|
|
Post by Cepha on May 28, 2008 20:59:58 GMT -5
Much of the successful economy accredited to Clinton were trickle downs Ronnie started----Trickle down works put it is just so slow I've heard that suggested before, but there was never any data ever accompanying that. If it's true, I'd love to see the proof. With all due respect, it sounds like one of those crazy things people just throw out there.  Do you have any evidence to support that? And why did it skip Bush Sr? Clinton completely re-vamped the economy and put a stop to wasteful spending. What did Reagan have to do with Clinton's proven economic policies? |
|
|
|
Post by knuckle on May 28, 2008 22:17:02 GMT -5
Real GDP declined by one-half of 1 percent in 1980, President Carter's last year, and rose 3.9 percent in 1988, President Reagan's last year. The CPI rose 13.5 percent in 1980 and by 4.1 percent in '88. The prime rate dropped from 15 percent in 1980 to 9 percent in 1988. Real median family income rose from $34,200 in 1980 to $37,000 in 1988. The unemployment rate declined from 7.0 percent in 1980 to 5.4 percent in 1988.
Murray Weidenbaum, chairman of the Center for the Study of American Business at Washington University in St. Louis
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 29, 2008 4:15:25 GMT -5
Real GDP declined by one-half of 1 percent in 1980, President Carter's last year, and rose 3.9 percent in 1988, President Reagan's last year. The CPI rose 13.5 percent in 1980 and by 4.1 percent in '88. The prime rate dropped from 15 percent in 1980 to 9 percent in 1988. Real median family income rose from $34,200 in 1980 to $37,000 in 1988. The unemployment rate declined from 7.0 percent in 1980 to 5.4 percent in 1988. Murray Weidenbaum, chairman of the Center for the Study of American Business at Washington University in St. Louis How does that tie in to Bush Sr.'s record who left this country with a 100+ Billion Dollar Deficit when Clinton came into office? What's the correlation between Reagen->Bush Sr.->Clinton...again, there has to be a direct connection in order for Reagan's policies to be proven to be effective in 1999 which is the end of the Clinton Presidency and the height of his success. The best way you can do this is by naming specific policies and their direct effect on the economy at least 5 years after he left office...then you can give credit to Reagan for what happened 1/2 a decade after he left office. To simply say he did better the Carter years (which by the way, we were in a Recession in the Carter years) doesn't connect it to Bill Clinton's success as President. That's like The Bush administration bragging about the economy growing today. Of course it's growing...it bottomed out already and even still, it's no where near as good as it was when Clinton was President. When it surpassed Clinton's Presidency's statistics, then they can say that we're doing better. |
|
|
|
Post by knuckle on May 29, 2008 5:01:45 GMT -5
that wasn't the question  You asked is there any proof that the success awarded to Clinton was really the result of Reagan's economic policies. Ronnie's trickle became a tidal wave in time and Clinton rode it like the dead wood that he is infact coupled with the dot-com phenomena it took a war (literally) to reverse the boom.If 9-11 and Bush 2's response hadn't transpired we would now be in a golden age to rival the fifties.I can't blame Bush for 9-11 but Iraq is just blood letting and a financial quagmire. much love-----------knuckle |
|
|
|
Post by alfie on May 29, 2008 6:32:34 GMT -5
Real GDP declined by one-half of 1 percent in 1980, President Carter's last year, and rose 3.9 percent in 1988, President Reagan's last year. The CPI rose 13.5 percent in 1980 and by 4.1 percent in '88. The prime rate dropped from 15 percent in 1980 to 9 percent in 1988. Real median family income rose from $34,200 in 1980 to $37,000 in 1988. The unemployment rate declined from 7.0 percent in 1980 to 5.4 percent in 1988. Murray Weidenbaum, chairman of the Center for the Study of American Business at Washington University in St. Louis How does that tie in to Bush Sr.'s record who left this country with a 100+ Billion Dollar Deficit when Clinton came into office? What's the correlation between Reagen->Bush Sr.->Clinton...again, there has to be a direct connection in order for Reagan's policies to be proven to be effective in 1999 which is the end of the Clinton Presidency and the height of his success. The best way you can do this is by naming specific policies and their direct effect on the economy at least 5 years after he left office...then you can give credit to Reagan for what happened 1/2 a decade after he left office. To simply say he did better the Carter years (which by the way, we were in a Recession in the Carter years) doesn't connect it to Bill Clinton's success as President. That's like The Bush administration bragging about the economy growing today. Of course it's growing...it bottomed out already and even still, it's no where near as good as it was when Clinton was President. When it surpassed Clinton's Presidency's statistics, then they can say that we're doing better. If the Clinton era was so "absolutely fabulous" than how come voters aren't clamoring to vote for Hillary? |
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan on May 29, 2008 15:39:20 GMT -5
Sooo Cepha are you a democrat or a republican?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 29, 2008 16:02:02 GMT -5
Sooo Cepha are you a democrat or a republican? I don't know...I'm either a liberal Republican or an extremely conservative Democrat. I was last registered as a Democrat, but dropped them when they went off on abortion and other dumb issues (forcing children to learn about sex early, illegal immigration amnesty support, etc...), then became an Independant, but they just buried us by voting for Nader, then Republican, but their a bunch of wierdos (see my posts on their rampant homosexual perversions in The White House...Damn! Bill might have been freaky, but at least he was freaky with a woman, not with little boys, male Prostitues, White House Pages or in toilet stalls!). Because of Obama, I'm one of the millions who re-registered Democrat. There were more new registered Democrats in the last few months than there were that actually voted in the last Presidential election. 55 million Republicans 72 million Democrats That means 100% of Republicans would have to vote solidly for McCain (and we already know that's not happening...Obama already has a Republican following...they even have a name: "Obamacins".). Democrats would only need to vote at about a 2/3's rate. We lose the racist Democrats who already said they'd vote for McCain before they vote for a "black man" (their words, not mine), but that's less than 1%. Now...Rupert Murdoch (staunch Republican) predicts a Democratic blowout this year, but to be honest with you...we were dumb enough to put Bush in office a 2nd time so I won't bet on it. What was it that he said? LOL! |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 29, 2008 16:12:18 GMT -5
How does that tie in to Bush Sr.'s record who left this country with a 100+ Billion Dollar Deficit when Clinton came into office? What's the correlation between Reagen->Bush Sr.->Clinton...again, there has to be a direct connection in order for Reagan's policies to be proven to be effective in 1999 which is the end of the Clinton Presidency and the height of his success. The best way you can do this is by naming specific policies and their direct effect on the economy at least 5 years after he left office...then you can give credit to Reagan for what happened 1/2 a decade after he left office. To simply say he did better the Carter years (which by the way, we were in a Recession in the Carter years) doesn't connect it to Bill Clinton's success as President. That's like The Bush administration bragging about the economy growing today. Of course it's growing...it bottomed out already and even still, it's no where near as good as it was when Clinton was President. When it surpassed Clinton's Presidency's statistics, then they can say that we're doing better. If the Clinton era was so "absolutely fabulous" than how come voters aren't clamoring to vote for Hillary? Hello? Didn't you know that Clinton actually beats Obama in the popular vote (number of voters)? They are clamoring to vote for her! ;D But, the superdelegates chose Obama. It's the same way that Bush won the first election. Even though more people voted for Vice President Gore, they gave the election to Bush. It's just the way things are. But, Clinton leads Obama and McCain by number of voters. www.usnews.com/blogs/barone/2008/3/28/projection-clinton-wins-popular-vote-obama-wins-delegate-count.htmlProjection: Clinton Wins Popular Vote, Obama Wins Delegate CountThe Clinton campaign has taken to boasting that its candidate has won states with more electoral votes than has Barack Obama. True. By my count, Clinton has won 14 states with 219 electoral votes (16 states with 263 electoral votes if you include Florida and Michigan) while Obama has won 27 states (I'm counting the District of Columbia as a state, but not the territories) with 202 electoral votes. Eight states with 73 electoral votes have still to vote. In percentage terms, Clinton has won states with 41 percent of the electoral votes (49 percent if you include Florida and Michigan), while Obama has won states with 38 percent of electoral votes. States with 14 percent of the electoral votes have yet to vote. The Clinton campaign would do even better to use population rather than electoral votes, since smaller states are overrepresented in the Electoral College. By my count, based on the 2007 Census estimates, Clinton's states have 132,214,460 people (160,537,525 if you include Florida and Michigan), and Obama's states have 101,689,480 people. States with 39,394,152 people have yet to vote. In percentage terms this means Clinton's states have 44 percent of the nation's population (53 percent if you include Florida and Michigan) and Obama's states have 34 percent of the nation's population. The yet-to-vote states have 13 percent of the nation's population. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 29, 2008 16:20:35 GMT -5
that wasn't the question You asked is there any proof that the success awarded to Clinton was really the result of Reagan's economic policies. Ronnie's trickle became a tidal wave in time and Clinton rode it like the dead wood that he is infact coupled with the dot-com phenomena it took a war (literally) to reverse the boom.If 9-11 and Bush 2's response hadn't transpired we would now be in a golden age to rival the fifties.I can't blame Bush for 9-11 but Iraq is just blood letting and a financial quagmire. much love-----------knuckle Did I? I thought I asked for proof that Reagan's trickle down economics works in 92 and beyond? That's why I asked for a direct lineage of incidents that proved his policies are responsible for the boom of the 90's. Of course, I won't ever dare blame Bush for 9/11 either and I had tears in my eyes when he gave his speech here in my city (New York). I was secretly happy that he won because I was disgusted with the Dems and their sick voting record. So, I was behind him all the way...he wasn't the Reps President or the Dems President...at that moment, he became the President of The World and I was right behind him in spirit and actually put my body to where my mouth was...I joined The National Guard and shipped out to go to Iraq (luckily, I was discharged for an injury and our boys from New Yorks 10th Mountain Division [HOOAH!] took care of business for the country in Afghanistan!). Sorry to vent! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by cradlecathlic27 on May 29, 2008 23:39:17 GMT -5
Sooo Cepha are you a democrat or a republican? I don't know...I'm either a liberal Republican or an extremely conservative Democrat. I was last registered as a Democrat, but dropped them when they went off on abortion and other dumb issues (forcing children to learn about sex early, illegal immigration amnesty support, etc...), then became an Independant, but they just buried us by voting for Nader, then Republican, but their a bunch of wierdos (see my posts on their rampant homosexual perversions in The White House...Damn! Bill might have been freaky, but at least he was freaky with a woman, not with little boys, male Prostitues, White House Pages or in toilet stalls!). Because of Obama, I'm one of the millions who re-registered Democrat. There were more new registered Democrats in the last few months than there were that actually voted in the last Presidential election. 55 million Republicans 72 million Democrats That means 100% of Republicans would have to vote solidly for McCain (and we already know that's not happening...Obama already has a Republican following...they even have a name: "Obamacins".). Democrats would only need to vote at about a 2/3's rate. We lose the racist Democrats who already said they'd vote for McCain before they vote for a "black man" (their words, not mine), but that's less than 1%. Now...Rupert Murdoch (staunch Republican) predicts a Democratic blowout this year, but to be honest with you...we were dumb enough to put Bush in office a 2nd time so I won't bet on it. What was it that he said? LOL! Ok, now that is funny!lol He definetly is no speaker, but a good man though. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 30, 2008 5:27:15 GMT -5
I don't think so...here's why. Over 4,000 men & women have died over his lies about Iraq. That's 4,000 families who've lost a father, mother, wife, husband, brother, cousin, friend, supporter, uncle, aunt. 30,000 are permanently wounded for his lies. He lied about the war, once there, he said we weren't in the business of nation building (yet we're building Iraq), he's building bridges in Iraq while ours are collapsing, he shipped Osama Bin Ladin's family out of the country to protect them when we found out it was he who bombed us, he tried to give the Arabs security of our shipping ports, he tanked our economy letting his rich oil friends prosper while we pay $4./gal. gas, he has the most corrupt cabinet in U.S. history, he tried to give illegals amnesty, ...but you don't have to take my word for it, just ask Scott McClellan. Exclusive: McClellan whacks Bush, White House By MIKE ALLEN | 5/27/08 6:18 PM EST www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10649.html• McClellan charges that Bush relied on “propaganda” to sell the war. • He says the White House press corps was too easy on the administration during the run-up to the war. • He admits that some of his own assertions from the briefing room podium turned out to be “badly misguided.” • The longtime Bush loyalist also suggests that two top aides held a secret West Wing meeting to get their story straight about the CIA leak case at a time when federal prosecutors were after them — and McClellan was continuing to defend them despite mounting evidence they had not given him all the facts. • McClellan asserts that the aides — Karl Rove, the president’s senior adviser, and I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, the vice president’s chief of staff — “had at best misled” him about their role in the disclosure of former CIA operative Valerie Plame’s identity. Did you see my "whistleblowers" thread where about 2 Dozen former Government employees also rat out Bush's lies and corruption? Respecting your opinion, he is a bad man. How people could vote for a man that left Texas in such turmoil and who ran a state into the ground with one of the worst records in the country is beyond me. They got what they deserved. And we paid for it because we didn't have the numbers voting. He did to America what he did to Texas. I could understand Bush voters being fooled the first time, but the 2nd time? Let's see what the master has to say about that... |
|
|
|
Post by cradlecathlic27 on May 30, 2008 12:38:17 GMT -5
so what your saying is that the majority of the americans were fooled twice? No, they knew what they wanted and were scarred for some other idiot to get into office.
|
|
|
|
Post by cradlecathlic27 on May 30, 2008 12:44:51 GMT -5
You forgot to leave out that McClellan said that he still respects Mr. Bush.
|
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan on May 30, 2008 12:48:25 GMT -5
Sooo Cepha are you a democrat or a republican? I don't know...I'm either a liberal Republican or an extremely conservative Democrat. I was last registered as a Democrat, but dropped them when they went off on abortion and other dumb issues (forcing children to learn about sex early, illegal immigration amnesty support, etc...), then became an Independant, but they just buried us by voting for Nader, then Republican, but their a bunch of wierdos (see my posts on their rampant homosexual perversions in The White House...Damn! Bill might have been freaky, but at least he was freaky with a woman, not with little boys, male Prostitues, White House Pages or in toilet stalls!). Because of Obama, I'm one of the millions who re-registered Democrat. There were more new registered Democrats in the last few months than there were that actually voted in the last Presidential election. 55 million Republicans 72 million Democrats That means 100% of Republicans would have to vote solidly for McCain (and we already know that's not happening...Obama already has a Republican following...they even have a name: "Obamacins".). Democrats would only need to vote at about a 2/3's rate. We lose the racist Democrats who already said they'd vote for McCain before they vote for a "black man" (their words, not mine), but that's less than 1%. Now...Rupert Murdoch (staunch Republican) predicts a Democratic blowout this year, but to be honest with you...we were dumb enough to put Bush in office a 2nd time so I won't bet on it. What was it that he said? LOL! Hmmm.... you seem to regret Bush's being in office. Defend you vote if you could go back in time and change to pro-choice, catholic defiling John Kerry.  |
|
|
|
Post by cradlecathlic27 on May 30, 2008 12:53:22 GMT -5
OK, CEPH, how do you work the You tube feature?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 30, 2008 15:42:20 GMT -5
OK, CEPH, how do you work the You tube feature? LOL! I don't share that with Bushees! LOL! |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 30, 2008 15:48:12 GMT -5
Hmmm.... you seem to regret Bush's being in office. Defend you vote if you could go back in time and change to pro-choice, catholic defiling John Kerry. Regret it? I never voted for him in the first place. I would've voted for pro-choice Kerry anyday over a lier anyday. How many abortions did Bush put a stop to? Oh! None. So now, instead of just having innocent babies dieing, we have innocent babies dieing + innocent Iraqis + American Military men & women (not to mention the 30,000+ permanently wounded in action). If we were going to have abortion anyway, we might as well have had it without all the unjustified war, the dead military personnel, the wounded military personnel, the weakened state of the military, the crashed economy, the White House Scandals, and so on, and so on, etc... What's better? Abortion alone or abortion and all of that? |
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan on Jun 3, 2008 0:16:43 GMT -5
Here's the problem. The president nominates for the supreme court. Bush has put in conservatives (at least G HW Bush) and if it came to it I would want W to put a conservative in there as opposed to the flaming liberal that Kerry would have put in there.
As for the service men and women in Iraq, they volunteered and took an oath of service. I might agree with you if we had a draft but we don't. And as for the Iraq war the preconditions for the "just" war by st. Thomas Aquinas were most certainly met before the war hard started.
Toodles~RSF
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Jun 3, 2008 4:40:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Jun 3, 2008 4:50:26 GMT -5
From a very biased source...Catholicism: IRAQ War & Catholic teaching In the light war against Iraq, below you can find links to statements of Catholic bishops and to other Catholic thinkers. Links to other religious statements from other churches and religious groups in the US and throughout the world can be found at the web-page of Sojourners www.sojo.net/action/index.cfm/action/church_statements.html and at the web page of Pax Christi USA www.paxchristiusa.orgAt the very end of this page, there are several statements from individual US Catholics that express support for a US war against Iraq. Catholic Church leaders on the war with Iraq Toward a Responsible Transition in Iran by Bishop Wenski, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, www.usccb.org/sdwp/international/iraqstatement0106.htmStatements collected by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops www.usccb.org/sdwp/peace/quotes.htmPope John Paul II urges "No to War!" Another plea for peace, March 15, 2003 www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=32785"No to War" in Iraq and the Holy Land - news report: www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=29875Full address to the diplomatic corps, 13 January 2003 www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=29883Cardinal Laghi's report after visiting President George Bush on behalf of the Pope www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=32326Vatican observer at the United Nations "To resort to force would not be just," says Archbishop Migliore at UN, February 19,2003. www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?=31662Vatican Officials on war with Iraq Archbishop Renato Martini says unilateral war would be "war of aggression www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=32545Archbishop Jean-Louis Tauron, Vatican Secretary for relation with states. www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=29372Archbishop Renato Martini, president of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=29125Canadian Bishops' statement on war with Iraq January 2003 statement of the Canadian bishops - "War Will Not Deliver Lasting Disarmament" zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=30409German Bishops' statement on Iraq conflict January 22, 2003 statement after the meeting of the German bishops zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=30323Australian Bishops Urge Avoidance of War "The Australian bishops also stress the importance of solidarity with the people of Iraq," they say. "Recurrent war and the resulting humanitarian crises have already inflicted grave suffering upon the population, and any further conflict would be a human catastrophe, with the weakest inevitably suffering the most." www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=28430US BISHOPS QUESTION WAR AGAINST IRAQ Bishop Wilton Gregory's statement on behalf of the bishops, February 26, 2003 www.usccb.org/sdwp/international/iraqstatement0203.htmUnited States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Statement on Iraq, November 13, 2002. www.usccb.org/bishops/iraq.htmUK CATHOLIC BISHOPS ON MILITARY ACTION AGAINST IRAQ (15 November 2002) This statement was agreed during a plenary meeting of the Catholic Bishops of England and Wales the week of 11 November. www.rcdow.org.uk/archbishop/iraqnews.htmIRISH BISHOPS' STATEMENT War would indeed be a defeat fro Humanity, say Irish bishops, March 14, 2003 www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=32707FRENCH BISHOPS' STATEMENTS Irak : La guerre est-elle inéluctable ? Déclaration du Conseil permanent de la Conférence des évêques de France, 15 octobre 2002 www.cef.fr/catho/actus/communiques/2002/commu20021015irak.phpLa guerre serait déjà une défaite Déclaration du Conseil permanent de la Conférence des évêques de France 10 février 2003 www.cef.fr/catho/actus/communiques/2003/commu20030210irak.php-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- IRAQ BISHOP APPEALS FOR PEACE All Are To Blame, Says Auxiliary Shlemon Warduni on Vatican radio, January 2003 www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=29717THE STANDARDS BY WHICH WAR WITH IRAQ MUST BE JUDGED An article in The [London] Times, 5 September 2002 by Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, Archbishop of Westminster www.rcdow.org.uk/archbishop/020905.htmCARDINAL RATZINGER SAYS UNILATERAL ATTACK ON IRAQ NOT JUSTIFIED September 22, 2002 Statement by Vatican cardinal. www.zenit.org/english/visuakizza.phtml?sid=25413CARDINAL STAFFORD OPPOSES US PRE-EMPTIVE WAR February 1,2003 news report and statement of the top US Cardinal in the Vatican. Archives.InsideThevatican.com/new....showfile#090808Archbishop Renato Martino Report of a February 4, 2003 interview with the president of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace www.natcath.org/NCR_Online/archives/021403/021403e.htmAnother interview with Archbishop Martino, January 29, 2003 Archives.InsideThevatican.com/new....showfile#135139----------- Analyses against the war against Iraq: ‘One Nation Under God’ - Richard J. Neuhaus in Time of War by Michael J. Baxter www.cjd.org/paper/neuhaus.htmlUnjust & Indefensible: Iraq: a Case Study by Chris Dowd www.commonwealmagazine.org/article.php3?id_article=1748The Iraq War A Tragic Misapplication of Just-War Theory Or a Failure of “Intelligence”? by John P. Hubert Jr. tcrnews2.com/Hubert1.htmlThe War in Iraq: How Catholic conservatives got it wrong by Peter Dula www.commonwealmagazine.org/article.php?id_article=1032Who Wants War?
An Exchange with Paul J. Griffiths & George Weigel www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0504/opinion/griffiths.htmlSeveral theological defenses of a war against Iraq: Moral Clarity in a Time of War by George Weigel www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0301/articles/weigel.html"Asymmetrical Warfare" and Just War by Michael Novak www.aei.org/news/newsID.15937/news_detail.aspDisarmament would be a just cause by Fr. Richard John Neuhaus www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=32497War and Moral Judgment by Richard John Nuehaua www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0510/public.html |
|
You asked is there any proof that the success awarded to Clinton was really the result of Reagan's economic policies.
