80
   

When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

 
 
parados
 
  2  
Sun 10 May, 2015 04:20 pm
@Baldimo,
It looks like I made a mistake.

It should read "Unless the government is paying down it's publicly held debt at a rate to offset the increase in debt from SS invested in Treasuries the debt will go up."
0 Replies
 
carloslebaron
 
  -2  
Sun 10 May, 2015 04:22 pm
@parados,
Quote:
You seem to be confused about the meaning of the words 'same average rate.'

The debt did NOT continue with any average rate under Clinton.
The rate of debt to GDP decreased as opposed to increasing before he took office.
The rate of deficit increase was the opposite of his predecessors.


You also seem to be confused about the term trend.
Under Reagan, GHWBUsh the debt to GDP ratio went from 37% to 64%
Under Clinton the debt to GDP ratio went from 64% to 55%


The average for those years was over 50% GDP, something that shows negativity.

It is recognizable that with Reagan the new style of every following administration was to become "popular" rather than balancing the budget.

If Clinton in two periods of administration could reached under 40% GDP, then you can say that his terms as president were noticeable as favorable for the nation.

Clinton didn't spend taxpayers money in any war, and he should have taken measurements to balance the budget.

He didn't. He distracted himself with Monica Lewinsky, and he LIED in a hearing when arguing that he had no sex with her. If any other US citizen was in the same trial, he should have been penalized even with jail.

I have no idea why later on his argument that "his definition" of sex doesn't include oral sex was accepted as his excuse. But surely the whole country saw him sweating and worry about his own future...

Surely the decent people of the US still is rejecting his example as the president of the US, and only corrupt people who won't care about what is right -which unfortunately is a great majority- will excuse him for what he did.

Lets go back to economy.

Clinton left the office with a negative economy, with 55% GDP.

You can argue whatever you want, but that is a NEGATIVE. Period.

The common illusion that Hillary will do something better that Bill is peanuts.

I know Bill Clinton, and Hillary IS NOT Bill Clinton.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Sun 10 May, 2015 04:24 pm
@carloslebaron,
Hillary could do a lot less than Bill Clinton...and still do a hell of a lot more than any of the Republican presidential wannabes, Carlos.

parados
 
  3  
Sun 10 May, 2015 04:30 pm
@carloslebaron,
Quote:

The average for those years was over 50% GDP, something that shows negativity.
No, it doesn't show any such thing.

Quote:

Clinton didn't spend taxpayers money in any war, and he should have taken measurements to balance the budget.

I guess you could say that if you ignore the fact that the government ran a surplus for 4 years under Clinton.


Quote:

Clinton left the office with a negative economy, with 55% GDP.
The economy is the GDP. The GDP was not negative when Clinton left office. GDP growth was not negative when Clinton left office. Your statements seem to have no basis in reality. Either you don't understand simple economic terms are you are purposely lying to us.
0 Replies
 
carloslebaron
 
  -2  
Sun 10 May, 2015 04:39 pm
@parados,
Quote:
Yes, it does begin on Oct 1st. What's your point? I use the numbers from the fiscal year and they show a surplus. Your blogger is wrong because he misuses numbers from the fiscal year. He attempts to deceive people by using sleight of hand which involves ignoring the asset that trust funds have when they loan money to the general fund.


OK.

Lets go straight to the point because arguing the past is a waste of time.

I posted that the Clinton administration was not what people have heard it was, but just another failure to balance the budget.

What Hillary Clinton will do to balance the budget?

Give your best thoughts as if you were Hillary Clinton sitting on the oval office.

I'm not talking about how she will rise up the borrowing top, but how she is going to balance the budget.

Under the current circumstances -which are not the same of the 90's- what she will do to make the country prosperous?

Take note that right now without any of the 23 million of illegal immigrants -11 million is the official lie, the number is double or even triple- becoming legal residents the fake economy of today is good.

In other words, there is no need of more new legal residents -from illegal immigrants- sucking social services.

Why she wants to make them US citizens?

The economy is greater when the illegal immigrants stay like that, they have managed to find jobs, buy houses, drive cars, and look, millions of illegal immigrants without being legal residents or US citizens own houses and cars and have money in the bank, while millions of US born Americans live in rental apartments, collect from social services and ride in buses... Lol.

Why Hillary wants to reward illegal immigration?

Did she agree with the scenario of US citizens jumping the White House fence and reside inside the perimeters? Because such is what illegal invasion on US public property is.

So, explain both, the balancing of budget and the illegal immigration.

And I'll hope these same questions are asked to her, and she to respond them directly.
carloslebaron
 
  -2  
Sun 10 May, 2015 04:48 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
Hillary could do a lot less than Bill Clinton...and still do a hell of a lot more than any of the Republican presidential wannabes, Carlos.


You might be correct, but the problem here is that Hillary is not running for president to become the main public servant but she is running for herself, to create a new dynasty. She won't care about you, she will care to leave a legacy for her descendants, and the Reagans, the Kennedys, the Bushes...

I have the feeling that democracy is not what its definition claims, but that is just a new kind of feudalism running to check who will be in power this time.

How can you call "democracy" when a solid and decent candidate can't be the president of the US solely because lack of funds for his campaign?

See? Definitively this current fact mentioned right above is not what democracy was intent to be or to become.

Ambition at all costs is what guides Hillary to become the next president, and that is a bad, a very bad sign.

Thomas
 
  3  
Sun 10 May, 2015 05:02 pm
@georgeob1,
It just occurred to me that I haven't answered George's original question.

georgeob1 wrote:
How much time will pass before growing numbers of Democrat power brokers panic and realize they have little time left to develop a replacement strong candidate?

In my opinion, this won't happen at all, for two reasons:
  • Despite the irregularities around Hillary Clinton, voters don't seem to care much about them. In particular, polls show that Clinton continues to beat all her Republican competitors decisively, whereas her Democratic competitors do not.

  • If the Democratic party has a strong replacement candidate to develop, where "strong" includes a fighting chance to win, I have not seen him or her yet. This lack of a strong bench is a Democratic weakness, and I'm worried about it. But for Clinton, it means that this time her nomination really is close to inevitable
For these reasons, I believe the Democratic Party will stick with Hillary Clinton.
parados
 
  2  
Sun 10 May, 2015 05:05 pm
@carloslebaron,
Arguing the past is a waste of time because you keep getting caught lying about it.
RABEL222
 
  1  
Sun 10 May, 2015 06:09 pm
@Baldimo,
Ill zip up when I damn well please, and as to lying the reason you dont believe your lying is because you dont realize the difference between lies and your opinion. I am not going to go back and post all the lying shyt you have posted in the past. Hell I wont live long enough to do that so just keep on posting "I want proof" because I am not going to do so.
Baldimo
 
  -1  
Sun 10 May, 2015 06:16 pm
@RABEL222,
Talk about telling lies. Proof is in the pudding. Your like Harry Reid talking about Romney's taxes on the Senate floor. All talk and no proof. Typical of your ilk.
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Mon 11 May, 2015 02:53 am
@carloslebaron,
She may have all the deficiencies you mention, Carlos...but she is still much, much, much better than any of the candidates the Republicans are considering. In fact, she is much, much better than any candidate who would be willing to run as a Republican.

And no matter how much wishing people might do, we will eventually choose between the candidate put forward by either the R's or the D's.

So all those problems you have with her are irrelevant.


revelette2
 
  0  
Mon 11 May, 2015 06:31 am
@Thomas,
Agreed, at this time there is no one else, and really, I can not really point to much to disagree with about her. Also, really like her domestic agenda and as for her foreign agenda, it is not much different than anyone else.
0 Replies
 
Miller
 
  1  
Mon 11 May, 2015 07:38 am
Mrs. Clinton wil be the next President and her VP will be Dr. Ben Carson.

Very good combination in many respects.
carloslebaron
 
  -1  
Mon 11 May, 2015 07:59 am
@parados,
Quote:
Arguing the past is a waste of time because you keep getting caught lying about it.


55% GDP is a NEGATIVE in economy. Clinton should have made better.

Look at the chart, from the recession when WW2 ended, with a GDP 116%, the GDP percent started to diminish even with the Korea war and getting lower and lower even with the Vietnam war, plus TWO recessions.

Notice that in 1966 interest rates were rose up to fight recession and caused a very well balanced budget with a GDP in the lower 30% for more than a decade.

Under Carter, the motto was to cause struggles in South America to turn down the socialist governments and billions were spent outside the US to create wars in Central America and create chaos in the South starting with Chile. The mission was accomplished, those countries returned back to "democratic corrupt governments" and the US economy was supposed to grow up again.

Big mistake. The third world countries in a sole decade learned to survive by creating a global economy making trade without intermediaries (US and Europe) and they became more independent while the US started to become dependent of them. The GDP percent started to grow up again indicating a negative path.

Desperation caused Reagan to forget about balancing the budget, and he initiated the fantasy of the "always wealthy US economy" by borrowing here and there.

After Reagan, the following administrations, -including Clinton's- have been doing the same, anything to create a false wealthy at the cost of maintaining a higher national debt.

Everything has been working fine because the dollar is the worldwide currency for trade... until Saddam Hussein intentions of revenge for the war in the 90's, when he later decided not to make trades using the dollar.

He was taken out of power with another war destined to change the whole structure of Iraq and make this country as a headquarter for distribution of more dollars, the opposite of Saddam intentions.

But Russia and China have developed the same plan of Saddam. and this is a greater problem.

I have asked you two questions as if you were Hillary Clinton.

What Hillary will do to stop the rising of the borrowing limit and finally start to balance the budget?

Why Hillary Clinton wants illegal immigrants to become legal residents so they will start to collect social services, due to the fact that illegal residents procreate like rabbits and will play the game of earning cash -never reported to the IRS and collect social services claiming that they have no income?

We are talking of 20 million illegal immigrants, with a possible 50% who will attempt collecting social services, with an average of 4 children per family or "single mother" (because they don't get married, the majority just live together, and the woman collects from social services plus cash income from the boyfriend).

Unless, she is nothing but an "Obama Junior", from whom she will promise an immigration reform and after becoming president she will do nothing like Obama Senior.

Your answers might help to many to decide if voting for Hillary is worthy or not.
Quote:

2014 $17,824 $17,600 101%

2013 $16,738 $16,872 99% Sequestration reduced government spending, at the same time the end of Obama's payroll tax holiday raised revenue. The U.S. debt hit $17 trillion a few days after the end of the fiscal year.

2012 $16,066 $16,066 99% Obama extended Bush tax cuts, combined with $900 billion in defense spending.

2011 $14,790 $15,587 95% Obama Stimulus Act (ARRA) spent $120 billion.

2010 $13,562 $15,058 90% ARRA budgeted $400 billion. For more, see National Debt Under Obama.

2009 $11,910 $14,384 83% Economy contracted 8.9% in Q4 '08, 6.7% in Q1 '09, lowering tax revenues. ARRA spent $241.9 billion. War on Terror cost $79 billion. Fed funds rate lowered to 0%.

2008 $10,025 $14,843 68% Economy contracted 3.7% in Q3 '08, 1.8% in Q1 '08. War on Terror cost $197.6 billion, Bank Bailout Bill cost $350 billion.
2007 $9,008 $14,570 62% Iraq War cost $131.6 billion.

2006 $8,507 $13,909 61% Katrina clean-up was $24.7 billion, swine flu added $6 billion, War on Terror cost $120.4 billion. Ben Bernanke became Fed Chair.

2005 $7,933 $13,205 60% War on Terror cost $107.6 billion.

2004 $7,379 $12,368 60% War on Terror was $94 billion.

2003 $6,783 $11,625 58% Unemployment still at 6%. War on Terror cost $53 billion.

2002 $6,228 $11,037 56% War on Terror added $33.8 billion.

2001 $5,807 $10,640 55% 9/11 attacks worsened the 2011 recession. Bush tax cuts further reduced revenue.

2000 $5,674 $10,357 55%

1999 $5,656 $9,712 58%

1998 $5,526 $9,147 60%

1997 $5,413 $8,692 62%

1996 $5,225 $8,159 64%

1995 $4,974 $7,707 65%

1994 $4,693 $7,352 64%

1993 $4,411 $6,904 64% Bill Clinton passed Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act
1992 $4,065 $6,587 62%

1991 $3,665 $6,218 59% 1991 recession.

1990 $3,233 $6,030 54% Desert Storm.

1989 $2,857 $5,712 50% Savings and Loan Crisis cost $125 billion.

1988 $2,602 $5,300 49%

1987 $2,350 $4,901 48% Alan Greenspan become Fed Chair.

1986 $2,125 $4,620 46% President Reagan lowered tax rates.

1985 $1,828 $4,395 42%

1984 $1,572 $4,087 38%

1983 $1,377 $3,692 37% Unemployment from the 1982 recession peaked at 10.8%.

1982 $1,142 $3,367 34% 1982 recession, GDP fell 6.4% in Q1 '82.

1981 $998 $3,261 31% Beginning of 1982 recession.

1980 $908 $2,860 32% 1980 recession, Iran oil embargo, GDP fell 7.9% in Q2 '80.

1979 $827 $2,670 31% Volcker became Fed Chair, increasing Fed funds rate to 20% to combat inflation.

1978 $772 $2,399 32%

1977 $699 $2,122 33%

1976 $620 $1,891 33%

1975 $533 $1,714 31% Unemployment from 1973-75 recession peaked at 9% in May, GDP was down 4.8% in Q1 '75.

1974 $475 $1,563 30% Fed raised rates to 13% to fight inflation. Nixon resigned over Watergate.

1973 $458 $1,437 32% OPEC raised oil prices. Nixon went off gold standard, tripling inflation to 9.7%. Fed doubled interest rates. Vietnam War ended.

1972 $427 $1,294 33% Nixon won re-election in a landslide.

1971 $398 $1,180 34% Nixon imposed wage price controls and suspended gold standard. Unemployment from 1970 recession peaked at 6.1% in December

1970 $371 $1,089 34% GDP down 4.2% in Q4 '70. Arthur Burns becomes Fed Chair.

1969 $354 $1,032 34% Nixon became President.

1968 $348 $952 36% Johnson sent 500,000 troops to Vietnam.

1967 $326 $867 38% LBJ created PBS, Product Safety Commission and Air Quality Act.

1966 $320 $821 39% Fed raised interest rates to 5.76% to fight a mild 3.5% inflation.

1965 $317 $750 42% Johnson funds Great Society, creating Medicare,
Medicaid and HUD. Sends 100,000 troops to Vietnam. War's total cost will be $111 billion.

1964 $312 $693 45% LBJ announces War on Poverty.

1963 $306 $645 47% Military coup in Vietnam, aided by 16,000 U.S. advisers. Kennedy assassinated.

1962 $299 $610 49% Cuban Missile Crisis.

1961 $289 $568 51% JFK became President. Bay of Pigs. Unemployment peaked at 6.1% in Dec.

1960 $286 $546 52% 1960 recession started in April. GDP fell 4.2% in Q4 '60.

1959 $285 $525 54% Fed raised rates to combat 7.25% growth rate.

1958 $276 $487 57% GDP fell 4.2% in Q4 '57, and another 10.4% in Q1 '58. Unemployment peaked at 7.1% in Sep '58.

1957 $271 $480 56%

1956 $273 $452 60%

1955 $274 $431 64%

1954 $271 $392 69% Recession follows end of Korean War.

1953 $266 $392 68% Korean War ends, total war cost $30 billion.

1952 $259 $368 70%

1951 $255 $352 73%

1950 $257 $309 83% Korean War starts.

1949 $253 $273 92% 1949 recession.

1948 $252 $280 90%

1947 $258 $250 103%

1946 $269 $228 113% GDP fell 11%.

1945 $259 $228 116% 1945 recession due to end of WWII. War cost $296 billion.

1944 $201 $225 89%

1943 $137 $203 67%

1942 $72 $166 44%

1941 $49 $129 38% Attack on Pearl Harbor, US entered WWII, ending the Great Depression.

1940 $43 $103 42%

1939 $40 $94 43%

1938 $37 $87 43%

1937 $36 $93 39%

1936 $34 $85 40%

1935 $29 $74 39%

1934 $27 $67 40% World trade is down 66% from start of Depression.

1933 $23 $57 39% Roosevelt took office, New Deal signed. Unemployment peaked at 25%.

1932 $19 $60 33% Hoover worsened depression by raising taxes to balance budget.

1931 $17 $77 22%

1930 $16 $92 18% Stock Market Crash of 1929. Congress passed Smoot-Hawley Tariffs.

1929 $17 $105 16% Hoover maintained high wage controls. Fed raised discount rate to defend gold standard, creating deflation. Combination forces bankruptcies on businesses.






carloslebaron
 
  -1  
Mon 11 May, 2015 08:01 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
She may have all the deficiencies you mention, Carlos...but she is still much, much, much better than any of the candidates the Republicans are considering. In fact, she is much, much better than any candidate who would be willing to run as a Republican.

And no matter how much wishing people might do, we will eventually choose between the candidate put forward by either the R's or the D's.

So all those problems you have with her are irrelevant.


In order to understand better your point, I really would like from you a comparison between Hillary and the Republican candidates.

In what aspects she is "much, much better than any candidate who would be willing to run as a republican"?
parados
 
  3  
Mon 11 May, 2015 08:09 am
@carloslebaron,
Quote:
55% GDP is a NEGATIVE in economy. Clinton should have made better.
The GDP was 55% of what? How does a positive percentage make something negative?

You don't even understand what you are trying to talk about. You use words you obviously have no clue as to their meaning.

I love how you consider Reagan's tripling of the debt to be desperation so you excuse him but you blame attack Clinton for bringing the debt down as a percentage of the GDP.
Miller
 
  -1  
Mon 11 May, 2015 08:15 am
@Miller,
With Dr. Ben Carson as VP , there is an excellent chance, he may, in the future become the next Afro-American President.

Time will tell.
Miller
 
  0  
Mon 11 May, 2015 08:24 am
@Miller,
More info on Dr. Carson may be found:

www.bencarson.com/learnmore
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  4  
Mon 11 May, 2015 08:35 am
@Miller,
Ben Carson will not be a VP candidate. I doubt he will have a single delegate after the first 4 GOP primaries. Whether he sees the writing on the wall and drops out is another thing. He seems to be a little delusional after his recent statement about the Supreme Court.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Mon 11 May, 2015 12:19 pm
@carloslebaron,
Quote:
In order to understand better your point, I really would like from you a comparison between Hillary and the Republican candidates.


The most obvious is that she would be the candidate of the Dem's...a party that promotes the kinds of programs I want to see protected and expanded.

Quote:
In what aspects she is "much, much better than any candidate who would be willing to run as a republican"?


In every possible way, Carlos.
 

Related Topics

The Pro Hillary Thread - Discussion by snood
get this woman out of my view/politics - Discussion by ossobuco
Hillary Clinton hospitalized - Discussion by jcboy
Has Hillary's Time Come? - Discussion by Phoenix32890
I WANT HILLARY TO RUN IN 2012 - Discussion by farmerman
Hillary's The Secretary Of State..It's Official - Discussion by Bi-Polar Bear
Hillary the "JOKESTER"?? - Discussion by woiyo
Hillary Rebuked by Iraqi Leader - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 05/01/2024 at 06:27:55