Politics
Clinton Heckled in Blue New York, Says Half of Republicans Need Psychiatric Help
- Posted on October 12, 2010 at 12:09pm by
Naked Emperor News
- Print »
- Email »
Popular Stories
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 676 Comments
‘Jumah at the DNC’ Speaker: ‘Muslims Visited America Prior to Columbus’ & ‘It Was a Muslim’ Who Guided Him to the ‘New World’ 527 Comments
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 396 Comments
Obama: RNC Like Watching ‘Black-and-White TV’ Because Romney ‘Did Not Offer a Single New Idea’ 369 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 327 Comments
Faith
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 262 Comments- Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More
- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 273 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 136 Comments- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 147 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 300 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 262 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (592)
LastManStanding1
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 12:35pmYeah, he did all those good things with a Republican Congress….Whose got Amnesia now?
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 1:18pmGOP Congress under Clinton was largely the GOP Congress under Bush, so what happened? If those guys are so fiscally responsible, then what happened? Also, Clinton cut spending in his first two years when the Congress was controlled by Dems. How did that happen? And why is it that the most fiscally responsible President in the last 60 years (Nixon) is worse than the least fiscally responsible Democrat over the same period (Carter)? Obama, when he completes his term will be worse than Carter, but far better than Bush–unless you believe the nonsense about how spending on unemployment checks and fiscal stimulus is “discretionary” spending. When optional wars like the one in Iraq are called non-discretionary, while efforts to stop the next Great Depression are called discretionary, you know that the Republicans are spinning with their propagandist language again.
Report Post »ConservativeFeminist
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 1:31pmReply to ABC – The Tea Party is “what happened” – they have vowed to place Republicans and Democrats back on a pro-Constitutional path to limited government, fiscal responsibility, and free markets.
Report Post »restless 1
Posted on October 13, 2010 at 12:31pmABC, you are a typical *******: long on wind, short on facts. The 106th Congress started with a 55-45 republican majority in the senate. The next Congress was 50-50. The House never had more than a member advantage for the republicans. Also, Newt was gone.
The 0 has spent more in less than two years than Bush spent in eight. Care to square that one?
Report Post »Brother Lud
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 3:07am9-11 is what happened. Our country stopped moving for several days. If a major highway in California stops moving it costs hundreds of thousands per hour. What does it cost the US government per day? How can you talk about Bush and not talk about 9-11? C’mon, have a serious conversation and maybe some truth can be had by all.
Report Post »Pnxgld
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 12:35pmWhat is it about most of the leading Libs; claiming to be tolerant, care, just be trying to help everyone? Yet for the most part; lies, manipulation, decite about the goals, & preservation if not expansion of their power is all they ever do! I do know a couple flaming Libs that are very nice people. They don’t try & force their view on anyone though & don’t belive it should be!
Report Post »Helen-of-Joy
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 3:41pmLiberals’ are like bad family members. They treat you bad one day and love you the next — so long as you are of use to them.
Republicans are like friends, your family of choice. They respect your boundaries, expect to be paid back for a loan, tell you the truth because they know you need to hear it.
Or so it seems.
Report Post »restless 1
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 12:34pmClinton never had a budget surplus. Never. They borrowed against Social Security, thus moving the public debt to intergovernmental debt.
Report Post »unionrockstar
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 12:58pmYou are absolutley 100% right on the money.
Report Post »A surplus never existed
mickgoblin
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 12:34pmThis is hilarious!!!
http://weeklyworldnews.com/politics/22835/hillary-clinton-possessed/
Report Post »Appaulled
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 1:15pmThat is hillarious!
Report Post »Hillary looked a little “ridden hard & put away wet” lately.
Iamtheoracle
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 12:33pmO he is a funny fellow – and certainly the pot calling the kettle black ( mentally ill)
Report Post »vic138
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 1:25pmAs I remember the left was angry at gw bush for 8 years. Does that make them 8 times as mentally ill as the republicans now (considering we’ve been really angry for the past 1 year)?
Report Post »unionrockstar
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 4:07pmYou must keep in mine the Lefts definition of mentally ill.
Report Post »Anyone who disagrees with them
unionrockstar
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 12:32pmCome on Slick Willie;
Report Post »We all know why you had a balanced budget; (Republican Congress) forced it on you.
And we all know you never ever had a true surplus. Every last part of that lie was the result of fussy math. You spent OUR Social Security Fund instead of public funds. There never was an account marked as surplus funds. In my house if I have debt and my liquid assets do not exceed my total debt. Then guess what? NO SURPLUS.
Am I reasoning wrong?
Can I just forget my total debt and use every pay check for a SURPLUS?
By the way; I don’t know how many of you guys depend on Social Security. However, since seniors will not get a cost of living raise for the second year in a row. Congress had better not received either.
Since they are or should be recieving increases based on cost of living just as we are/
If they do indeed get a raise; I say we raise a little ………………………….you know what I mean.
abc
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 1:14pmYour reasoning is indeed wrong, since you asked.
1. Clinton started cutting spending BEFORE the GOP retook Congress in his third year
2. Federal budget accounting would show, if Clinton had “raided” Social Security, which is not a fund but a pay as you go system with nothing in the bank to raid, by showing offsetting debt; however, there is no such debt, so either you are saying that the entire government and outside independent economists committed fraud or you have no idea what you are talking about. If you are claiming that the US Treasurer and Fed Chairman should be indicted for fraud, you really do need professional help.
3. We know what the GOP Congress wanted back then, which was not balanced budgets but a hamstrung Presidency. Proof? As soon as Clinton was out and Bush was in, those same guys blew an absolute hole in the budget, so your claims of their fiscal rectitude fly in the face of factual reality.
Report Post »Psychosis
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 1:28pmABC you mind showing proof? how about linking thta budget………………oh ya you cant cause it says the opposite ………………..lol you a troll
Report Post »Prospero
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 3:26pmABC blathers mindlessly: “Clinton started cutting spending BEFORE the GOP retook Congress in his third year”
Sure he did, we all know how much Democrats are always cutting spending.
Kindly link to the evidence that Clinton cut anything….anything at all….
Report Post »unionrockstar
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 3:55pmOne thing we do know;
Report Post »The White House had to be refurnished after Bill and Hill loaded up all the furniture.
Of course they were intitled.
Contrarianthinker
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 10:19pmProsporo, you love to attack anyone who disagrees with you. I haqve had you attack me on at least two occasions and I’m a Constitutionalist. What’s your problem? Maybe Clinton is right about some here on the Blaze?
Report Post »Contrarianthinker
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 10:21pmABC, I truly apprecaite having your perspective. Please recognize that being charged as a TROLL is a last resort. You‘ve made it plain to me that you’re a progressive who has given thought to his/her positions. Please don’t leave. OK?
Report Post »EP46
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 12:29pmThis is what Clinton did …he raised taxes…he was fortunate to be president when the dotcom bubble hit and there was lots of money being made….he sent all our manufacturing jobs to China…remember this started with him and his China deal. Then the republican congress took over and saved him….if we all remember correctly, we KNOW what he did as president.
Report Post »Awakenow
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 12:38pmI remember he was the one that made the word blow..b acceptible among elementary school kids,
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 1:10pmThis is nonsense. The outsourcing happened in the 60s in Japan, and that model then spread to Taiwan and Korea, later to Thailand, Indonesia and Malaysia, later to China and Vietnam. There is a literature large enough to fill a moderately sized public library on the subject, but you ignore it to make a spurious claim that fits your (narrow and uninformed partisan views). What a joke!
The claim about tax hikes being luckily timed is also stupidly off-base. The supply side conservatives love to brag that Reagan cut taxes and then created 12 million jobs, thereby proving the Laffer curve correct. But the next decade proved it wrong. First, Bush Sr. raised taxes and then Clinton raised taxes and more than 30 million jobs were created. The time between the Reagan tax cuts and job growth was 18 months, while the time between Clinton’s tax hike and the 27 million jobs he created was less than 9 months. If Laffer and th conservative supply siders are right, then history should not have played out this way. Meanwhile, the following decade obliterated the supply side nonsense once again, as Bush Junior cut taxes by 400 basis points or more and skewed those cuts away from the middle class to the top tier, and then presided over essentially zero job growth during his 8 years in office, all the while building a huge national debt, which, when properly accounted for, added up to $35 TRILLION to the national debt (those figures from Republican Pete Peterson). That you believe this story means that you haven’t looked at any of the numbers. And those who refuse to run the math are doomed to talk nonsense. Nice Nonsense. I hope you have a parachute to bail out when the supply siders produce Act III or their tragic farce.
Report Post »Pelosis_Nemesis
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 1:38pmClinton = A$$ CLOWN
Report Post »kmichaels
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 7:42pmI don’t know but to me it seems kind of stupid for ABC to think that job creation is controlled by raising taxes. Read his posts. So and so raised taxes and therefore millions of jobs were created. What a dufus. And no need arguing his points. He just makes up more lies to replace his previous lies. He’s a moron at best and a liar at worst.
Report Post »Contrarianthinker
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 10:26pmABC, JFK cut taxes and jobs were created. Is that proof enough?
Yes, there are times when taxes can be raised and it does create jobs. Depe3nd where the proceedsw of these taxes are used.
Supply side economics is a THEORY just like Keyensian economics is a theory. IF I had to choose between the two, IMO supply side is better. I don’t because I choose to think that Austrian Economics best explains human economic behavior. I would suggest that to broaden your perspective, you read Von Hayek’s, “Road to Serfdom.” FWIW, Hayek won a Nobel Prize in Economics. OK?
Report Post »Contrarianthinker
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 10:28pmABC, I’m curioius. Sounds like you have a degree in Economics and/or do a great deal of reading in economics/political theory? Please share.
Report Post »RightPolitically
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 12:27pmPsychiatric help? Well, he ought to know!
Report Post »halfbrain
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 12:27pmHow come you don’t see former Republican Presidents in the news? The former Democrat presidents are like roaches, they just don’t go away.
Report Post »mutt
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 12:32pmIn Clinto’s case – Bedbugs
Report Post »Goldenyears22
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 7:46pmYou are right. Carter loves to be in the news, Clinton is always there somewhere, he or his wife. Obama is forever on TV. You are so right they just don’t go away.
Report Post »Blazergirl
Posted on October 13, 2010 at 9:37pmYou mean body lice (crabs)
Report Post »powhatan
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 12:27pmIf it wasn’t so pathetic, it would be funny
Report Post »Awakenow
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 12:26pmAlthough I disagree, he should know but then it depends on what your definition of is is.
Report Post »AndrewOH
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 12:26pmclinton lies.
Report Post »LSX
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 1:38pmClinton lies –
Monica – cries -
Clinton is trying to change history. He’s already got ABC brainwashed.
.
Report Post »pajamash
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 12:25pmNo Mr. President! You worked for us!! You need to listen to us!!!
Report Post »Alvin691
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 12:24pmThe great fornicator
Report Post »TheWidowsSon
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 12:23pmClinton was successful because he presided over a REPUBLICAN congress….had he presided over a Democratic congress we would have entered todays calamity 10 years earlier….get over yourself Clinton….your not all that !!!!!!!!
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 1:03pmIf that is true, then why did spending start to come down before the GOP took over Congress in year 3 of his Presidency? So who masterminded the fiscal responsibility? Two words: Robert Rubin. He insisted that deficits needed to be reigned in at the exact time that Greenspan, Laffer, Feldstein, Gingrich and Cheney were all chanting the deficits-don’t-matter mantra. Like Orwell noted, he who can rewrite history controls the political world. It is pathetic to watch conservatives try to control the political world.
Report Post »Psychosis
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 1:18pmlol ABC IS BACK and is spewing his ignorance and non facts again………….GO AWAY ABC YOU TROLL
Report Post »firstHat
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 1:58pmABC, if you wish to play demagogue, you best learn to spell or get your metaphors fixed. I believe you meant that Clinton “reined in.” He didn’t “reign” as King, except perhaps in his own enlarged head. But as I recall it Clinton’s efforts to rein in spending only came after the Republican legislature (and voting public) forced him into the famous “pivot” during his administration.
In the end Laffer and company were correct when you parse out the time periods. You are playing fast and loose with your timeline.
I WILL give you this: no administration, neither Repub or Dem, has really had enough power or chutzpa to cut spending the way it needs to be cut. Reagan never had the backing to do what he wanted to do and he was too trusting when making deals with the Dems.
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 2:39pmFirstHat, sorry for the misspelling. When you type fast without a spell checker, you make mistakes. Luckily, there is little correlation between occassional misspellings and intelligence. More importantly, perhaps you could do more than merely assert your opinion as fact that Laffer was proven right. Without further proof, you hardly have rebutted any of my claims. Finally, the assertion that we need to cut government more than what is politically possible is not a viable strategy. You have to live in the real world and offer workable solutions. Else, you are living in the fantasy world. You cannot just assume that which has proven to be impossible is magically possible. That makes you look foolish.
Report Post »M31Sailor
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 5:31pmSeems to me you type very fast with no thinking
Insert stupid comment below
Report Post »Contrarianthinker
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 10:30pmPsychosis, your name is very appropriate. How do you like to have an adhominum attack? Please rememebr the Golden Rule.
Report Post »vault214
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 12:22pmclinton says were angry, yet he is trying to provoke a war.
Report Post »GOTT-EM-MAUSER
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 1:10pmSlick Willie knows all too well that they need a “War” as in “Civil” to give them the cover for all the financial hijinks they’ve pulled since Roosevelt started us down the road to Communism. He did everything he could as President to get the “Right” to start it, including blowing up the Murrah Building in OKC, with McVeigh as the Patsy.
The Communists continually try to provoke the Right into starting the SHTF event, and it just baffles them that nobody has jumped yet. They would have long ago if the positions had been reversed. What has them scared to death, is that the Economy is now driving the time table, and they can’t control it anymore. So Willie keeps singing, hoping against hope that we’ll blink. Good luck with that “Pecker Head”!!
Report Post »RONALDREAGAN1980
Posted on October 13, 2010 at 12:03amGott-Em-Mauser You are clearly delusional if you are blaming Clinton for blowing up the federal building in OKC. Maybe if you spent a little less time listening to conspiracy theories being spouted by your half-drunk, leather-clad, skinhead punk friends that you’d secretly like to see naked, then you would stand a chance. In the meanwhile, make some sort of threat involving a sniper attack like you usually do. Lay off the crystal meth and go see a shrink, dude.
blue eyed devil
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 12:19pmBill Clinton, What a fool!
Report Post »They called him a Racist and shoot his wife down from being President. I would like to know what they have on him that keeps him cheering for OBAMA.
Contrarianthinker
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 10:17pmBlue eyed. great and fair question. Here’s my theory.
Hillary brought up that Obama was NOT natural born in one of the DP debates. Never brought it up again. WHY?
Obama and Company likely warned her that if she did this again, that when Obama was POTUS he would prosecute Bill and Hillary with a number of criminal charges.. B+H had plenty of skeletons in their closet.
BUT ,also an olive branch was offered to Hillary. Keep quiet and I’ll make you SEC of State. That is a BIIIIG position since foreign policy experience is an important trait to have to run for POTUS.
I guess we’ll never know IF my theory is right. BUT… the puzzle is solved about why the DP didn‘t vet Obama’s citizenship status. Hillary would then likely have been the DP POTUS candidate. FOLKS, THERE IS MUCH EVIL IN DC IN BOTH THE GOP AND DP. No one in the GOP would challenge Obama’s citizen status. SHAME ON BOTH YOUR HOUSES.
Report Post »mgamga022889
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 12:19pmWell that could be true. Any republican that voted for Obama neeDs to have their head examined!
Report Post »Jamestown
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 1:18pmIts not enough to speak truth or work for a living when half breeds seal records lie through their nu.documrn
Report Post »Pegmac
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 12:18pmThis is spoken by the Pervert President….who in Hell is he to judge anyone else.
Report Post »lookn4nrml
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 12:46pmExactly. It is a sad day when this guy is paraded around as someone you should be influenced by. Where’s Al Gore or John Edwards? Oh wait, let’s not be crazy.
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 12:59pmHere’s a good one…. Let‘s say you’re on a desert island with a 12-year-old Boy Scout and a pervert, Harvard-trained MD. You get really sick. Who do you want to treat you? Lesson: just because he‘s a pervert doesn’t logically mean that everything he says is untrue or that he is not expert on certain subjects. Only a child would reason in the way that you do.
angrymob
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 1:24pmRight on!
Report Post »untameable-kate
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 1:30pmI do notice how often the libs refer to conservatives as childish and I have to wonder if they were all indoctrinated by the same person. Personl attacks may be considered as some as ‘childish’?
Report Post »kmichaels
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 7:35pmABC, thankfully, we are not stuck on an island so your pervert on the island is not the only person that can serve us therefore we are not stuck with the only choice of supporting your lying perverted Clinton. As always, you go way out of your way to be stupid and make things more difficult than they need to be.
Report Post »unionrockstar
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 7:42pmABC
Report Post »Thanks but I would deny treatment from a snotty nosed Harvard graduate who probably cheated his way throught school on his parents dime and even then escaped with a D- average.
I would rather just take my chances that a Duke graduate would come to my rescue
That choice would be much better than risking infection from a purvert.
After all we do need professional help
mickgoblin
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 12:17pmClinton didnt do crap to balance the budget. It was supply side economics kicking in from Reagan which theorized it would take 12 to 16 years for the budget to be balanced. And the computer industry. I challenge anyone to find one thing Clinton did to balance the budget???
Report Post »just the facts
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 12:36pmYour correct. Clinton was given a great plan and let it play out. What made him look good was all the short term loans he took out for one reason or the other. At the end, Bush had to repay those loans. That repaying caused the baby recession we saw when he took office. Clinton did no one any favors. In fact, if one goes back and reads just what he actually did, you would find the ‘progressive’ agenda was in full force.
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 12:57pmJustTheFacts–what you wrote is totally false. Did you make it up? If not, who told you such lies? You cannot take out short-term loans that do not count against the budget surplus, so either you are saying that the budget surpluses were fraudulently created, or you have no idea what you are talking about. Either way, the US Treasury, the NBER and a number of independent economic policy groups have the stats to show you that Clinton raised taxes by 400 basis points, created twice the number of jobs that Reagan did, cut spending even before the GOP took over Congress and left the country in its best fiscal shape in 30 years. He exploded the myth that Reagan brought prosperity through supply-side tax cuts, but producing better economic results without following any of it. Go look up the data: employment, GDP growth, inflation data, productivity data… It was 100% better under Clinton than under Reagan. Did he get lucky? Of course, but that doesn’t mean that you cannot modestly raise taxes, cuts spending, close the budget deficit and not entirely gut the social safety net. The conservatives assert otherwise, but they have to ignore the facts to get there. And make up stories that have no truth to them, like your short-term debt nonsense that is so fanciful it requires that you believe Greenspan should be thrown in jail. This is why Clinton makes the comments he does. You have no clue and no desire to stay in reality.
miffed
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 1:28pmABC – soooo what you are saying is the Democratically controlled house and congress since 2006 caused the mess we are in now and it wasn‘t Bush’s fault afterall – because we are now 3.5 years into the Democrat regime and everything sucks. Obama and his party were in control then as now. It‘s therefore Obama’s fault! Can’t have it both ways.
Report Post »Contrarianthinker
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 1:50pmABC, good to have a progressive here with facts to back up his/her arguments. This leads to better understanding a great dialogue. To fully understand does NOT mean you have to agree. BTW, most progressives didn’t like Clinton. He was seen as to middle of the road.
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 2:35pmMIffed, you are definitely aptly named and undoubtedly confused. My prior comment exploded the myth that Clinton didn’t really balance the budget because of budgetary chicanery, which definitely exists, but not to the scale suggested. You will note that I talk about economic history in terms of Presidents rather than Congress when speaking about the budget, since the President has veto power and thus massive negotiating power to get the budget he wants. This has little to do with the financial crisis, whose causes lie mostly outside of government. While SEC (executive branch) oversight was lax and the Fed (executive branch, but supposedly independent) was too loose with monetary policy, and the GECs (legislative branch) helped to syndicate mortgages, the main triggers of the crisis lie with private companies that originated sub-prime crappy loans and aggregated them using non-transparent derivatives, all while private ratings agencies ignored the risks since the perpetrators were paying their salaries. It’s debateable as to exactly how much, but I’d guess a comfortable majority of blame (80%?) lies in the private sector for the crisis. So your comments really make no sense in that context.
Report Post »Prospero
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 3:24pmABC blathers childishly: “I talk about economic history in terms of Presidents rather than Congress”
Yes, just like every other rank amateur know-nothing who’s trying to pretend they have a clue.
Here’s a free clue for you, ABC. Clinton is a pathological liar, and such a virtuoso of deception that the media used to glowingly praise his ability to spin. He is also a misogynist who employs law enforcement types to assist him in degrading and abusing his victims.
To hear him comment on *anyone* else’s mental health is ludicrous.
The facts as we know them, ABC, are that liberalism has failed…*again*…just like under Carter….for exactly the same reasons…and these are now clear to everyone in America. No more media monopoly, sorry, so everyone gets to see what liberals truly are in full technicolor splendor.
You’re going down, probably permanently.
Report Post »Wyoming
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 4:58pmYou are so right ABC – Meanwhile Barney Frank lied to the president and his secretary when he said there is no housing crisis and the banking industry is just fine. No worries!
Report Post »unionrockstar
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 7:18pmProspero;
Report Post »You are absolutely right. Clinton was an excellent liar. A trait the Left slobbers over because of deception, ignorance or outright envy. Remember when he finally let go of the White House gate he was hanging on to and was in the process of finding an office suitable for his taste? He first tried to dupe us out of the most expensive office site he could find in downtown Manhattan. When Congress denied his extravagant request for a penthouse city view office he finally settled for the Harlem office that he milks us for to this day. After finalizing the lease he stood in front of the office building and told a group of Blacks this outrageous figment of his imagination. He said that when he was a college student taking classes abroad he would fly back into LaGuardia Airport with his buddies and they would try to convince him to hang out with them in Manhattan. He then dropped the lie of the century; even for him, when he said no I think I will just go on down to Harlem and hang out because they are my kind of people.
Right Billy; this was in the 1960′s – think about this – a strange white boy wandering around in Harlem.
How far do you think he would have made it before they would drag him into an alley and remove some of his beautiful white teeth?
This guy will never change until he is flat on his back with all ten toes pointing straight up. I’m quite certain he will attempt to convince God that He must have him mixed up with someone else.
FEIN
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 12:16pmCan’t win an arguement with facts and working principles??..then throw out anger and accusations… Why is this not considered “hate speech”?
Report Post »printdesignchicago.com
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 12:39pmbecause it’s a democrat saying it.
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 12:53pmIf 30% of Democrats thought that Bush was not Christian, a terrorist, and rooting for China’s invasion of our shores, would you call those people sane? Look in the mirror, listen to your party’s claims and then tell me that a sizeable portion of your party making such ludicrous statements about Obama do not need professional help.
Report Post »sWampy
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 1:17pmBush never made statements, saying he is embarrassed that the us is a super power, never made remarks about his Muslim faith, never had crosses/flags removed from events he was talking at, never put Muslim interests above Israel/US interests, released his birth certificate, college transcripts and medical records, so the liberals saying those things about Bush would be baseless lies, the conservatives asking them about Obama are logical valid questions all Americans should be asking.
Report Post »Contrarianthinker
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 1:45pmABC, at least at one time Obama was a Muslim. When he went to school in Indonesia, one had to be a citizen and a MUSLIM. BTW, at that time one could NOT be both a citizen of the USA and Indonesia. Obama therefore had to reapply for USA citizenshiop. No record that this was done. I KNOW he was born in Kenya so he is NOT eligible. Even IF I’m wrong, he didn’t reapply for USA citizenship which is required by law.
RULE BY LAW? Do you believe in that?
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 2:27pmContrarianThinker, you disappoint me. First, you cannot KNOW that Obama was born in Kenya, since it is factually incorrect. The papers of record in Hawaii have records of his birth that have been verified by Republican leaders in that state. Second, have you been to Indonesia? Your claim that you need to be a citizen and Muslim to go to school there are not correct, and while Islam is taught in Indonesian schools, the kids receiving that education are not necessarily Muslim. There is a huge Chinese population in Indonesia–I know because I have more than one such friend–who send their kids to those schools without conversion. Heck, the kids just ignore the lessons and then ace the math and science classes. And I also know of US expats who went to Indonesia and could enter the schools there without giving up US citizenship. So you really ought to get your facts straight.
Report Post »unionrockstar
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 4:23pmABC
Report Post »Everytime I scan the posts I see something else that doesn’t make sense
Yes we do need professional help. In the form of Intelligent politicians.
The Left keeps on giving professionals……….however, we do not need professional ecotistical socialist elitist. We most definatley need honest, common sense representatives.
Stick around and after November we will demonstrate the correct way of serving the people rather than someone who looks us in the eye with a million dollar smile while twisting a knife between our shoulder blades.
Contrarianthinker
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 10:06pmABC. Don’t let the personal attacks on you stop you from presenting your position. I apologize for the many snide remarks and ad hominum attacks made upon you. Most of the progresives who come here don’t take the time to present their case and followup when challenged.
First, there are eye witnesses to the fact that he was physically born in Kenya. Some members of his family are among those witnesses. Several ministers have given testimony that he was born in Kenya. None of this has been allowed to be adjudicated because “lack of standing.”
Second, at the time that Obama was in Indonesia, the relationship between the USA and them was very tense. Things have changed. It is easily verifiable that a documnet was signed by Obama’s father that claimed Obama (Barry Sotoro) was an Idonesian citizen and a Muslim. Now if you wish to say that this is a forgery, so be it. I rwalize it’s hard to beleive that anyone would cover such things up let alone a person running for the most powerful office in the world.
Third, no one on the outside has seen THE LONG FORM, ORIGINAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE. If the Certificate of Birth proved he was born in Hawaaii, why has he spent $1+ million to stop ANYONE from seeing it. The Certificate of Birth first posted on the Oboma POTUS campaign website was proven by several document forensic scientists to be a fraud. It was quickly withdrawn from the website.
Do you think given the large number of people who think Obama is NOT a natural born person that should Obama settle the whole issue by showing this LONG FORM, ORIGINAL BC? If no, why?
FYI, the long form BC is made out by the staff of the Doctor in the hospital where a person is born. Usually two to three people sign as witnesses.The parents are brought this document sometimes with foot prints of the baby to sign. They sigtn it too.
The document is then copied and sent to the Office of Vital records. This happened to me and you and everyone else on this list. Also, no record of Obama ever being in ANY Hawaiin Hospital. The main argument against we Bitherrs is that a birth announcement was put in a Hawaain newspaper. This anmnouncement never mentioned the hospital. A little research can easily show that I could have been born in Germany and have a relative place an announcement in the Phil, PA paper.
Just use common sense and there is enough evidence to at least cause any open mioned person to have “reasonable doubt.”
Report Post »TheyTookOurJOBS
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 12:16pmThey took OUR jobs!!
Report Post »aeronut44
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 1:17pmNow that is funny!!!!
Report Post »angrymob
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 1:24pmEven funnier the second time around!
Report Post »BloodSweatandTears
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 2:52pmHey Clinton! Remember the Community Reinvestment Act you signed into law???? of which the unintended (really) consequences were the HOUSING MELTDOWN? And lucky you, you take the credit for the surpluses created by your predecessor, one of those crazy Republicans… And we need our heads examined?
Report Post »Deda1
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 12:15pmWell all the dems need mental evaluations.
Report Post »ILFarmer
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 12:31pmmore like lobotomies.
Report Post »angelcat
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 12:42pmI thought they already had lobectomies based on their ideas.
Report Post »dustyzz
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 12:54pmA classic case of projection.
Report Post »RKade
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 1:15pmDr. Michael Savage created a well-known quote as follows: “Liberalism is a mental disorder”.
He is being proven to be correct.
Report Post »angrymob
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 1:18pmEspecially this one…who knew?
Report Post »Contrarianthinker
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 1:47pmPlease tell me how these posts are any different from what progressives say about Constitutionalists. God help America IF this is what resources that we use to restore our Constitutional Republic.
Report Post »thepatriotdave
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 1:58pmTo ILFarmer,
Excellent idea!
PatriotShops.com
Report Post »BloodSweatandTears
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 2:38pmHey, Go to discoverthenetworks.org to see our future and realize why they are all on the same soros page…..very enlightening….at the bottom you’ll see the 300- 600 billion figure for stimulus and realize why they said they needed a really BIG number, ala Nancy Pelosi…Also the future means no Bush tax cut extensions, entitlements for immigrants, euthanasia, drug(s) not just marijuana legalization, and more feminist organizing stuff. De-militarize etc., Or just exactly what the soro foundation is pushing….Thanks for the heads up soros. And we need our heads examined……
Report Post »drbage
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 4:12pmThe problem stems from the inhalation of all the fumes from the whitewash which they use to cover all their pasts. Sorry, they‘ll need Cass Sunstein’s time machine so they can go back and take lessons from Tom Sawyer.
Report Post »2
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 7:52pmDon’t listen to Sick Willie. He is lower than Whale Crap.
Report Post »TrueGrit
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 12:15pmHow sad they are are becoming.
Report Post »walkwithme1966
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 2:26pmHow sad all of you are!!! http://wp.me/pYLB7-dA
Awakened One
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 2:42pmI would venture that it’s true that half of Republicans do need psychiatric help. Probably more than half the country if you include everyone. But is it any wonder after two years of Obama and his progressive minions having attacked constitutionally guaranteed liberties, imposed socialist programs, and crippled the economy. We need a cure, like the one coming Nov 2.
Report Post »*************************
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 3:33pmBig Wille’s little willie disgraced this nation in the White House (shame on all you losers that voted him in … FOR 2 TERMS!) But, maybe it was because he talks so pretty …
“God darnit, Mr. Lamarr, you use your tongue prettier than a twenty dollar whore.” -boss Taggart, Blazing Saddles
Report Post »CatB
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 9:04pmThe democrat meltdown continues!
Report Post »angrymob
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 5:53am@ Walkwithme1966
I never thought I’d say this but Clinton has reached a new low with this cheap shot. Slick Willy just keeps sliding down that evolutionary scale.
Report Post »mickgoblin
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 12:15pmHe didnt do crap to balance the budget. It was supply side economics kicking in back from Reagan and the computer industry. Fine one thing he did to balance the budget? He didnt do crap!
Report Post »NFYRx
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 12:26pmNothing like having a Republican congress take care of business to make someone look good!
Wonder if he had already chosen a cute campaign worker there to “tea bag ” yet.
Report Post »AngryTexanFromAmarillo
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 12:28pmHe dropped military funding and shut down the so called “star wars” missile defense system that was put in place to stop long range missile attacks.
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 12:51pmFirst, he raised taxes by 400 basis points, which led to TWICE as many jobs created than the 9-12 million that supply siders like Laffer and Kudlow like to credit to Reagan. Of course, he did that without help from the economically-challenged Republican Party. Second, he started cutting spending BEFORE the GOP retook control of Congress, so you cannot say that Clinton wasn’t going to cut spending without help from the “fiscally responsible” Republicans. Which leads to… Third, the Republicans, left to their own devices with control of Congress and the WH for 6 years under Bush absolutely blew a hole in the national debt by creating a structural deficit of 5-7% of GDP by passing unpaid-for tax cuts, after getting rid of Pay-Go that the Democrats supported to balance the budget in the first place. Fourth, you have to understand that Congress is like herding cats, but the President, as a single person, has veto power over the budget, so he should take full blame or credit for what he signs. Clinton got budgets that he wanted and signed them, and so did Bush. However, Clinton put the country on firmer fiscal ground, while Bush ruined Clinton’s accomplishments and left us with little room to maneuver when the 70 year flood of an economic crisis hit. Finally, it is economic fact that since Nixon, the most fiscally responsible Presidential administration on the Republican side is worse than the least fiscally responsible one on the Democratic side (Nixon vs. Carter); the jury is still out on Obama, but adjusting for the measures aimed at stimulus to avert a Depression, his first term will likely fit that pattern as well. It is Orwellian to hear Republicans talk about how fiscally responsible they are since they haven’t shown that kind of discipline since the 1920s.
sWampy
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 1:11pmHow does increasing taxes and the drop in revenue to the government that resulted create jobs?
Report Post »AMLFRANK
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 1:16pmWell ABC you must be speaking Liberal Fact, cus Dude, that is not what happened. Its ok, we will open up the State Mental hospitals for you so you have some place to go!
Liberal – Do the same thing over and over and expect a different result. Who needs Psychiatric Help?
Report Post »ME
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 1:20pmABC is almost a much of a dumb @@@ as Clinton. Yes I am a hate mongering tea-bag freak and compared to the left, proud to be. GB would not be happy but I am sick of these people’s lies and BS and its nice they are having to deal with some decent. One man does not make a government as much as the left would like to believe and push for that the house and senate make the laws budgets the president just signs them. Rapist pig was impeached and should have been removed from office in any company screwing the intern would have got you fired especially if she was what 21 and your 50+ and her boss, I call that rape.
Report Post »slickmeister
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 1:20pmOdd that Clinton takes credit for the Republican revolution led by Newt Gingrich and the Contract With America that reformed welfare, brought government spending under control and forced old Slick Willy to move to the center.
One can only imagine what would have happened had the Dumbocrats held on to Congress. (Well, I guess there really is no need to wonder since we’re witnessing it before our very eyes today…)
Report Post »M31Sailor
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 1:24pmDamn
I just got some more ABC gum on my shoe
Report Post »Sailor
heavyduty
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 1:29pmThis reply is to ABC:
Report Post »First Clinton enjoyed the fruits of what Reagan put in place and rode the wave. Second the Clinton administration didn’t have 9/11 to deal with either. Then hurricane Katrina. So before you go spouting off what Clinton did or didn’t do. Look at the facts. That when Bush left office the unemployment was at 5% that’s pretty good to be facing two wars and a hurricane. Now Obama has killed the oil industry by putting a ban on drilling. He has killed jobs in the private sector and the only reason that the unemployment isn’t higher than it is now. Is because he hired so many for census. Now that those jobs are being cut the real numbers will come out. You really need to go back to CNN and pedal your BS to them. Because Democraps are losers there is no help for stupidity.
C. Schwehr
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 1:32pmTo AngryTexanFromAmarillo: Thank you for reminding me that it was the extreme military cuts which forced me out of the Air Force three years early (the so-called Peace Dividend that bit us in the ass a few years after that).
Report Post »Might I add that these comments come from a CONVICTED PERJURER, AND UNCONVICTED RAPIST!
Contrarianthinker
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 1:37pmABC although I didn’t vote either time for Clinton because of noneconomic reasons, I didn’t vote the GOP candidates either. Dole was exactly like his name said. Bush senior broke his promises about taxes. I voted for the LP candidates both times. Wasted vote? NOT to me.
Clinton did accomplish what you said to his credit. Yes it helped that the GOP took the House and Senate in 1994. Did Reagan ever balance the budget? If fact, his deficirts were the largest ever up to that time. It was Nixon who took away sound currency when he stopped gold backing the dollar. He didn’t have a balanced budget.
What bugs me, however, about his remarks is calling us crazy. Bill, to have the sex drive you have is NOT normal. The risk of putting your whole repututation on the line for sex with an associate is NOT sane thinking. Like Obama, Clinton is also a narcisist but much less so.
Report Post »Contrarianthinker
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 1:41pmWho squandered the Peace Dividend? Clinton wanted to use it to pay down the federal debt. The GOP wanted it to help SS. No one could agree for the good of America so we simply increased the budget. That’s why both the DP and GOP must be replaced with sanity..
Report Post »Prospero
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 1:48pmABC blathers mindlessly: “he raised taxes by 400 basis points, which led to TWICE as many jobs”
First of all, ABC, the Republicans took over the House and Senate two years after his election and held it for the remainder of his term. The President is not empowered to tax or spend, only the Congress is. Kindly get your facts straight.
Secondly, the government cannot create jobs. Only the private sector can. All the money is in the private sector. If your laughable drug-induced hallucinations could be taken seriously, we’d have to assume that raising the tax rate to 100% would produce the most jobs possible….
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 1:51pmSwampy, you missed the point. Taxes cuts or hikes do not easily correlate with job growth or cuts. The economic literature is clear about this, but economic pundits ignore the facts because they know that you don’t know the difference. The point is that you CAN raise taxes in non-recessionary times and still produce healthy economic growth and employment. Balancing the budget during those times is good for the economy, since it lowers long-term interest rates, which is as pro-growth as lower taxes. This is not to say that you can point to a particular job and say the tax hike caused it, but fiscal responsibility and balanced budgets lower the overall corporate cost of credit, which makes capex growth more likely, and which makes job growth more likely. This is in normal times, which we are no longer in, but which we were in during Clinton‘s and most of Bush’s time in office. Got it?
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 1:55pmSlickMeister, that could be true, that Clinton was pushed to the center by Gingrich. It’s definitely at least partially true. But here are two other facts to ponder: 1) Clinton had reformed entitlements while Governor in Arkansas, so it‘s not like he hadn’t done some of it before without the help of Newt; and 2) Clinton could have sabotaged a welfare-reform program rather than choosing to find common ground with Newt; if you‘re going to give Reagan credit for working with Tip O’Neill, then you’ve gotta give Clinton credit for not screwing it up as well. If you don’t, then you look like a partisan and a homey that speaks of economics and policy as he would his beloved NFL football team. And that might be fun, but it is really not staying true to reality.
Report Post »valricoslash
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 1:57pmABC What rope are you smoking? The President has no control over the budget except for veto power. The Republicans backed him into a corner with a much more balance budget than he really wanted, but he signed it anyway because they could override his veto and he knew it. You are correct however, in your assertion that the Republicans, when in full control of both houses and the presidency, spent like drunken sailors, which was their downfall. Think of them as kids. If you were denied candy all your life and all of a sudden you had free reign of the candy store wouldn’t you be a little excessive too. And by the way, the Democrats were spenidng right along with them. Money makes strange bedfellows. Hopefully this time they will get the message. The Tea Partiers are apolitical and would just as easily support a fiscally conservative Democrat as they would a Republican–if they could actually find one. The problem is they currently only have a choice between two evils. However, this may be changing in the future if all members of congress don’t get their crap together and act responsibly with our money. This country was not based on the transfer of wealth but on the principles that any person with hard work can become wealthy if he chooses.
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 1:59pmHeavyDuty, there is no doubt that Bush had it tougher with 9/11 and Katrina. But he pushed through unfunded tax cuts in the middle of a war–something that no democracy has ever done in 200 years. He took a tougher hand and then played it about as stupidly as one could have.
Also, if you are going to soften your criticism of Bush because of 9/11–a terrorist catastrophe that occurred on his watch–then you ought to definitely soften your criticism of Obama who INHERITED the massive financial and economic crisis of ‘07-’09 from Bush. The trouble is that conservatives are not doing this. They repeat Karl Rove’s canard that Obama has overseen the fastest growth in non-discretionary spending in 50 years, which is to call all the steps taken to avert a Great Depression (and prevent massive soup kitchen lines and 20% unemployment and th rest of it) optional, while repeating the claim that the Iraq War was not optional and that it was ok to fund that off-balance-sheet, which means it was not even counted in the already reckless overspending that occurred under his boss, George W.
In short, there is a lot of inconsistency in your position.
FreedomOfSpeech
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 2:03pmThe sheriff’s a {{BONG}}
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 2:11pmContrarianThinker, I agree with your points, including the one about him calling people crazy…but only mostly. I’m conflicted. On the one hand, I think that all politicians coddle voters into thinking that they are smarter and more responsible than they are. They all say, Americans are smart, but we know that our educational attainment is middling at best and near the bottom in important areas of analysis like math and science. We blame the teachers’ unions or the lack of funding for our education problems, although intensive studies by the Dept of Education under both Bush Sr and Clinton have clearly shown that the predominant reason for success or failure in school or beyond is parental involvement–I mean we have definitive empirical evidence showing this. Yet politicians pander to voters rather than telling them that they suck as parents. So I like it when a politician calls out people, average Joe the Plumber types, and tells them that they are so wrong that they are off the reservation. On the other hand, Clinton is a politician, and his honest assessments are being lobbed at the other side. He ought to be telling left wing loonies that we cannot balance the budget without raising retirement ages, cutting back on entitlement programs and the like. But he is no more likely to do this than to hear Boehner and Ryan and Cantor admit that we need tax increases to balance the budget. Look, we get the government we deserve. And, judging by the high level of denial and low command of facts on this site–just like on the liberal sites I visit–we aren’t going to get it anytime soon. The Tea Party is backed by corporate interests that seek to manipulate and coopt, but there are many well-intentioned Tea Party members who happen to have above-average wealth, education, etc. and should be able to be a force for good. But then they put up candidates like Angle and O’Donnell and I ask myself how it is possible to undertake serious reform with such unserious candidates. Real reform has to come from the voters. They need to know more, think better, aspire to realistic compromises, and keep the interests of the large center–rather than those of special interests or minority fringes–at the heart of their concern. I do not see a lot of that going on, so I am very pessimistic. Until I see people talking reasonably, with verified facts and solid logic and the force of credentialled experts behind them, then I will worry that we are still in denial. Former GE CEO Jack Welch, a life-long Republican, said the most important quality for leadership AND for management AND for oversight is seeing things as they are not as you’d like them to be. There are far too few reality checks on the left or the right, but it has to start with voters checking themselves. But if they are unwilling to admit fault when confronted with verified facts that contradict, or to look at recent history and economic realities under an objective lens, then we are toast. Because their votes count the same as those of the informed. This is the greatest weakness of democracy–not tyranny or economic depression or terrorism–you only get a government as good as the quality and intelligence of the average voter.
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 2:13pmValrico, the veto IS power. In Congress, you are one of many trying to herd cats. As President, you threaten to veto and Congressional leadership comes calling to make modifications necessary to overcome it. That is why a President CAN be credited or blamed for fiscal responsibility.
Report Post »Robert W
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 2:14pmWhile its true that somewhere out there is some repubs that need mental help, I submit that all progressives need mental help.
Report Post »ltb
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 2:14pmThe only thing that moron did was try to destroy America just like Obama. The reason Clinton balanced the budget was because he was forced to when Republicans gained control of Congress in ‘94 after Americans realized they had been duped by a lying theif. Balanced budgets were Clinton’s idea?!? Give me a break! When are Americans going to learn that LIBERALS ARE PATHALOGICAL LIARS.
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 2:22pmProspero writes:
“ABC blathers mindlessly: “he raised taxes by 400 basis points, which led to TWICE as many jobs” First of all, ABC, the Republicans took over the House and Senate two years after his election and held it for the remainder of his term. The President is not empowered to tax or spend, only the Congress is. Kindly get your facts straight.”
Prospero conveniently ignores that the threat of veto allows the President to have outsized influence in the budget debate. He also clearly misses my point that spending was cut even before the GOP took over the Congress in Clinton’s third year, so those that say that Democrats needed Republicans or gridlock in general to cut spending are ignoring the facts. But Prospero ignores these facts while making a non-sequitur argument. Typical of him.
“Secondly, the government cannot create jobs. Only the private sector can. All the money is in the private sector. If your laughable drug-induced hallucinations could be taken seriously, we’d have to assume that raising the tax rate to 100% would produce the most jobs possible….”
Hitler’s leader of propaganda, Goebbels, once remarked that if you repeat the lie enough it becomes the truth, and the biggest lies are the easiest to perpetuate. Orwell understood this as well. And apparently, Prospero is banking on it. I say this because we encounter people in government jobs EVERY DAY. I see my postman, a policeman, a fireman, a highway construction worker, a public teacher, et. al. every day I am in the world. I see military personnel fighting bravely on the television. And I know that there are millions of other people working in government jobs. So there are government jobs. What Prospero, who is likely parroting conservative pundits, is trying to say is that you need private sector jobs to support the public sector ones. And this is true. But so what? The wages earned by government workers supports private sector jobs as well. And many of those public sector jobs MUST remain in the public sector (e.g., military, fire, police, federal and state government) so it’s not like they are inherently second-class citizens’ jobs. So unless Prospero wants to tell the US Marines that they are not doing a REAL job, I’d suggest he stop parroting conservative idiots and start thinking for himself. He might discover that what he claims the world looks like and what it actually looks like do not remotely resemble each other.
Topcat
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 2:31pm@ABC
Report Post »I dont know what Democrat propaganda paper you are getting your facts from , but if you were to create a table and plot the debt and the deficit , who was in the Presidency and who had the House control . You would see that the facts you quoting , not facts at all . I have done this work for an EMail I send to an investor groupe I head. I will just state a couple of Items , Clinton never reduced the deficit the deficit went up every year he was in office .He did pass a raise of taxes in a Republican controlled House , and the Republicans did practice spending restraints during his administration , creating the smallest increases in the deficit in years averaging about 120 billion a year. Clinton then did an old Democrat trick , he took money from SS and payed down the debt , which made the numbers between 1998 and 2001 look incorrectly as a reduction in the debt. This then made the numbers look twice as bad , for the Bush administration when they returned back to the normal accounting methods and Bush tax cuts came into effect reducing revenue income. The Republicans were voted out of control because the people felt that during the Bush Administration , the debt increase that remained steady throughout of average $500 Billion a year was unsustainable.
Next I am going to post a quote from an investment broker and economist with no political gain , from his report .I Quote …
“The early 2000s recession was a decline in economic activity which occurred mainly in developed countries. It affected the European Union mostly during 2000 and 2001 and the United States mostly in 2002 and 2003. Canada and Australia avoided the recession for the most part, while Russia, a nation that did not experience prosperity during the 1990s, began to recover. Japan’s 1990s recession continued. The early 2000s recession had been predicted by economists for years, because the boom of the 1990s,(created by Regan) which was accompanied by both low inflation and low unemployment.”
The Bush Tax cuts , was an attempt to control this recession ,there were two one in 2001 and the other in 2003 ,I Quote …
” Overall real GDP grew at an average annual rate of 2.5%. Between 2001 and 2005, GDP growth was clocked at 2.8%. The number of jobs created grew by 6.5% on average. The growth in average salaries was 1.2%. A March 2006 report by the United States Congress Joint Economic Committee showed that the U.S. economy outperformed its peer group of large developed economies from 2001 to 2005. (The other economies are Canada, the European Union, and Japan.) The U.S. led in real GDP growth, investment, industrial production, employment, labor productivity, and price stability .”
If any one would like a copy of my Chart of the debt plot and additional real facts on the spending covering Clinton through today I would be glad to email it to you , send me a request at topcats1@optonline.net .. Make your own decision .. the numbers were taken from the government site on the debt and deficit.
abc
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 2:57pmTopCat, thanks for the lengthy post. But your first claim about Clinton’s surplus being phony is incorrect. The “taking from SS” you refer to was a tax on Social Security, which was an important revenue source to fund surpluses and pay down debt. But Clinton would have generated surpluses even if you don’t rely on that SS tax. You will find proof of this using the CBO figures, which are the most authoritative. For a quick summary of these, check out the non-partisan and highly reliable factcheck.org website:
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/during_the_clinton_administration_was_the_federal.html
More importantly, as an investor, you ought to be loudly calling for accrual accounting for the federal budget, since that is what private companies are required to produce per SEC regulations. Even under that much tougher test, Clinton produced budget surpluses. Of course, the debt under accrual accounting would have remained ominously and obviously large, so the Republican (including Greenspan) decision to tax cut our way out of surpluses would have been tougher to make. In short, your facts are wrong on this critical issue. And you fail to call out bigger budgetary failings on the other side, like Bush funding two wars totally off-balance sheet–you know, the kind of accounting tricks that can land private companies’ CFOs in jail. It is surprising that someone paid to analyze figures honestly would make such inaccurate statements.
Report Post »5
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 3:07pmSick Willie is still lying His Ass off. You can tell when He’s lying everytime. Sick Willie has been lying so long He even believes His lies. If You ever talk to Him He believes the Bull Crap He says.
Report Post »moonpeace
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 3:22pmAs soon as someone tells me I need to listen to them…I stop!
Report Post »What a jagoff!
thesixfour
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 3:22pmOnce again we see Democrats taking credit that isnt theirs.
Also it shows how much Dems dont understand how government really works.
YOU NEED TO LISTEN TO US Landfill Bill – Also weren’t you not president like 100 years ago or something? Get a life.
Report Post »button1
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 3:27pmI agree with NFYRX and MICKGOBLIN. If it wasn’t for a Republican Congress; Clinton wouldn’t have made it. Besides,with some of the mischief he’s been involved in while a leader; I don’t know how he can say Republicans need psychiatric help.
Report Post »DagneyT
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 3:50pm@ABC, like your buddy Slick Willie, you forget that iit was the ‘94 sweep of both houses that got every bit of his bragodocio accomplishments done!
Report Post »DanSt
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 4:11pmABC, if it wasn’t for Al Gore creating the Internet so we could have the Dot.com boom, then Clinton would have been a complete failure…But let’s keep pretending that the wealth created and the ensuing taxes paid during that time was based on anything but pure hyperbole based in greed…IPOs were going up a thousand percent in just a few hours and then…Can you say “crash”…The scariest part is that there are many in the dem base who actually believe that Clinton had paid off our debt…I blame the Teachers’ unions…LMFAO
Report Post »unionrockstar
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 4:12pmABC
Report Post »Please define unfunded tax cut.
Since when does the Government need to fund money that doesn’t belong to them?
After all when Reagan cut taxes the Government took in MORE in revenue; so what are you talking about?
Sssipad
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 4:19pmActually the republican congress drug him kicking and screaming to sign things resulting in a balanced budget but he of course git the credit
Report Post »CultureWarriors
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 4:32pmFolks ABC is just making his comments up. They aren’t based in fact. In fact much of everything he has said is false. He’s just a troll. Ignore him and is 80 IQ. Anyone who thinks taxes are in any way related to deficits is a moron. We don’t have a taxing problem, we have a spending problem. That‘s why there is now the Tea Party Movement and liberals just don’t get it. Arguing about taxes is a waste of time. The real debate is about cutting Washington in at least half, if not more. From there taxes will take care of themselves. After the next two election cycles we will be returning to the policies that brought us 5% unemployment instead of the moronic policies of this inept administration that have brought us a real unemployment rate of around 18-19%
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJ3OxZhXKQ0
PS let all your liberal friends know that due to the massive turnout of normal, everyday, conservative Americans Tue, November 2, all liberals, progressives and Democrats should vote Thu, Nov 4th.
BTW Does anyone else think that whoever it is in New York who’s job it was to send the ballots to the military and has now disenfranchise our military, again, should do serious jail time? Maybe it wouldn’t happen if there were strict penalties for dereliction of duty in this regard! Fear is a great motivator!
Report Post »Fireguarding
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 5:02pmContrary, you’re showing your ignorance again. It wasn’t Nixon who took us off the gold standard. It’s been a few years since I learned in MIDDLE SCHOOL that it was Franklin Delano Roosevelt who pulled that rabbit out of his trousers. Do a little checking, and check on your diploma while you’re at it. I like a good debate, but the parties need to know history, if they’re going to use it in the discussion. Again, FDR, not Nixon. Happy Tuesday.
Report Post »d55may
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 5:26pmI remember his time in office, he and his wife spent much of their time in court dealing with whitewater, then the Monica Lewinski lies. But the one more thing I remember it Billy boy kicking and screaming while the republican’s pulled him to welfare reform and a balanced budget. Clinton and all of the democrats always forget who held the purse strings in congress then. Finally, I remember his impeachment.
Report Post »scguitar
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 6:31pmABC, the only thing I can think of that Clinton did to balance th budget was cut capital gains tax. That raised revenue and helped create jobs.
ContrarianThinker, Your claim about Reagan’s spending deficits is false. Not because your lying, but because you fail to factor in inflation rates. Obama is by far the biggest spending president so far. His failed stimulus package costed more than the Iraq war
Report Post »dressseller
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 6:48pmOT: …All I can think is how much Bill Clinton is starting to look like Geraldine Ferraro. Weird.
Report Post »Goldenyears22
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 7:26pmABC, what I remember best about Clinton is all the corruption, graft and dirty tricks they brought with them from Arkansas. Like two hillbillys moving into the White House. They were not honest people. When they left they took what they wanted and trashed the White House. You can like them all you want, but what I see are two slick politicians. So Clinton thinks the Republicans need shrinks, who needs one more than these two. He can’t leave women alone and she was always trying to feather their bed in whatever way she could. Neither one cared if what they got was by honest means or not. Now they are worth millions, but I am grateful that I have not contributed to their wealth.
Report Post »CatB
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 7:27pmS e x addicts need shrinks .. and the women who stay with them!
Report Post »OneMansOpinion
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 7:28pmWhat he did do with the stroke of a pin his last month in office. He lifted the lending restriction for home buyers and set into motion the chain of events that caused the banking / housing melt down.
Report Post »Thank you Bill
tradexpertbuysell
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 7:34pmRepublicans I don’t know about although I detest blanket statements that applies to a whole population of individuals. And I’m even sure there might be one or two republicans that could give him a good shrink for himself for making such an idiotic statement.
However, I doubt if there are any republicans that can recomend a doctor for his reprobate condition. Slick Willy is on his own for that one!
Report Post »A1955Rosie
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 7:53pmThere is a message that will be the propaganda of future history books. Loons, terrorist, greedy, islamaphobic. We need to send a message back for POSTERITY. here’s 1 suggestion. Halloween, cheap ez costume. Dress nice and pick the face of least favored politician. Incessantly repeat one of their rediculous lies. I personally like nancy‘s you have to pass the bill to know what’s in it. Then…film it all day halloween. So in the future when they show you all the headlines of their rhetoric…you’ve got family videos saying….excuse me…we didn’t agree. They can’t get rid of all of them.
Report Post »karencole
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 8:13pmHow soon they forget…he is a LIAR, remember? Not to mention morally corrupt.
Report Post »barbaraw62
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 8:24pmHe didn’t do crap……. there was a Republican congress after 1994……. remember?
Report Post »Caffeinated Texan
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 9:37pmWhenever I read comments from folks like ABC (aka Danglingbags Mk. 6) I thank the Lord above that I have a life.
It pains me to imagine… Reading The Huffington Post all day, trolling for responses from the libs… Ugh.
Yes, I have much to be thankful for.
Report Post »Contrarianthinker
Posted on October 12, 2010 at 10:37pmABC, I hope I will bring some educated perspectives to our dialogue. I really appreciate the tone of almost all your posts. You are patient person to stay here. There are some of us who sek understanding a coelesce on areas we agree.
Food for thought. the Tea Party movement is less than 2 years old. I think you‘ll agree that it is GOOD in that people who’ve never been involved in politics are trying to have their voices heard and acted upon. As the movement mature, I think you will see more and more and very different types of candidate rise as creme does to the top. Please be patient with us. OK?
Report Post »Topcat
Posted on October 13, 2010 at 12:01am@ABC
Report Post »Fact-Check has come under fire lately , as not doing a thorough job of investigation before printing there finds , this looks to be one of those times.
You must be careful using CBO numbers , even though they are by both parties , claimed to be party neutral , they only do calculations based on exactly the information given them no more no less. They are in the business of projections based on a given set of facts. Politicians have gotten very good at feeding just the right information to the CBO to get the results they are looking for. All you have to do is look at their projections for the Obama administration. Showing the proof of my facts is too long to post here , many have requested and received my EMail all is explained there.I hope you were one of those , if not I invite you to read exactly how I arrived at those comments and show you how it was done.
Blazing Patriot
Posted on October 13, 2010 at 12:04amAll Bill did was make Monica famous when he invited her to the oral office.
pdottwitter
Posted on October 13, 2010 at 12:59amThe only problem with Bill Clinton is you can’t believe a word he says. He’s a convicted perjurer. He proved quite well he will do or say anything to makes things better for himself.
Report Post »angrymob
Posted on October 13, 2010 at 4:44amDoesn’t Clinton have a skirt to chase?
Report Post »roguetea
Posted on October 13, 2010 at 5:32amrogue, Twisted Economic Absurdities
@ ABC
you string letters far better than you stack logic
ABC said about Clinton
First, he raised taxes by 400 basis points, which led to TWICE as many jobs created than the 9-12 million that supply siders like Laffer
ABC also said
Clinton raised taxes by 400 basis points, created twice the number of jobs that Reagan
Sounds pretty much like the same line of BS, twice. Does ABC argue that raising taxes creates jobs? Does taking money out of the private sector create private sector jobs? That’s like saying driving the auto of the cliff into the lake is just a good washing with a quick rinse. It sure sounds like this economic egghead is that type of numskull. My guess, he is nothing more than a fast talking youngster who has yet to get anything done but a bunch of booking. The nineties, which I lived as a hard working adult, was all tech. Everybody, everything was micro-computing this, that and everything that moved. Silicone valley was hot. Towards the end of Clinton’s escapades the tech bubble had grown so big it was busting all over us.
Presidents do not create jobs, not private sector jobs. The best they can do is get out of the way and let business do what it does best. That means in part keeping taxes low. Tech was so hot in the 90‘s that Clinton couldn’t even squish it with higher taxes. Tech blew the doors of the Clinton era and it is a gross error to view economics as presidential., or congressional or regulatory. Government has a long standing habit of butting in to steer the economy according to its dictates which is likely off the cliff into the lake. We would be better off with much more private business failure and fraud than trusting Big Gov to do what they boast they will do… because they have yet to demonstrate adequately they can do any of it, my opinion. And I have looked on for decades. Four, five or more years ago, I could see this housing bubble forming. I kept telling folks it ain’t real, in the real estate market. All the while, them Dems, and some Reps too, kept saying it is all so very cool. What fools! It ain’t real in the monetary market now. Before we are out of this housing hole we will be deeper in an inflation hole and a higher tax hole. Hell, a nation of perpetual stagnation, thanks Big Gov.
Report Post »tea party, ReAct 2010, ROGUE ON
justsaying
Posted on October 13, 2010 at 8:22amJust stop responding to ABC. He‘s like a little kid looking for the attention he doesn’t get in his everyday life!
Report Post »BobtheMoronsp
Posted on October 13, 2010 at 8:56amCongress balances the budget.
Report Post »thecommish58
Posted on October 13, 2010 at 9:13amClinton should be able to recognize those in need of mental health counseling – as the world poster boy for sexual compulsion addiction he is certainly qualified to speak out on mental health issues.
While Clinton has some success in fiscal management, his actions in the last month of his presidency directly led to the financial meltdown…in addition his weakness in dealing effectively with the early rise of Bin Laden led to an exponential growth in terrorism – which in effect cost the US TRILLIONS of dollars in future war spending, enhanced security measures etc etc…this is his legacy and what he will be remembered for 50 years from now.
Report Post »the_patriot
Posted on October 13, 2010 at 10:27amABC, LOL! Clinton was one of the worst presidents in the history of our country. I am amazed at how stupid some people are. Just because you want to believe something does not make it true.
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on October 13, 2010 at 10:36amABC, people don’t appreciate it when you make them look stupid. Look at all the tantrums!
Report Post »gman46
Posted on October 13, 2010 at 11:36amThe last time GOP was in control of Congress, 2006, they had a deficit of $160 Billion. As of the middle of this year, Democratic Congress has over $1.5 Trillion, please don’t tell us who spends more. Just doesn’t add up.
Report Post »Agamemnon
Posted on October 13, 2010 at 12:07pmlets not forget his war crimes
Report Post »Uncle Sambo Lives Here
Posted on October 13, 2010 at 1:19pmHey, ABC, you might wanna wipe your lip — you’ve got some ******* on it. o_O
Report Post »Voice of Reason
Posted on October 13, 2010 at 4:04pmABC, how many times did Clinton veto welfare reform…you know….that deal you state he was all for?
Report Post »Gary123
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 12:01pmYou are absolutely right. Clinton just happen to be in office when there was a big tech boom. People were buying computers big time. Also, companies were buying lots and lots of computers that required training, support and software development. Also, cell phone were just starting to boom. Everyone had to have a cell phone and this meant cell phone infrastructure with lots of jobs. Also, the internet was just taking off. This provided the opportunity for many small businesses to flourish. That’s how the economy grew and the budget was balanced. Not what Clinton did.
Report Post »