posted October 12, 2012 02:22 PM            

You continue to deny the reality of the first 2 years of the Clinton administration. And you can't connect the dots which is fatal to your entire argument. You would know that if you weren't overly invested in big government programs and desperate to defend their proponents...like Clinton and O'Bomber.

But, they both failed. Clinton got his act together under threat of losing the election of 1996 and having his programs stuffed by a Republican majority Congress from 1995 on. He succeeded with a Republican plan of tax cuts, reductions in government spending and rollbacks in government regulations.

O'Bomber is trying to double down on his failure. He won't succeed.

You're not going to succeed in re-writting history here acoustic.

posted October 12, 2012 04:02 PM            

It's just one eye-rolling statement after another with you. I can't connect the dots on the first two years? You can't connect the dots for the entire eight years!

quote:

---

You're not going to succeed in re-writting history here acoustic.

---

No one else here would have the bombast to make that patently false statement. Everything I've said is easily verifiable, and not a matter of my personal opinion.

posted October 12, 2012 10:20 PM            

You still haven't been able to connect the dots or come to grips with the fact voters threw democrats out of control of both Houses of Congress in 1994 for the first time in 40 years and gave control of Congress to Republicans.

Tsk,tsk, tsk acoustic. Voters were such happy campers with the Clinton economy, the Clinton Big Government Welfare State, the Clinton tax increases, the Clinton meddling in their private lives...that they threw Clinton's congressional pals out on their butts after 2 years of happy camping.

posted October 13, 2012 09:42 AM            

There's an adage among educators of teenagers: "In a group of teens, the behavior drops to the lowest common denominator." It appears this is even more true in commercial "journalism".

posted October 13, 2012 12:21 PM            

Foxy News Network IS THE MOST TRUSTED BROADCAST NEWS NETWORK IN AMERICA...INCLUDING ABC, CBS AND NBC.

And Node, Bill O'Really is the most trusted news show on broadcast television..bar none.

Now Node, these numbers cut across all demographic lines.

posted October 13, 2012 01:19 PM            

when you diss the mainstream you are dissing FOX, who have bought their way into more stations than anyone else...and therefore have the ear/eyes of more people.

posted October 13, 2012 06:05 PM            

quote:

---

Voters were such happy campers with the Clinton economy, the Clinton Big Government Welfare State, the Clinton tax increases, the Clinton meddling in their private lives...that they threw Clinton's congressional pals out on their butts after 2 years of happy camping.

---

Yes, that's right. Clinton raised taxes on ONE segment of income earners a year after entering office. Republicans came in the next year, and then THREE whole years later Clinton lowered taxes. That's reality, Jwhop.

quote:

---

And Node, Bill O'Really is the most trusted news show on broadcast television..bar none.

---

posted October 13, 2012 10:44 PM            

Rational people who can connect the dots know why Clinton started signing all that Republican Legislation which led to the expanding economy and finally, a balanced budget and budget surplus.

The unthinking and clueless among us will never figure it out.

I don't want to over-tax your brain cells and ask you why the democrat Clinton suddenly started signing all that Republican legislation which included tax cuts, cuts in government spending, cuts in government regulation and the end of Welfare as "we knew it" acoustic. Asking you to think would give you a massive headache acoustic. But that's exactly what Clinton did.

posted October 14, 2012 11:35 AM            

Education is 2 pronged affair. First you must have someone who is actually educable.

posted October 15, 2012 12:09 PM            

No doubt a function of the loony-tunes nuts whose sites you choose to browse and quote. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

Clinton was heading for an election defeat in 1996. The democrats who helped Clinton usher in his big government boondoggle got wiped out in the elections of 1994. Republicans took over both the House and Senate for the first time in 40 years. Republicans forced Clinton to sign legislation he didn't want to sign...because they had the votes to override his veto, he knew it AND Dick Morris told him he was toast if he didn't work with Republicans on their agenda. Clinton did and the results are in the historical record...for all to see...except for the loony-tunes nuts who couldn't find their own as$s with both hands, a searchlight and a map. Like you acoustic.

posted October 15, 2012 02:22 PM            

Nor are you in a position to talk about what websites people use, when you use the least factual sites in existence.

quote:

---

Clinton was heading for an election defeat in 1996.

---

You've been contending for some time that Republicans came in, and saved Clinton somehow, but you don't have an answer for how he managed to get re-elected. You don't have an answer for why it took so long for Republicans to get him to lower taxes (well into his second term). You can't legitimately speak to Republicans holding Clinton hostage either, as Clinton DID stand off with them as soon as they came into office, and they -the Republicans- stood down.

posted October 15, 2012 04:02 PM            

I told you exactly how Clinton got reelected and why Clinton got reelected and I did so in plain English.

Sorry I wasn't able to dumb it down to monosyllable and 2 syllable words you could understand.

posted October 15, 2012 04:27 PM            

Explain to me how Clinton wasn't fiscally responsible going in. Explain to me how the Republicans turned him around when -in actuality- they squared off with him, and got knocked out. Explain to me how the economy wasn't growing since before Clinton took office. Explain to me how this Republican Congress took THREE years to get Clinton to lower taxes.

posted October 15, 2012 04:48 PM            

The biggest delusion being that the 8 years of the clinton administration can be viewed as one seamless happy whole when in fact those 8 years had ragged parts which threatened Clinton's reelection and got his party decimated in the elections of 1994.

That's the history of the Clinton administration. Your construction is myth, fable and delusion.

posted October 15, 2012 07:09 PM            

No one forced you to stupidly make claims that were problems with the economy or taxation that brought Republicans into power in the House. You did that all on your own. You were the one called on nonsense BS.

quote:

---

The biggest delusion being that the 8 years of the clinton administration can be viewed as one seamless happy whole when in fact those 8 years had ragged parts which threatened Clinton's reelection and got his party decimated in the elections of 1994.

---

I didn't say that they were one happy whole. I didn't minimize the fact that Republicans were able to take the House. I merely pointed out that it wasn't the result of the economy or taxes. Maybe we can make a tangential case that Republicans were voted in on a misconception about taxes on the part of Republicans, but that doesn't account for why Democrats were so complacent during that election. Democrats certainly weren't concerned about Clinton's having raised taxes on the wealthiest segment. Democrats weren't bothered that he tried to take on healthcare reform. You have to come to some other conclusions as to why they let Republicans steamroll their way into House leadership.

quote:

---

Your construction is myth, fable and delusion.

---

No, your construction is a myth. You're the one unable to tackle the inconvenient truths here.

quote:

---

Grow up. Wise up. Read a book and stop making nonsense arguments which distort history..if they were accepted as true; which they're not.

---

This is yet another ironic statement from you. You've been sitting there for days not making substantive arguments to back your fantasy points, and you're still looking for some sort of concession from me. That's absurd and ridiculous. You were there. Surely, you should be able to remember the accuracy of what's been stated here.

If you want to make it easier on yourself, why don't we break the inconvenient points down for you:

First, when did the 90's economic boom start?

As conservatives like myself have been saying for years, despite what the Democratic presidential candidate and his media minions were saying at the time, the early '90s recession ended in the first quarter of 1991 long before most of the nation had ever heard of Bill Clinton.

What this means is the economy had been growing for seven straight quarters by the time Clinton took office, with the previous four quarters experiencing what most economists consider boom-like in terms of GDP. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/01/23/krugman-shocker-1990s-economic-boom-had-nothing-much-do-clinton#ixzz29PZ1wLmy

Do you disagree with this? This is just ONE source. We can go elsewhere if you don't like this one. I'm confident we're going to end up back here, however. The end of the recession is a matter of history, and we can find that information.

Zandi, in fact, credits Clinton’s predecessor for kicking off the deficit reduction that ultimately helped bring down interest rates and fuel the 1990s boom. ”It’s really fiscal discipline both on tax and spending side that began with Bush I,” he says. “The 1990 Omnibus Reconciliation Act was key to establishing fiscal discipline.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/06/what-we-can-learn-from-clintons-1993-tax-hike/

While you should have been taking credit in the first Bush's name for his contribution to the 90's boom, you instead insisted it was all a matter of Republicans winning the House.

posted October 15, 2012 07:31 PM            

Yeah, voters threw democrats out on their as$es because they were overjoyed with the way things were going in America during the first 2 years of the Clinton administration.

Get a life acoustic. Or get a shrink to cure your delusions.

Hahaha, now you're even further out in the weeds acoustic.

Clinton..aka, Kommander Korruption as candidate Clinton about the US economy under Bush I..."Worst economy in the last 40 years".

And now, you talk about how the economy was improving rapidly under Bush I and Clinton shouldn't take credit for it. You're a laugh a minute acoustic.

posted October 16, 2012 11:17 AM            

Classic!

In response to my question about when the 90's boom started you quote Bill Clinton!

I guess that just goes to show me that you trust politicians more than you trust facts.

That explains a lot!

posted October 16, 2012 11:42 AM            

True that. And later, his only claim to the good economy is that he listened to his presidential advisor...Dick Morris, moved away from his big government model which was killing off the boom started under Bush I and adopted the tax cuts, cuts in government spending and cuts in government regulation which produced the good economy and got Clinton reelected.

Before Clinton came to his senses and let Newt, Morris and Republicans rescue him from the electoral fix in which he found himself in 1994, he was toast.

Of course, you'd already know all that if you didn't spend all your time with your head up the butts of loony-tunes leftist incompetents who don't know anything about history...or are busy trying to re-write history for ideological political purposes.

posted October 16, 2012 12:08 PM            

quote:

---

True that. And later, his only claim to the good economy is that he listened to his presidential advisor...Dick Morris, moved away from his big government model which was killing off the boom started under Bush I and adopted the tax cuts, cuts in government spending and cuts in government regulation which produced the good economy and got Clinton reelected.

---

Nope. Clinton tax decrease/increase of 1993 is credited with having good results for both the government, and the economy. As I've been saying for days, there was no issue with the economy at the time the Republicans won the House.

quote:

---

Of course, you'd already know all that if you didn't spend all your time with your head up the butts of loony-tunes leftist incompetents who don't know anything about history...or are busy trying to re-write history for ideological political purposes.

---

Hey guy! I'm not the one re-writing history here. Do you want to move on to the next question, which would ask what happened as a result of Clinton's 1993 budget?

Here's a great summary for you:

Conservative politicians always threaten the public that, if Congress or the President raises taxes on the wealthy, the economy will slow down, unemployment will go up, and workers' wages will go down.

Conservatives’ hidden agenda: we want to allow our wealthy supporters—the ones who benefited most from the economic policies that forced huge sacrifices onto American workers during the 1980s and 90s—to be able to keep more of their money.

Reality: Raising taxes on the wealthy is much more likely to reduce the deficit and make more money available to proactively solve America’s problems—and save money in the long run. In addition, it may have absolutely no negative effect on economic growth, jobs or wages.

Here’s what conservative politicians said about the 1993 deficit reduction legislation that raised taxes on the top 1.2% of our wealthiest citizens:

"Clearly, this is a job-killer in the short-run. The impact on job creation is going to be devastating."
—Rep. Dick Armey, (Republican, Texas)

"The tax increase will…lead to a recession…and will actually increase the deficit."
—Rep. Newt Gingrich (Republican, Georgia)

"I will make you this bet. I am willing to risk the mortgage on it…the deficit will be up; unemployment will be up; in my judgment, inflation will be up."
—Sen. Robert Packwood (Republican, Oregon)

"The deficit four years from today will be higher than it is today, not lower."
—Sen. Phil Gramm (Republican, Texas)

"The President promised a middle-class tax cut, yet he and his party imposed the largest tax increase in American history. We hope his higher taxes will not cut short the economic recovery and declining interest rates he inherited… Instead of stifling growth through higher taxes and increased government regulations, Republicans would take America in a different direction."
—Sen. Robert Dole (Republican, Kansas)

(This is what you remember, Jwhop. Conservative talking heads making arguments against Clinton's 1993.)

So, what was the Wall Street Journal’s analysis of the the 1993 deficit reduction legislation?

A Vote for Clinton’s Economic Program Becomes The Platform for Often-Misleading GOP Attacks

Contrary to Republican claims, the 1993 package with a $240 billion tax increase is not "the largest tax increase in history."

The 1982 deficit-reduction package of President Reagan and Sen. Robert Dole in a GOP-controlled Senate was a bigger tax bill, both in 1993-adjusted dollars and as a percentage of the overall economy; and both recent laws are dwarfed by the tax bills of World War II.

Moreover, except for a small gasoline-tax boost and an increase for the best-off Social Security recipients, the tax increases in last years bill mostly didn’t touch the middle class but hit the wealthiest 1.2% of Americans.

GOP candidates also ignore the bill’s tax cuts for individuals and businesses, and nowhere do they describe the plan as a $433 billion, five-year deficit-reduction package.

"It’s the silly season. People are running for office, and people who run for office say silly things," says Carol Cox Wait, a former top GOP aide on the Senate Budget Committee who now heads the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget…

In all but 11 of the 435 House districts, more taxpayers were eligible for an income-tax cut than got a tax boost… Even in those 11 districts… more than three-quarters of the people saw no change at all in income taxes.

—WALL STREET JOURNAL, October 26, 1994, A22. (Notice the timing of this article.)

And what was the Journal’s take on the subject three years later?

Scary Deficit Forecasts For Clinton Years Fade As Tax Revenue Grows

It Rises Faster Than Outlays, Thanks to ’93 Budget Bill And a Steady Economy

Where has the federal deficit gone?

When Bill Clinton was elected president four years ago, the government was hemorrhaging red ink at a rate of almost $300 billion a year, and forecasters saw little improvement in the offing. Today, his budget office estimates the fiscal 1996 deficit at just $117 billion—the lowest in dollar terms since 1981, the year Ronald Reagan took office.

Measured as a share of the total economy, the U.S. deficit this year will run only about 1.6%—smaller than the deficits of Japan, Germany, Britain or, indeed, any of the world’s advanced nations except Norway.

Clearly, a stronger-than-expected economy has a lot to do with it. The tax increases in the 1993 deficit-reduction package that Mr. Clinton pushed through get credit as well. And, to a lesser extent, so do the spending cuts engineered by the Republican Congress…

For the current fiscal year, ending Sept. 30, collections now are expected to be $97 billion higher than the $1.356 trillion the Congressional Budget Office projected 3 ½ years ago as Mr. Clinton was taking office. That is about 7% more.

By the CBO’s analysis, just over half of the $97 billion increase beyond projections is due to tax boosts in Mr. Clinton’s 1993 antideficit plan. The rest is due to a variety of factors.

—WALL STREET JOURNAL, August 1, 1996, A1.