Bill Clinton is the f*cking man

[OregonSmock]

From a thread I started on phog.net, discussing the 8-year limit for president:

President Clinton was able to balance the budget by the end of his 2nd term, and he did it working alongside both Democrats and Republicans.  In 1997, they passed a new law that lowered capital gain taxes, estate taxes, credited taxpayers $500 per child, and established Roth IRA's.  In 1998, the United States reached their first budget surplus since 1969.  The economy was rolling, and in February 2000, it broke a record for the longest economic expansion in U.S. history - lasting ten years.  22.5 million jobs were created during the Clinton administration, with 20.7 million (92%) in the private sector.  By 1999, real median family income had increased from $42,612 in 1993 to $48,950.  Unemployment was at its lowest rate in over 30 years (at 4.0% in 2001).  Inflation was its lowest rate since the Kennedy adminstration.  The poverty rate also declined from 15.1% in 1993 to 11.8% in 1999.  The surplus in fiscal year 2000 was $237 billion—the third consecutive surplus and the largest surplus ever.  I mean the list just goes and on and on.

We all know what happened after Clinton left office.  The U.S. economy went from back-to-back-to-back budget surpluses to the worst recession since the Great Depression.  I don't think there's any doubt that things would be better today if Clinton had been allowed to run for re-election, or if Al Gore didn't have the presidency stolen from him.  While I understand the desire to limit the power of the President and minimize the chances of a potential dictatorship, I feel like limiting the President to two terms creates an unstable environment both politically and economically.  If President Clinton were still in office, this country would be in exponentially better shape than it is right now.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

You must have forgotten about 9/11 and the ensuing wars.

[OregonSmock]

You must have forgotten about 9/11 and the ensuing wars.

 

[EllToPay]

From a thread I copied on phog.net, discussing the 8-year limit for president:

President Clinton was able to balance the budget by the end of his 2nd term, and he did it working alongside both Democrats and Republicans.  In 1997, they passed a new law that lowered capital gain taxes, estate taxes, credited taxpayers $500 per child, and established Roth IRA's.  In 1998, the United States reached their first budget surplus since 1969.  The economy was rolling, and in February 2000, it broke a record for the longest economic expansion in U.S. history - lasting ten years.  22.5 million jobs were created during the Clinton administration, with 20.7 million (92%) in the private sector.  By 1999, real median family income had increased from $42,612 in 1993 to $48,950.  Unemployment was at its lowest rate in over 30 years (at 4.0% in 2001).  Inflation was its lowest rate since the Kennedy adminstration.  The poverty rate also declined from 15.1% in 1993 to 11.8% in 1999.  The surplus in fiscal year 2000 was $237 billion—the third consecutive surplus and the largest surplus ever.  I mean the list just goes and on and on.

We all know what happened after Clinton left office.  The U.S. economy went from back-to-back-to-back budget surpluses to the worst recession since the Great Depression.  I don't think there's any doubt that things would be better today if Clinton had been allowed to run for re-election, or if Al Gore didn't have the presidency stolen from him.  While I understand the desire to limit the power of the President and minimize the chances of a potential dictatorship, I feel like limiting the President to two terms creates an unstable environment both politically and economically.  If President Clinton were still in office, this country would be in exponentially better shape than it is right now.

FYP.

Also, :DNR:

['taterblast]

jesus beems you are a genius. you are the first person i've ever encountered that knew (copied) all of these cool facts.

'grats.

[Dugout DickStone]

I know you are trying to ease back in to this bbs'ing after "the Incident" but this isn't the way.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

You must have forgotten about 9/11 and the ensuing wars.

 

You're right, it had no affect on the economy or budget.

[sonofdaxjones]

Yet the White House had their original budget proposals which had billions in deficit spending as far a the eye could see shoved back in their face by the Republican Controlled Congress.  It was only after the White House was forced to revise their budget multiple times and was forced to agree to many other measures that the Republican controlled congress passed the first "balanced" (sic) budget in a long time.

[OregonSmock]

From a thread I copied on phog.net, discussing the 8-year limit for president:

President Clinton was able to balance the budget by the end of his 2nd term, and he did it working alongside both Democrats and Republicans.  In 1997, they passed a new law that lowered capital gain taxes, estate taxes, credited taxpayers $500 per child, and established Roth IRA's.  In 1998, the United States reached their first budget surplus since 1969.  The economy was rolling, and in February 2000, it broke a record for the longest economic expansion in U.S. history - lasting ten years.  22.5 million jobs were created during the Clinton administration, with 20.7 million (92%) in the private sector.  By 1999, real median family income had increased from $42,612 in 1993 to $48,950.  Unemployment was at its lowest rate in over 30 years (at 4.0% in 2001).  Inflation was its lowest rate since the Kennedy adminstration.  The poverty rate also declined from 15.1% in 1993 to 11.8% in 1999.  The surplus in fiscal year 2000 was $237 billion—the third consecutive surplus and the largest surplus ever.  I mean the list just goes and on and on.

We all know what happened after Clinton left office.  The U.S. economy went from back-to-back-to-back budget surpluses to the worst recession since the Great Depression.  I don't think there's any doubt that things would be better today if Clinton had been allowed to run for re-election, or if Al Gore didn't have the presidency stolen from him.  While I understand the desire to limit the power of the President and minimize the chances of a potential dictatorship, I feel like limiting the President to two terms creates an unstable environment both politically and economically.  If President Clinton were still in office, this country would be in exponentially better shape than it is right now.

FYP.

Also, :DNR:

I started the thread, dumbass.


http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=172&f=2497&t=7314270

[OregonSmock]

Yet the White House had their original budget proposals which had billions in deficit spending as far a the eye could see shoved back in their face by the Republican Controlled Congress.  It was only after the White House was forced to revise their budget multiple times and was forced to agree to many other measures that the Republican controlled congress passed the first "balanced" (sic) budget in a long time.

That's completely false, and it's exactly what the Republicans want people to believe.  President Clinton's economic policies were very much responsible for creating the budget surplus, with an emphasis on tax cuts for the middle class and stimulating growth in the private sector (over 20.7 million jobs). 

[Dirty Sanchez]

Bill Gates balanced the budget, not bill clinton.

[the KHAN!]

I would post the DNR GIF, but I was beaten to it.

[sonofdaxjones]

If you want to revise history, go ahead Beems aka UberButtElite, but it is what it is.   That was the last Congress where there were true fiscal conservatives in charge.   When the Republicans first took control of Congress the original White House proposed budgets that had billions in deficit spending in them, and had budget deficit projections in the billions for years.

Not to mention that the national debt increased every year under Clinton, but then again you've never been able to understand the concept of the 2 sides of the national debt, nor understand how then as now, the various "lockboxes" were raided in order to "balance" the budget.  I'd have to go back and look at the numbers but I believe they threw about $200 billion dollars worth of IOU's in the Social Security "lockbox" as well as the 6 or 7 other "trust funds" that are mandated to take surplus funds and buy U.S. Gov't Securities.


 Both Democrats and Republicans are all running this year and next and saying surplus, surplus. Look what we have done. It is false. The actual figures show that from the beginning of the fiscal year until now we had to borrow $127,800,000,000. - Democratic Senator Ernest Hollings, October 28, 1999  Congressional Chronicle C-Span

[Stupid Fitz]

If you want to revise history, go ahead Beems aka UberButtElite, but it is what it is.   That was the last Congress where there were true fiscal conservatives in charge.   When the Republicans first took control of Congress the original White House proposed budgets that had billions in deficit spending in them, and had budget deficit projections in the billions for years.

Not to mention that the national debt increased every year under Clinton, but then again you've never been able to understand the concept of the 2 sides of the national debt, nor understand how then as now, the various "lockboxes" were raided in order to "balance" the budget.  I'd have to go back and look at the numbers but I believe they threw about $200 billion dollars worth of IOU's in the Social Security "lockbox" as well as the 6 or 7 other "trust funds" that are mandated to take surplus funds and buy U.S. Gov't Securities.


 Both Democrats and Republicans are all running this year and next and saying surplus, surplus. Look what we have done. It is false. The actual figures show that from the beginning of the fiscal year until now we had to borrow $127,800,000,000. - Democratic Senator Ernest Hollings, October 28, 1999  Congressional Chronicle C-Span

[Poster formerly known as jthutch]

If you want to revise history, go ahead Beems aka UberButtElite, but it is what it is.   That was the last Congress where there were true fiscal conservatives in charge.   When the Republicans first took control of Congress the original White House proposed budgets that had billions in deficit spending in them, and had budget deficit projections in the billions for years.

Not to mention that the national debt increased every year under Clinton, but then again you've never been able to understand the concept of the 2 sides of the national debt, nor understand how then as now, the various "lockboxes" were raided in order to "balance" the budget.  I'd have to go back and look at the numbers but I believe they threw about $200 billion dollars worth of IOU's in the Social Security "lockbox" as well as the 6 or 7 other "trust funds" that are mandated to take surplus funds and buy U.S. Gov't Securities.


 Both Democrats and Republicans are all running this year and next and saying surplus, surplus. Look what we have done. It is false. The actual figures show that from the beginning of the fiscal year until now we had to borrow $127,800,000,000. - Democratic Senator Ernest Hollings, October 28, 1999  Congressional Chronicle C-Span

  I was going to say something about this but was to look up anything to support my thoughts.  Thanks Dax!

[Dave Wooderson]

It's unbelievable that people really don't understand the accumulative affect of liberal policies and the impact of such policies on Freddie and Fannie that caused the underlying collapse of the economy in '08 and '09.  Liberals have to lie, because their economic policies have never worked whenever tried.

[Dave Wooderson]

From a thread I started on phog.net, discussing the 8-year limit for president:

President Clinton was able to balance the budget by the end of his 2nd term, and he did it working alongside both Democrats and Republicans.  In 1997, they passed a new law that lowered capital gain taxes, estate taxes, credited taxpayers $500 per child, and established Roth IRA's.  In 1998, the United States reached their first budget surplus since 1969.  The economy was rolling, and in February 2000, it broke a record for the longest economic expansion in U.S. history - lasting ten years.  22.5 million jobs were created during the Clinton administration, with 20.7 million (92%) in the private sector.  By 1999, real median family income had increased from $42,612 in 1993 to $48,950.  Unemployment was at its lowest rate in over 30 years (at 4.0% in 2001).  Inflation was its lowest rate since the Kennedy adminstration.  The poverty rate also declined from 15.1% in 1993 to 11.8% in 1999.  The surplus in fiscal year 2000 was $237 billion—the third consecutive surplus and the largest surplus ever.  I mean the list just goes and on and on.

We all know what happened after Clinton left office.  The U.S. economy went from back-to-back-to-back budget surpluses to the worst recession since the Great Depression.  I don't think there's any doubt that things would be better today if Clinton had been allowed to run for re-election, or if Al Gore didn't have the presidency stolen from him.  While I understand the desire to limit the power of the President and minimize the chances of a potential dictatorship, I feel like limiting the President to two terms creates an unstable environment both politically and economically.  If President Clinton were still in office, this country would be in exponentially better shape than it is right now.

How dumb are you?  Do you even realize how conservative policies were inacted during this period of time, along with an entire new huge industry being formed?  Al Gore didn't have the presidency stolen from him.  He lost you idiot and it's been proven over and over since that time.  You Lib's never cease to amaze with how you completely ignore what has happened and what has influenced the economy since 2001.  In the 90's Bill Clinton moved to the conservative fast lane in order to get re-elected and to create policy that helped the Country. 

[ZappaCat]

 

[Cire]

I love bill clinton but he had the benefit of the .com boom that had nothing to do with him. 

[Rage Against the McKee]

Two terms is plenty. Nobody should hold any office for more than 10 years.

[EMAWmeister]

It's unbelievable that people really don't understand the accumulative affect of liberal policies and the impact of such policies on Freddie and Fannie that caused the underlying collapse of the economy in '08 and '09.  Liberals have to lie, because their economic policies have never worked whenever tried.

JFC this.  While the intent of letting many people become homeowners is a noble one, it royally mumped us.

[swish1]

NAFTA.  FAIL.

[LickNeckey]

"I love bill clinton but he had the benefit of the .com boom that had nothing to do with him."

nothing to do with him????  WTF don't you know who invented the internet?  Only Bill's VP. Dumbass   

"While the intent of letting many people become homeowners is a noble one, it royally effed us."

was the problem really no money down loans or greedy mortgage houses packaging hullabaloo debt