Quote:
Originally Posted by Zanzibar789
Nahhh Sherlock, Bush took office just in time to show what an idiot he truly was. Fact is presidents are judged on policies, business climate and the performance of the economy while in office. Clinton left that wreckless moron a $236 billion surplus. Outside of the normal ebb and flow of the economy it was purely Bush mismanagement that took us from a $236 billion surplus to 455 billion deficit.
He lowered taxes for the rich, deregulated the financial industry, and floated the wars on "terror" instead of funding them through higher taxes. That's how he fucked up this country. Dude was a straight up dummy and apparently you cosign that level of stupidity. Go figure.
Conversely, Bill's policies made for a very strong economy. For example his 1993 budget reduced the federal deficit and lowered interests rates, this in turn stimulated the economy with more tax revenue, personal income increases and big stock market gains.
Go read a book and get back to me. Better yet I have a homework assignment for you. Tell me compared to what Clinton left Bush (which was a $236 billion surplus) what did Bush leave Obama.
|
Nice dodge mope.
You changed the subject from Clinton to Bush rather that respond to what I wrote. I take that as a concession that you don't have any arguments to prove that Clinton created the "glory years".
I'm not defending Bush, he and Congress created another bubble in the housing market as they tried to pull out of the recession cause by the dotcom bubble bursting.
Bill Clinton did NOTHING to create the tech revolution in the 1990s. It was well underway before he ever took office.
"Outside of the normal ebb and flow of the economy"? Do you really expect us to believe that the bursting of the dotcom bubble was the NORMAL ebb and flow of the economy?
Name a policy that Clinton enacted in 1993 that made a strong economy. There was a brief recession of about three quarters (9 months) under the first Bush that ended before Clinton took office. So the economy was already growing when he took office (but too late to save the first Bush).
But if you really want to have your bullshit ideas debunked, read this Forbes article:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/charlesk...-tax-increase/
Note the difference in economic growth AFTER he lost Congress in 1995. Capital gains taxes were CUT from 28% to 20% and revenue still increased.
Rebut THOSE numbers mope.
With facts this time. Not broad assertions about how everything Bubba touched turned to gold.
Clinton had the good fortune to be sitting in the White House when a fundamental change in technology (i.e., computers) revolutionized the economy in ways not seen since the creation of the automobile.
So, if Hillary wins in 2016, what new technology is going to revolutionize the economy again?
We have had 15 years of slow growth and stagnating wages since the dotcom bubble burst. Neither Bush II, nor Obama, nor any Congress has been able to restore high growth rates, improve wages, or achieve low unemployment.
Under Obama, we are just borrowing huge amounts of money we will never pay back. Another crash is coming. Far worse than the last two.
So, maybe it will be a good thing if the Democrats win in 2016. After holding the White House for 8+ years, they won't be able to blame Bush for anything.
