BernardR wrote:What did Bill Clinton do? Not much, as foxfyre stated.
He backed the following:
l. NAFTA 2. China as a Most Favored Nation 3. Welfare Reform
These three are all Republican initiatives.
Oh, yes-He was also impeached by the House of Representatives and presided over the loss of both Houses in 1994!!!!
And, it is clear from the information given by Bob Woodward that Greenspan and NOT Clinton, was the architect of the economic boom of the nineties. But economic morons like Keltic Wizard don't know that since they do not read economic history!!!
Why do you feel the need to call people names, BR? You constantly use the same words over and over:
Moron
Ignorant
Ignor- rant? Is that what you're trying to tell everyone? To ignor your rant?
It's been proven that when people have a solid argument they don't need to stoop to insults.
ig·no·rant (gnr-nt) KEY
ADJECTIVE:
Lacking education or knowledge.
Showing or arising from a lack of education or knowledge: an ignorant mistake.
Unaware or uninformed.
And anyway, I've never said that nothing was accomplished during the Clinton administration. I only said he accomplished little or nothing the first couple of years when he had the most political capital and the backing of a Democrat controlled Congress. His lack of personal conviction about much of anything turned out to be a good thing for the visionary GOP controlled Congress elected in 1994.
I give Clinton credit for signing off on some good legislation during his tenure. He had to be dragged screaming and kicking into welfare reform and a balanced budget, but in the end he signed off on both and deserves the credit for both happening on his watch. The more glaring negatives do not negate the good.
I wish our current President had the Congress to work with that Clinton did. And I wish Bush's critics were not so obsessed with hate that they are unable to see any good or get behind necessary good initiatives.
That is the truly unfortunate thing.
Quote:I wish our current President had the Congress to work with that Clinton did.
Imagine what he could have done with a Republican majority in Congress and a Republican majority in the Senate while he controlled the Presidency! Boggles the imagination.
Quote:He had to be dragged screaming and kicking into welfare reform and a balanced budget,
Not true. Clinton signed Welfare Reform over the objections of the far left, not the moderates, in his party. There was no kicking and screaming on his part. His Economic Reform Bill was passed without a single Republican vote. Not one.
Look it up. Not a single Republican vote.
Joe
My husband and I are still suffering the ramifications of that 'economic reform package'. The GOP managed to roll back some of the provisions in it, but the current GOP majority in Washington does not hold the strongly conservative principles of that 1994 Congress, and did not reverse some of the more onerous provisions. I keep hoping those too will be corrected if we can ever get back to a truly conservative group. When the 1994+ congress attempted to do that, Clinton vetoed it.
Here's Rich Lowry's take on that 1993 expansion package and it does contain a lot of inconvenient truths for the Democrats and why the GOP refused to sign off on it:
http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry200310151115.asp
Quote:but the current GOP majority in Washington does not hold the strongly conservative principles of that 1994 Congress, and did not reverse some of the more onerous provisions.
Strangely enough, much of the GOP majority in question are the
exact same people as 1994.
Which brings up the thought, perhaps they never had the conservative principles in the first place?
Cycloptichorn
As usual, Joe Notion knows almost NOTHING about politics. He appears to be almost completely IGNORANT about what happened in the Welfare Reform vote-
Note
REP. RANGEL: I think I have to agree with the Senator that it is an election year and nobody in the House and Senate wanted to appear to be voting against welfare reform. But as the President once said, putting wings on a pig doesn't mean that you have an eagle. And so the question really is: Are the children protected?
No one cares whether or not it's the federal government or the state government that has responsibility. I do, because for 60 years we said we had an obligation to take care of children. No one cares whether or not a person that played by the rules, that is able to work, and wants to work, and there's no job available, under this bill, if the government says two years and you're off of welfare, you and the kid are off of welfare. That's the end of it.
More evidence that Joe Notion is completely IGNORANT about what really happened with Welfare Reform_
MARGARET WARNER: Sen. Nickles, how do you feel about the President's decision?
SEN. DON NICKLES, (R) Oklahoma: Well, Margaret, I think the President decided to sign it because it's election year, and that's one of the reasons why we decided to try and move this package one more time. As you know, we passed welfare reform twice. Unfortunately, the President vetoed it.
And we decided we'd break it off, try one more time, thinking this close to the election maybe the President would stay with his, his campaign promise, which he'd broken twice, to end welfare as we know it. He finally said that he would sign it. So we're delighted. I think this is a good bill that passed by overwhelming support in both the House and the Senate, and I'm pleased that he will now sign it.
**********************************************************
THE PRESIDENT VETOED IT!!! HE MADE A CAMPAIGN PROMISE BUT HE VOTED IT!!!
WHY DID HE SIGN IT ?
SEE RANGEL ABOVE!!!!
For those who claim that the economy has improved under Bush, you are either deceived or flat-out lying.
Here is a state-by-state map of median income change over the last 6 years:
Doesn't look too good, does it?
Maybe now some of you will realize why most people consistently report negative feelings about the economy these days, even though the rich and Corporations are getting richer....
Cycloptichorn
That's a nice map but it doesn't agree with the OFFICIAL REPORT FROM THE BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS:
Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages
Series Id: ENUUS00010010State: U.S. TOTALArea: U.S. TOTALIndustry: Total, all industriesOwner: Total CoveredSize: All establishment sizesType: All Employees
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2001 128211593 128641962 129583002 129983284 130911963 131607484 128767374 129253256 129987584 129555203 129561151 129565747 129635800
2002 125958945 126315040 127303773 128091592 129238576 129797559 127324798 128002606 129040497 129038963 129316065 129378619 128233919
2003 125802180 125936115 126714377 127478809 128595528 129083968 126642884 127355827 128567331 128947145 129063392 129362362 127795827
2004 126067463 126467191 127655553 128867022 129945737 130598145 128605848 129106516 130314948 130904816 131245699 131559169 129278176
2005 128147273(P) 128825575(P) 129795054(P) 131322123(P) 132257686(P) 132829090(P) 130946320(P) 131613427(P) 132995082(P) 133018532(P) 133562887(P) 133834596(P) 131595637(P)
P : Preliminary.
Without a link, I have to assume that everything you write is made up completely by you.
Cycloptichorn
Your ciffers, BernhardR, certainly look more convincing than that simple and understandable map!
In the meantime, Cyclopitchorn has not replied specifically to the following:. Tax-Cuts-Now Cyclopitchorn has swallowed the garbage that the tax cuts have favored the rich.
He is sadly mistaken.
Tax C U T S mean exactly that. If you pay taxes, your taxes were cut.
If you pay no Federal Income Taxes, you cannot get a tax cut.
(Note-
quote-
Liberal myth
The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts mean that middle class Americans pay more than their share of taxes, while the richest Americans pay less.
The facts
President Bush's tax cuts benefited all Americans who pay income taxes. Critiquing the distribution of tax payments is a fundamentally misguided way to discuss tax policy, not least because these tax cuts did little to alter the tax burden on each income group.
Almost no shift in burden
While the share of taxes paid by the very wealthiest Americans declined by a few percentage points after the tax cuts, the top quarter of all taxpayers is paying almost exactly the same share as in 2000 and two percentage points more than in 1997. Meanwhile, the share paid by the bottom half of all income earners is declining.
In 2003, the latest year for which complete data is available, the top one percent of taxpayers paid just over 34 percent of all income taxes, compared to over 37 percent in 2000 and 33 percent in 1997
The top 10 percent of taxpayers paid almost 66 percent of income taxes in 2003, compared to 67 percent in 2000 and 63 percent in 1997
Middle 50 percent of taxpayers paid a roughly even share of the taxes in 2003, 2000 and 1997: 12.6 percent, 12 percent and 14 percent, respectively
The bottom 50 percent of taxpayers bore less of the burden in 2003 compared to 2000, paying almost 3.5 percent of taxes compared to over 4 percent three years earlier. The bottom half of taxpayers has paid a decreasing share of taxes since 1980.
A misguided critique
Overall, the intense focus on "income distribution" is misguided, because:
It assumes that the economy is a fixed pie and that one group's wealth causes another group's poverty. In reality, the economy is expanding, and all income classes are getting wealthier. Some incomes will grow faster than others, yet the vast majority of Americans enjoy rising incomes throughout their lifetimes. Even America's "poor" would be considered middle-class in Europe and upper-class almost anywhere else. By contrast, socialist countries (e.g., North Korea, Cuba, and the former Soviet Union) have achieved relative income equality--everyone is equally poor.
People often move across income ranges. Much of the bottom half consists of younger, unmarried workers who move into the top quarter as they marry and enter their peak earning years before dropping back down after retirement. Accordingly, lifetime incomes (and taxes paid) are much more equal than one-time "income distribution" snapshots would show.
The term "income distribution" implies that the nation's wealth simply falls from the sky and that Washington has a duty to distribute this bounty fairly. But wealth and income are not "distributed," they are created. When Microsoft turns sand into computer chips, it is creating wealth where none existed. A farmer who grows a field of corn is creating wealth. These workers and businesses should have the right to keep much of the wealth they create.
Cycloptichorn wrote:Without a link, I have to assume that everything you write is made up completely by you.
Cycloptichorn
BernhardR's links turn out to be spam and get edited by the mods - might be that's the reason he avoids them now?
Code:Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2001 128211593 128641962 129583002 129983284 130911963 131607484 128767374 129253256 129987584 129555203 129561151 129565747 129635800
2002 125958945 126315040 127303773 128091592 129238576 129797559 127324798 128002606 129040497 129038963 129316065 129378619 128233919
2003 125802180 125936115 126714377 127478809 128595528 129083968 126642884 127355827 128567331 128947145 129063392 129362362 127795827
2004 126067463 126467191 127655553 128867022 129945737 130598145 128605848 129106516 130314948 130904816 131245699 131559169 129278176
2005 128147273 128825575 129795054 131322123 132257686 132829090 130946320 131613427 132995082 133018532 133562887 133834596 131595637
Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages
Series Id: ENUUS00010010
State: U.S. TOTAL
Area: U.S. TOTAL
Industry: Total, all industries
Owner: Total Covered
Size: All establishment sizes
Type: All Employees
For the google challenged...
It isn't a matter of being able to find information on one's own or not; it is a matter of courtesy when posting data that you expect people to take seriously.
Also, your link doesn't work
Cycloptichorn
