0
   

The Worst President in History?

 
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jun, 2006 01:27 pm
Asherman wrote:

…It certainly appears that both she and President Reagan were effective in turning their economies around…


When Reagan left office…our country's national debt had tripled. We had become a debtor nation…mired in national red ink.

If he "turned around" our economy…he turned it for the worse.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jun, 2006 02:16 pm
It certainly was no fault of insufficient tax revenues. Spending spiraled out of control. Who controlled Congress in the 80's? Hint. Answer starts with a "D."
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jun, 2006 02:41 pm
We also had double-digit inflation during the Reagan years.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jun, 2006 03:05 pm
okie wrote:
It certainly was no fault of insufficient tax revenues. Spending spiraled out of control. Who controlled Congress in the 80's? Hint. Answer starts with a "D."



You do mean the Democrats who goddam near ran over each other to do the bidding of Ronald Reagan, don't you?

You do remember the national joke known as Reaganomics, do you you not?

But of course, you conservatives can never take the blame for anything. You have had almost absolute sway over the politics of this country for damn near three decades now...

...and do you honestly think we are better off now?

American conservatism is the sludge at the bottom of the barrel of political philosophy. It corrupts...because it is corrupt. It fosters hypocrisy...because it is, at its core, blatantly hypocritical.

It dominates the American landscape right now...and we are the lesser for it.

Its day will pass...and probably sooner than most here in this forum think.

We will be the better for that.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jun, 2006 03:17 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
We also had double-digit inflation during the Reagan years.


You couldnt be more WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

From Wikipedia,we get this.....

"During the Reagan presidency, the inflation rate dropped from 13.6% in 1980 (President Carter's final year in office) to 4.1% by 1988, the economy added 16,753,000 jobs and the unemployment rate fell from 7.5% to 5.3% (although it increased at one point peaking near 10%). In addition, the poverty rate fell from 14% to 12.8%."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan#Domestic_policies

So you wanna sing that broken refrain again about how inflation didnt go down during REagans Admin,or that the economy didnt improve?
0 Replies
 
Asherman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jun, 2006 03:17 pm
Do I seriously think we are better off for Reganomics? Yes, I do. I also think that the Reagan administration played an important role in breaking the power of the Soviet Union, and ending the Cold War. U.S. military spending in those years so intensified the cost, that the Soviet Union went bust. Since that time we had to fight Saddam in Gulf War I, that cost money. If Bush had not retreated on the tax question, he well might have been re-elected. Clinton's adminsistration benefited from increased American productivity from the Reagan and Bush administrations, but the National Debt didn't shrink.

Conservatives are disappointed that the National Debt has remained high, but this should be understandable since we are at war with an unconventional enemy.
0 Replies
 
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jun, 2006 04:29 pm
Hmmm. US National debt has been high for so long - well before the 'unconventional enemy'. Besides, war has been 'good for the economy' (read: military/industrial complex) in the past.

I was under the impression that the US economy had gone through a transition, somewhere in the 1980s, from net producer to net consumer. And personal credit has gone through the roof. And that has been fuelled by the false economy of rising property values.

The trends in the US economy have grave implications for the US as well as the developed world.

The case of Malaysia in the late 1990s and Argentina in the early 2000s are salutary (in terms of what happens when international debts are called in and foreign investment pulled out).
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jun, 2006 04:46 pm
mm, You're so stupid, I'm not sure I should even bother to answer. I didn't say anything about inflation going down during Reagan's term. I also didn't say Reagan was "responsible" for the improvement in the economy.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jun, 2006 04:51 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
mm, You're so stupid, I'm not sure I should even bother to answer. I didn't say anything about inflation going down during Reagan's term. I also didn't say Reagan was "responsible" for the improvement in the economy.


You claimed that we had double digit inflation during the REagan years.

So,if you arent saying that inflation went down,then you are saying it either went up or remained unchanged.

The facts show that it went down.
Are you going to deny that?

But,using your logic,I can honestly say that there was a budget surplus during the Bush admin.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jun, 2006 05:02 pm
Yes, I said we had double-digit inflation during the Reagan years. Where does it say it didn't go down?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jun, 2006 05:51 pm
mm, You don't need to expand on my statements; I can do that all by myself. If you don't understand what it says, that's your tough luck.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jun, 2006 05:52 pm
mm, You don't need to expand on my statements; I can do that all by myself. If you don't understand what it says, that's your tough luck.

When I say something is black, it isn't necessary for you to say it's yellow.

Twisted Evil
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jun, 2006 06:46 pm
Since this thread is supposed to be about (moron) Bush, here's another one of his bungles (incompetence).

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/27/washington/27katrina.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin


June 27, 2006
'Breathtaking' Waste and Fraud in Hurricane Aid By ERIC LIPTON

WASHINGTON, June 26 Among the many superlatives associated with Hurricane Katrina can now be added this one: it produced one of the most extraordinary displays of scams, schemes and stupefying bureaucratic bungles in modern history, costing taxpayers up to $2 billion.

A hotel owner in Sugar Land, Tex., has been charged with submitting $232,000 in bills for phantom victims. And roughly 1,100 prison inmates across the Gulf Coast apparently collected more than $10 million in rental and disaster-relief assistance.

There are the bureaucrats who ordered nearly half a billion dollars worth of mobile homes that are still empty, and renovations for a shelter at a former Alabama Army base that cost about $416,000 per evacuee.

And there is the Illinois woman who tried to collect federal benefits by claiming she watched her two daughters drown in the rising New Orleans waters. In fact, prosecutors say, the children did not exist.

The tally of ignoble acts linked to Hurricane Katrina, pulled together by The New York Times from government audits, criminal prosecutions and Congressional investigations, could rise because the inquiries are under way. Even in Washington, a city accustomed to government bloat, the numbers are generating amazement.

"The blatant fraud, the audacity of the schemes, the scale of the waste it is just breathtaking," said Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, and chairwoman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

Such an outcome was feared soon after Congress passed the initial hurricane relief package, as officials at the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the American Red Cross acknowledged that their systems were overwhelmed and tried to create new ones on the fly.

"We did, in fact, put into place never-before-used and untested processes," Donna M. Dannels, acting deputy director of recovery at FEMA, told a House panel this month. "Clearly, because they were untested, they were more subject to error and fraud."

Officials in Washington say they recognized that a certain amount of fraud or improper payments is inevitable in any major disaster, as the government's mission is to rapidly distribute emergency aid. They typically send out excessive payments that represent 1 percent to 3 percent of the relief distributed, money they then ask people to give back.

What was not understood until now was just how large these numbers could become.

The estimate of up to $2 billion in fraud and waste represents nearly 11 percent of the $19 billion spent by FEMA on Hurricanes Katrina and Rita as of mid-June, or about 6 percent of total money that has been obligated.

"This started off as a disaster-relief program, but it turned into a cash cow," said Representative Michael McCaul, Republican of Texas, a former federal prosecutor and now chairman of a House panel investigating storm waste and fraud.

The waste ranged from excessive loads of ice to higher-than-necessary costs on the multibillion-dollar debris removal effort. Some examples are particularly stark.

The $7.9 million spent to renovate the former Fort McClellan Army base in Anniston, Ala., included fixing up a welcome center, clinic and gymnasium, scrubbing away mold and installing a protective fence between the site and a nearby firing range. But when the doors finally opened, only about 10 people showed up each night, leading FEMA to shut down the shelter within one month.

The mobile homes, costing $34,500 each, were supposed to provide temporary housing to hurricane victims. But after Louisiana officials balked at installing them inland, FEMA had no use for them. Nearly half, or about 10,000, of the $860 million worth of units now sit at an airfield in Arkansas, where FEMA is paying $250,000 a month to store them.

The most recent audit came from the Government Accountability Office, which this month estimated that perhaps as much as 21 percent of the $6.3 billion given directly to victims might have been improperly distributed.

"There are tools that are available to get money quickly to individuals and to get disaster relief programs running quickly without seeing so much fraud and waste," said Gregory D. Kutz, managing director of the forensic audits unit at the G.A.O. "But it wasn't really something that FEMA put a high priority on. So it was easy to commit fraud without being detected."

The most disturbing cases, said David R. Dugas, the United States attorney in Louisiana, who is leading a storm antifraud task force for the Justice Department, are those involving government officials accused of orchestrating elaborate scams.

One Louisiana Department of Labor clerk, Wayne P. Lawless, has been charged with issuing about 80 fraudulent disaster unemployment benefit cards in exchange for bribes of up to $300 per application. Mr. Lawless, a state contract worker, announced to one man he helped apply for hurricane benefits that he wanted to "get something out of it," the affidavit said. His lawyer did not respond to several messages left at his office and home for comment.

"The American people are the most generous in the world in responding to a disaster," Mr. Dugas said. "We won't tolerate people in a position of public trust taking advantage of the situation."

Two other men, Mitchell Kendrix of Memphis and Paul Nelson of Lisbon, Me., have pleaded guilty in connection with a scheme in Mississippi in which Mr. Kendrix, a representative for the Army Corps of Engineers, took $100 bribes in exchange for approving phantom loads of hurricane debris from Mr. Nelson.

In New Orleans, two FEMA officials, Andrew Rose and Loyd Holliman, both of Colorado, have pleaded guilty to taking $20,000 in bribes in exchange for inflating the count on the number of meals a contractor was serving disaster workers. And a councilman in St. Tammany Parish, La., Joseph Impastato, has also been charged with trying to extort $100,000 from a debris removal contractor. Mr. Impastato's lawyer, Karl J. Koch, said he was confident his client would be cleared.

A program set up by the American Red Cross and financed by FEMA that provided free hotel rooms to Hurricane Katrina victims also resulted in extraordinary abuse and waste, investigators have found.

First, because the Red Cross did not keep track of the hundreds of thousands of recipients they were only required to provide a ZIP code from the hurricane zone to check in FEMA frequently sent rental assistance checks to people getting free hotel rooms, the G.A.O. found.

In turn, some hotel managers or owners, like Daniel Yeh, of Sugar Land, exploited the lack of oversight, investigators have charged, and submitted bills for empty rooms or those occupied by paying guests or employees. Mr. Yeh submitted $232,000 in false claims, his arrest affidavit said. His lawyer, Robert Bennett, said that Mr. Yeh was mentally incompetent and that the charges should be dismissed.

And Tina M. Winston of Belleville, Ill., was charged this month with claiming that her two daughters had died in the flooding in New Orleans. But prosecutors said that the children never existed and that Ms. Winston was living in Illinois at the time of the storm. The public defender representing Ms. Winston did not respond to a request for comment.

Charities also were vulnerable to profiteers. In Burbank, Calif., a couple has been charged with collecting donations outside a store by posing as Red Cross workers. In Bakersfield, Calif., 75 workers at a Red Cross call center, their friends and relatives have been charged in a scheme to steal hundreds of thousands of dollars in relief.

To date, Mr. Dugas said, federal prosecutors have filed hurricane-related criminal charges against 335 individuals. That represents a record number of indictments from a single hurricane season, Justice Department officials said. Separately, Red Cross officials say they are investigating 7,100 cases of possible fraud.

Congressional investigators, meanwhile, have referred another 7,000 cases of possible fraud to prosecutors, including more than 1,000 prison inmates who collected more than $12 million in federal aid, much of it in the form of rental assistance.

Investigators also turned up one individual who had received 26 federal disaster relief payments totaling $139,000, using 13 Social Security numbers, all based on claims of damages for bogus addresses.

Thousands more people may be charged before the five-year statute of limitations on most of these crimes expires, investigators said.

There are bigger cases of government waste or fraud in United States history. The Treasury Department, for example, estimated in 2005 that Americans in a single year had improperly been granted perhaps $9 billion in unjustified claims under the Earned-Income Tax Credit. The Department of Health and Human Services in 2001 estimated that nearly $12 billion in Medicare benefit payments in the previous year had been based on improper or fraudulent complaints.

Auditors examining spending in Iraq also have documented hundreds of millions in questionable spending or abuse. But Mr. Kutz of the accountability office said that in all of his investigative work, he had never encountered the range of abuses he has seen with Hurricane Katrina.

R. David Paulison, the new FEMA director, said in an interview on Friday that much work had already been done to prevent such widespread fraud, including automated checks to confirm applicants' identities.

"We will be able to tell who you are, if you live where you said you do," Mr. Paulison said.

But Senator Collins said she had heard such promises before, including after Hurricane Frances in 2004 in which FEMA gave out millions of dollars in aid to Miami-Dade County residents, even though there was little damage.

Mr. Kutz said he too was not convinced that the agency was ready.

"I still don't think they fully understand the depth of the problem," he said
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jun, 2006 11:51 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Yes, I said we had double-digit inflation during the Reagan years. Where does it say it didn't go down?


When you find yourself in a hole...stop digging.
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Jun, 2006 12:11 am
Mr.Imposter also is unaware that Federal Receipts went up during the Reagan years because of the Reagan tax cuts, just as they went up during the Kennedy years because of the Kennedy tax cuts just as they went up during the George W. Bush years because of the tax cuts.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Jun, 2006 09:18 am
Finn, I'm not the one digging holes. My statement is quite clear; not my problem if people don't know how to read or interpret them. Righties are good at ridiculous projections, and most people take them for who writes them; fools.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Jun, 2006 09:18 am
Finn, I'm not the one digging holes. My statement is quite clear; not my problem if people don't know how to read or interpret them. Righties are good at ridiculous projections, and most people take them for who writes them; fools.

Bernie wrote:
Mr.Imposter also is unaware that Federal Receipts went up during the Reagan years because of the Reagan tax cuts, just as they went up during the Kennedy years because of the Kennedy tax cuts just as they went up during the George W. Bush years because of the tax cuts.


Another foolish projection by another DUMMY. This fool now claims I was unaware that federal receipts went up. DUH! Please show me where I wrote that?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Jun, 2006 09:18 am
Finn, I'm not the one digging holes. My statement is quite clear; not my problem if people don't know how to read or interpret them. Righties are good at ridiculous projections, and most people take them for who writes them; fools.

Bernie wrote:
Mr.Imposter also is unaware that Federal Receipts went up during the Reagan years because of the Reagan tax cuts, just as they went up during the Kennedy years because of the Kennedy tax cuts just as they went up during the George W. Bush years because of the tax cuts.


Another foolish projection by another DUMMY. This fool now claims I was unaware that federal receipts went up. DUH! Please show me where I wrote that? Can't fix stupid.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Jun, 2006 11:30 am
Increase in receipts don't mean a thing if you can't control your spending. Under Reagan our deficit increased. Bush's daddy had to increase taxes to cover the wild spending Reagan did. With those tax increases receipts went up and during the Clinton years, when we had a good president, we had a surplus. After Clinton and responsible fiscal policy what do we get, another conservative president and a Republican Congress to boot. And came with that? One of the the worse deficit spending policies in the history of this country. Not one veto from a weak president. A fiscal policy that can only lead to disaster.

So what good are increase receipts when you have a weak president who can't control the irresponsible spending habits of his fellow Republicans; you know, the ones who always chant that Democrats tax and spend.
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Jun, 2006 12:38 pm
Mr. Xingu- You have made some egregious mistakes in your posts. I will point them out. You are, of course, free to dispute my corrections but I do have evidence and documentation.

First, your comment concerning spending habits of "fellow Republicans is wrong". You assume that Republican Spenders have spent more than Democrats. That is an error. The Democrats have spent more than the Republicans by a small margin.

Secondly, you do not mention( why not?) the current bill to give the President the line item veto power( which because of the USSC ruling must be done only after the procedure of re-submitting the item cut from the budget back to the Congress for an up and down vote. WATCH THIS LEGISLATION--IT WILL BE FILIBUSTERED BY THE KENNEDIES AND THE BIDENS, AND THE LAHEYS ON THE GROUNDS THAT IT TAKES AWAY POWER OF SPENDING FROM THE SENATE-even though there are safeguards written in it--AND THEN TELL US WHO ARE THE SPENDTHRIFTS.

Thirdly, Surplus from CLinton? You know, of course, that Clinton did not retire the debt of the USA. You know, of course,that Clinton increased tHE YEARLY DEFICIT IN HIS FIRST FIVE YEARS.

Fourthly, You show a distressing lack of knowledge in Economics. I invite you to respond DIRECTLY to the paragraphs below and rebut them if you can- I do not think you will be able to do so.

A. The USA has been in Debt most of its existence. Deficit means debt for the year. Debt is accumulation of deficits.

B. The Gross National Product for the year MUST BE a part of decisions made with regard to the total debt since THE DEBT OF ANY COUNTRY MUST BE VIEWED AS A RATIO OF ITS GROSS NATIONAL PRODUCT.

C. The deficit in 1945( a war year-wars do that to economies) was LARGER than the GNP.

D. The Debt of the USA continued to increase in the years after the war--the debt increased every year, but SO DID THE GNP, and the RATIO between the Debt and the GNP continued to show a bigger gap until 1972 when the governmental expenses rose.

E, THE TOTAL DEBT OF THE USA IS NOW ABOUT NINE TRILLION DOLLARS AND THE TOTAL GNP IS NOW ABOUT THIRTEEN TRILLION DOLLARS.

F. When the tax cuts kicked in, the monies available to provide jobs to entrepreneurs and the people they hire created a RISE IN THE TREASURY'S INCOME DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE TAXES HAD BEEN CUT SINCE THE ADDITIONAL JOBS ADDED MADE UP FOR MORE THAN THE LOSS FROM THE TAX CUTS( Unemployment is now at 4.6%--Millions more are working and paying taxes)

G. The GNP continues to rise at about a 4-5% yearly rate. The debt has risen at about a 3-4% yearly rate. It is clear that if this situation continues, 4-5% yearly of 13 Trillion( the GNP) will make the distance between the total debt(3-4% of 9 Trillion even larger.


THE MAIN POINT THAT MUST NEVER BE FORGOTTEN--FOR ANY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD--IS THAT THE GNP MUST BE HIGHER THAN THE TOTAL DEBT AND PREFERABLY TWICE AS HIGH!!!!


You are invited to respond-Mr.Xingu--Please-no referrals to execretory matters as Blatam and Setanta indulge in--I am sure that your responses will not be as irrational as theirs!!!
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

HAPPY ANNIVERSARY, EVERYONE! - Discussion by OmSigDAVID
WIND AND WATER - Discussion by Setanta
Who ordered the construction of the Berlin Wall? - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
True version of Vlad Dracula, 15'th century - Discussion by gungasnake
ONE SMALL STEP . . . - Discussion by Setanta
History of Gun Control - Discussion by gungasnake
Where did our notion of a 'scholar' come from? - Discussion by TuringEquivalent
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.79 seconds on 03/28/2025 at 10:21:42