning ~1 month after succeeding Bubba

This can be looked at a couple of different ways. Were those recessions the result of policies/economic factors inherited from the outgoing Prez? Or were they the result of changes made by the new Prez? In JFK's & Dubya's cases, it would be hard to argue the latter, since they'd only been in office for ~ a month or two before recession kicked in. Conversely, in Nixon's case, it may not be fair to impute blame for a recession that began ~ 10 months after he took office on LBJ.
"I see everything twice!"
User avatar
Derron
Eternal Scobode
Posts: 7644
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 5:28 pm
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: Clinton just knocked it out of the park

Post by Derron »

BSmack wrote:Best Democratic orators of my lifetime.

1. Mario Cuomo/ Loud obnoxious wop.
2. Bill Clinton / Monica Lewinsky orated him well.
3. Ted Kenedy / Mary Jo Kopeckne orated Ted and he drove off a bridge.
4. Jessie Jackson / Get in front of a TV camera for any reason.
5. Barack Obama / as long as a teleprompter is around.
FTFY.

Great bunch of bullshit artists anyway.
Derron
Screw_Michigan wrote: Democrats are the REAL racists.
Softball Bat wrote: Is your anus quivering?
User avatar
mvscal
Blank
Posts: 12040
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 4:14 am

Re: Clinton just knocked it out of the park

Post by mvscal »

Smackie Chan wrote:To elaborate on this point, of the 11 recessions since the end of 1945, five of them began within the first year of a new President's first term. In four of those five cases, it was a Republican succeeding a Democrat; the only case of it being the other way around was JFK's recession beginning about two months after succeeding Ike. The rest were:

Ike's first recession beginning ~5 months after succeeding Truman
Nixon's beginning ~10 months after succeeding LBJ
Reagan's beginning ~5 months after succeeding Carter
Dubya's beginning ~1 month after succeeding Bubba

This can be looked at a couple of different ways. Were those recessions the result of policies/economic factors inherited from the outgoing Prez? Or were they the result of changes made by the new Prez? In JFK's & Dubya's cases, it would be hard to argue the latter, since they'd only been in office for ~ a month or two before recession kicked in. Conversely, in Nixon's case, it may not be fair to impute blame for a recession that began ~ 10 months after he took office on LBJ.
Why don't you check back in when you get a better handle on the Federal budget process.

Since you seem to enjoy sucking patchouli scented libtard nutsack maybe you can explain how not passing a Federal budget since April of 2009 (and that one was seven months late) is the kind of responsible fiscal stewardship which will allegedly, at some as yet undetermined point in the distant future, result in some vague positive outcome? "Mr. Ace Compromise" can't even get his own fucking party to bring a budget to a vote in the Senate. That's leadership?

Romney almost certainly doesn't have the right answer but that is an improvement over the current administration which beyond any shadow of a doubt has no answers at all and a track record of unmitigated failure. Anyone even considering voting for the bluegummed Kenyan faggot is a certifiable moron. I will enter every single one of his supporters on this forum into evidence.
Screw_Michigan wrote: Fri Apr 05, 2019 4:39 pmUnlike you tards, I actually have functioning tastebuds and a refined pallet.
BSmack
2005 and 2010 JFFL Champion
Posts: 29339
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 2:21 pm
Location: Lookin for tards

Re: Clinton just knocked it out of the park

Post by BSmack »

Derron wrote:
BSmack wrote:Best Democratic orators of my lifetime.

1. Mario Cuomo/ Loud obnoxious wop.
I've had the chance to check out Mario's act in person back when he was governor. In a room of 1000 people, he's even more impressive. He pwns anybody I've ever seen from either party.
"Once upon a time, dinosaurs didn't have families. They lived in the woods and ate their children. It was a golden age."

—Earl Sinclair

"I do have respect for authority even though I throw jelly dicks at them.

- Antonio Brown
User avatar
Smackie Chan
Eternal Scobode
Posts: 7128
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 1:56 pm
Location: Inside Your Speakers

Re: Clinton just knocked it out of the park

Post by Smackie Chan »

mvscal wrote:Why don't you check back in when you get a better handle on the Federal budget process.
Oh, I'd say (not terribly proudly) that given the facts that I've been a Federal civil servant since '85, a Fed Gov't employee since '78, with Defense Acquisition Workforce Level III certifications in Program Management and Lifecycle Logistics, and Level I certification in Business and Financial Management, I have a better handle on the Federal budget process than ~ 99% of the posters here, which, admittedly, may not be saying much. But your concern is appreciated.
Since you seem to enjoy sucking patchouli scented libtard nutsack
On what are you basing this? I've simply posted articles & figures available in the public domain, and left whatever conclusions are to be drawn from them up to the reader. I've intentionally been unbiased and nonpartisan in my limited analysis.
maybe you can explain how not passing a Federal budget since April of 2009 (and that one was seven months late) is the kind of responsible fiscal stewardship which will allegedly, at some as yet undetermined point in the distant future, result in some vague positive outcome? "Mr. Ace Compromise" can't even get his own fucking party to bring a budget to a vote in the Senate. That's leadership?
Maybe I could, but that wasn't the point of anything I posted, which was more up your alley - history. I haven't mentioned Romney at all, and only mentioned Obama regarding the recession over which he partly presided. Perhaps, since you're our acknowledged historian and self-proclaimed expert on all things government, explain the numbers I've presented and tilt them toward being the fault of Democratic policies and actions. And while you're at it, why not present facts and figures that show Democratic Presidents historically having an adverse impact on the economy relative to Republicans.
Anyone even considering voting for the bluegummed Kenyan faggot is a certifiable moron. I will enter every single one of his supporters on this forum into evidence.
Even though you don't explicitly include me among them, if lumping me in with them was your tacit intent, link me up to where I've shown support, or indicated that I'll be voting for, the incumbent.
"I see everything twice!"
User avatar
mvscal
Blank
Posts: 12040
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 4:14 am

Re: Clinton just knocked it out of the park

Post by mvscal »

Smackie Chan wrote:
mvscal wrote:Why don't you check back in when you get a better handle on the Federal budget process.
Oh, I'd say (not terribly proudly) that given the facts that I've been a Federal civil servant since '85, a Fed Gov't employee since '78, with Defense Acquisition Workforce Level III certifications in Program Management and Lifecycle Logistics, and Level I certification in Business and Financial Management, I have a better handle on the Federal budget process than ~ 99% of the posters here, which, admittedly, may not be saying much. But your concern is appreciated.
Then you should know that spending is (or should be) locked in for a President's first year and point out that fact.
On what are you basing this? I've simply posted articles & figures available in the public domain,


It's based on you posting propaganda designed for consumption by low functioning cretins.
Perhaps, since you're our acknowledged historian and self-proclaimed expert on all things government, explain the numbers I've presented and tilt them toward being the fault of Democratic policies and actions.


Is it my responsibility to explain something as simple as correlation does not equal causation? For this boilerplate propaganda to have any credibility whatsoever, it would necessarily include specific links to the Republican and Democrat policies which led to these numbers if indeed there is any connection to made at all.
And while you're at it, why not present facts and figures that show Democratic Presidents historically having an adverse impact on the economy relative to Republicans.


Have you been asleep for the last three and half years? The higher the tax rate, the higher the cost of regulatory compliance, the higher the drag coefficient on the economy. This is Economics 101.

In any event, past Democratic Presidents are irrelevant just as past Republicans are irrelevant. This is another not so curious distraction from Bath House Barry's dismal record of failure and stupidity.
Even though you don't explicitly include me among them, if lumping me in with them was your tacit intent, link me up to where I've shown support, or indicated that I'll be voting for, the incumbent.
You're carrying his water right here, so if the shoe fits...
Screw_Michigan wrote: Fri Apr 05, 2019 4:39 pmUnlike you tards, I actually have functioning tastebuds and a refined pallet.
User avatar
mvscal
Blank
Posts: 12040
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 4:14 am

Re: Clinton just knocked it out of the park

Post by mvscal »

Jsc810 wrote:Costco Founder Says Obama Better for Business Than Romney

Companies need “a president who takes the long view and makes the tough decisions,” said Sinegal, who remained on the board of the largest U.S. warehouse-club chain after retiring as its chief executive officer in January. “That’s why I am here tonight supporting President Obama, a president making an economy built to last.”
Oh...OK. Please identify the "tough decisions" that have been made which will result in an "economy built to last." I must have missed all of those. He hasn't even met with his own fucking jobs commission in well over six months. Yeah, that's a real, take the bull by the horns, tough minded approach right there.

Good God, you're a credulous dipshit.
Screw_Michigan wrote: Fri Apr 05, 2019 4:39 pmUnlike you tards, I actually have functioning tastebuds and a refined pallet.
User avatar
LTS TRN 2
I suck Jew cock
Posts: 8802
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 7:42 pm
Location: Here

Re: Clinton just knocked it out of the park

Post by LTS TRN 2 »

Well I've never supported Barry on anything--and I'm quite pissed at his capitulation to all things Wall St and AIPAC, etc. (

BUT...if you think the robot twins are anything less than a hundred times worse, then you've been drinking the Koch Kool Aid way too much. It's clearly the lesser of evils and the thought of the Mormon money worshiping loon and his teen-age Ayn Rand fan getting into the most powerful office in the West is unthinkable.

As far as Barry's stated positions, I certainly support his clear opposition to the Citizens United ruling--and how can any one possibly support it? And of course he can't move on it.
Before God was, I am
User avatar
Felix
2012 JAFFL Champ
Posts: 9268
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 2:37 pm
Location: probably on a golf course

Re: Clinton just knocked it out of the park

Post by Felix »

mvscal wrote: The higher the tax rate, the higher the cost of regulatory compliance, the higher the drag coefficient on the economy. This is Economics 101.

how low do you want taxes to be? Right now taxes are at the lowest marginal rate in 60 years.....the CBO estimates that federal taxes would consume just 14.8 percent of G.D.P. this year....how much lower should they be?

regulatory compliance is a bitch, but better we pay a few more dollars and have less nitrates and carcinogens dumped into our water systems.....if you don't like it, move to fucking China
get out, get out while there's still time
User avatar
poptart
Quitty McQuitface
Posts: 15211
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 1:45 pm

Re: Clinton just knocked it out of the park

Post by poptart »

BSmack wrote:
Y2K wrote:
Barry is said to have added 332,000 private sector jobs.
and it only took several trillion dollars to do it, the man is a god. :lol:
Considering the financial collapse sucked more than that out of the global economy, I'd say he's aces.
Aces, huh?

How is our 16 trillion dollar debt supposed to be paid back?
User avatar
Mikey
Carbon Neutral since 1955
Posts: 29802
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 6:06 pm
Location: Paradise

Re: Clinton just knocked it out of the park

Post by Mikey »

poptart wrote: Aces, huh?

How is our 16 trillion dollar debt supposed to be paid back?
Pray a lot. That should do it.
User avatar
Derron
Eternal Scobode
Posts: 7644
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 5:28 pm
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: Clinton just knocked it out of the park

Post by Derron »

Smackie Chan wrote: The rest of you can reach your own conclusions.
You mind condensing that government blow job story down a bit so it can be read in less than 1/2 an hour...
Derron
Screw_Michigan wrote: Democrats are the REAL racists.
Softball Bat wrote: Is your anus quivering?
User avatar
mvscal
Blank
Posts: 12040
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 4:14 am

Re: Clinton just knocked it out of the park

Post by mvscal »

Felix wrote:how low do you want taxes to be? Right now taxes are at the lowest marginal rate in 60 years.....the CBO estimates that federal taxes would consume just 14.8 percent of G.D.P. this year....how much lower should they be?


I'm advocating spending cuts to achieve a balanced budget within the duly specified framework of the United States Constitution. I'm not advocating tax cuts with the exception of the corporate income tax which should be eliminated altogether. It is a hidden tax on the consumer and those monies are better retained for use at the points of sale than forwarded to DC.

Odd how the neo-hippy "locavore" movement is great for everything except government which they evidently prefer to source to a "factory farm" thousands of miles away that could give a fuck about their concerns and interests.

Personally, I believe that local is superior for a community in business and government as well as produce. Far from being some archaic relic of the past, a decentralized federal republic has never been more important or more relevant than at any point in history since the advent of the Classical Greek poleis.
regulatory compliance is a bitch, but better we pay a few more dollars
If only it were a "few more dollars," you might have a point. Maybe what you meant to say is that it's better than we pay a few more BILLIONS of dollars? Is there any upper limit to regulation in your view? It's pay up or....? So what will your busy little bureau of regulators regulate after they have regulated their present quarry into bankruptcy? Will they just go away or will they find something else to over-regulate?

If the negligent actions of a corporation damage the persons or pecuniary interests of individuals and those actual damages can be proven in a court of law, are they not liable to civil and possibly criminal penalty? Make those penalties severe enough and business will police itself in its own enlightened self-interest if no other reason. Having an enormous government bureaucracy hovering over them is only adding to the cost to the consumer/taxpayer hence the drag on the economy.

America is a nation of morbidly obese slobs and that includes our government. Our Republic is completely off the rails.
Screw_Michigan wrote: Fri Apr 05, 2019 4:39 pmUnlike you tards, I actually have functioning tastebuds and a refined pallet.
Post Reply