View Single Post
Old 01-17-2007, 07:46 PM   #9 (permalink)
foundit66
Senator
 
foundit66's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 5,836
Points: 18,394, Level: 86
Points: 18,394, Level: 86 Points: 18,394, Level: 86 Points: 18,394, Level: 86
Level up: 9%, 456 Points needed
Level up: 9% Level up: 9% Level up: 9%
Activity: 0%
Activity: 0% Activity: 0% Activity: 0%
foundit66 is offline
Reply With Quote
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jefferson View Post
You need to get your information from somewhere other then MoveOn.org.
What takes place today, economically, does not bear out its full brunt for several years. Anybody that knows anything about macro-economics knows that.
A lot of the issues have long-term effects.
Some are incredibly short-term.
Take the dot-com bust that happened under Clinton's administration when all the internet stock dropped virtually simultaneously. The 9/11 effect on the economy.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Jefferson
And the fact STILL remains that Clinton inherited an extremely strong economy - which he subsequently taxed to death. And if it wasn't for the temporary "dot.com" boom of the 90s, Clinton's tax increases would have led to a DEPRESSION instead of just a RECESSION.
Again, FALSE.
Clinton inherited Bush Sr's RECESSION.

"It soon turned out that the quick recovery was illusory, and by 1990, economic malaise had returned. For the next several years high unemployment, massive government budgetary deficits, and slow Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth affected the United States until late 1992 and Canada until 1995."
Late 1980s recession - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's funny (and telling) how you keep referring to it as REAGAN'S boom, ignoring the fact that there was ANOTHER PRESIDENT that was in office during that time.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Jefferson
But any way you ultra-liberals spin it, the American economy was in a recession when Clinton left office. It didn't get that way overnight.
"you ultra-liberals"? Feh.
I personally remember Clinton and Gore trying to claim that the economy was fine at the end of his presidency. Pure Bullsh!t.
But considering YOUR nature Jefferson, you'll never admit to what I just said.

Are you now going to insist for post after post that I didn't just admit the economy wasn't doing well at the end of Clinton's presidency?
--------------------------------------------------------

I'm just going to requote the stuff you couldn't address last time...

Geezus Christ! It's amazing how black is white and up is down and conservatives can be given credit for the sun rising in the east, but the fact that the sun has to set is obviously the fault of the liberal...

George Bush's "economic" situation can be given credit to the IMMENSE SPENDING he has done on the WAR.
Not his fricken "tax cuts".
If you pump as much money into the economy as he has, OF COURSE the economy is going to boom.

Hell, I could walk out tomorrow with George Bush's "economic plan", and spend thousands on credit cards. Hey everybody, look at me! I am "economically booming" because there is a lot of cash flowing around me. Look at my success!

But the truth is that George Bush is spending money he doesn't have.
Operating off of a deficit is harmful. And while it isn't the only factor involved, it does harm the status quo.
"(Gay marriage) is a debate about whether you think gay people are part of the human condition or just a random fetish."
-- Jon Stewart
"Please don't judge others by your own standards."
-- Garysher