Oh, what a contrast this shows, between leaders.

 

Wow!

 

Views: 450

Replies to This Discussion

I just find it weird that when people here talk about presidents then ignore 8 yrs of Clinton. Point is, US debt was better under his watch. Maybe his doing or maybe the doing of the Republican-controlled congress. I don't know.

 

The Clinton years were mostly uneventful.  That's actually a good thing.  But, consequently, Clinton is mostly forgettable...except for his memorable quotations in Bartlett's.  Few people mention Daddy Bush, either...most people mention him only because of his son, truth be known.

 

If you go back and look...Clinton's first two years were a slashing of the military, and a ramping up of spending and debt due to proposed social programs like HillaryCare.  But, after the Republican victory, and Newt's "Contract with America," that was put to an end, and fiscal responsibility actually reigned for the first time in too many years.

 

Thanks to Reagan, we had enormous amounts of money coming in to the coffers, and thanks to Gingrich, we weren't spending as much...we ended up with an actual budget surplus.  And yes, many give that credit to Bill Clinton.

 

Of course, those are the same deluded fools who think his impeachment had to do with his affair, rather than his crime...perjuring himself while under oath.

Of course, those are the same deluded fools who think his impeachment had to do with his affair, rather than his crime...perjuring himself while under oath.

Nevermind that he was under oath because of a massive ruckus about an affair. 

Doesn't matter what they asked him.  He was legally bound to tell the truth.

 

He lied under oath.  A federal crime, in that particular instance.  And, a felony *is* grounds for impeachment *and* removal from office, in that order.

 

You may consider it frivolous...it may *be* frivolous.  But, it's also legal, and quite correct.

I don't disagree. I just don't think it can so casually be divorced from the farce that put him in that position in the first place.

If you're going to hold him up for the perjury. I'm going to hold up the other side for the hypocrisy of the whole damn thing in the first place. Both are shameful. Too bad only one was a crime. 

I just love seeing liberals all of a sudden hate several whistleblowers, pounce on underdogs to defend a powerful man who did reprehensible things, & behave horribly towards women all wrapped into one. So much for principles...

I remember reading a sensible man saying that apparently even Ms. Lewinsky's father cared more about what we are forced to call the president's honor than about his daughter's...

Didn't the US public debt climb under Reagan and GW Bush and then only begin to decline under Clinton? 


In part, yes. The exact how's and why's and rather or not they even count (The cold war, the deals made with the democratic congress, etc,) are all debatable, but as a percentage, national debt went up. Total tax REVENUES, as in sheer dollar amounts, went up significantly under Reagan, but he increased dramatically both infrastructure spending and defense spending. 

 Now, some argue that the improvements in infrastructure and forcing the collapse of the Soviet Union set the foundation for the huge economic expansion in the 90s' and early 2000's (Which is my opinion), but it's an endless debate. 

I seem to recall the debt limit being raised when Reagan was in office - multiple times! And nobody threw a tantrum and threatened to start slitting throats. I seem to recall Ronald Reagan increasing the national debt with his Star Wars and other pet projects. I seem to recall George Bush, Sr. warning that decreasing revenues and increasing spending was "voodoo economics." No one listened. 

Yeah, I just don't look back and see Reagan all that fondly

RSS

Latest Activity

John Lee Pettimore replied to Josh Williams's discussion I touched her butt.
"Hmmmm. Nah, too easy."
4 minutes ago
Jack Bauer replied to Josh Williams's discussion I touched her butt.
"I'm aware.  I wasn't talking specifically about birth defects.  Just the consequences of uniquely poor genetic diversification over a millennium or so.  Either way, you'd figure that'd be compounded when…"
16 minutes ago
Regular Joe replied to Peter Arkson's discussion Request for daily, short news radio program/podcast
"AKA too lazy to Google. "
20 minutes ago
Regular Joe replied to Josh Williams's discussion I touched her butt.
""In April 2002, the Journal of Genetic Counseling released a report which estimated the average risk of birth defects in a child born of first cousins at 1.7–2.8% over an average base risk for non-cousin couples of 3%,…"
28 minutes ago
Curtis replied to East London Gent's discussion Girlfriends lies and temper
"East London Gent!   Finally, another one!   Mate, honestly, she sounds like my mother and my ex-girlfriend.  Both of whom are raving loonies to varying degrees.  I would never want to end up with a woman like either of them…"
1 hour ago
Jack Bauer replied to East London Gent's discussion Girlfriends lies and temper
"He double posted at the outset ... and later deleted the one everybody replied to, for some reason.JB"
1 hour ago
Rick Shelton replied to Joe W's discussion Happy Fathers' Day in the group Fathers and Sons
"Step or not they're still your grandkids."
1 hour ago
Karl Helweg joined t-train's group
Thumbnail

Armchair Generals

A group for men who are interested in military history, or anything militaria.  Discuss armies of the past, great leaders, strategy, weapons, etc.See More
1 hour ago

© 2014   Created by Brett McKay.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service