for Top Gun...

[USMC the Almighty]

I have seen you call Bill Cinton a "great president" and a "phenomenal president" a number of times on these boards. So my question to you is why? What makes him stand out from the other custodial presidents?

 

[Beetle Bailey]

I have seen you call Bill Cinton a "great president" and a "phenomenal president" a number of times on these boards. So my question to you is why? What makes him stand out from the other custodial presidents?

People have short memories. Many of the members of this forum are not old enough to remember many presidents. So I guess it's just a matter of comparison with what they know. If all you know is Bush, Clinton and then Bush again; Clinton begins to look pretty good.

 

[top gun]

I have seen you call Bill Clinton a "great president" and a "phenomenal president" a number of times on these boards. So my question to you is why? What makes him stand out from the other custodial presidents?

Well I'm 50 years old so my personal political memories go back to when I was in elementary school.

I remember JFK. I still remember many of his inspirational speeches. His standing up to Russia. His stepping up in the Civil right struggle. I remember school being let out the day he was assassinated and my mother crying.

I remember Nixon. Burglary, Cover-Up... eventual resignation... Watergate. I remember the constant lying about how great the war was going in Vietnam when it absolutely wasn't (sounds sort of familiar again).

I remember Ford. A decent person. Bland president. Gave a full pardon to his crooked predecessor Nixon.

I remember Carter. A wonderful God fairing peace minded man. Couldn't see his way steering the country very well with two hands and a flashlight though.

I remember Reagan. "Plausible deniability" I don't remember anything about that during the Iran-Contra arms for hostages scandal. Was a good public speaker that made people feel good. Ran up the cost of the arms race until it bankrupted Russia. A good thing except that all of his extreme deficit spending came back to wreck our own economy (and history is now repeating with Republican deficit spending is in FULL swing).

I remember Bush #1. Good person actually... a lot more centrist than Reagan. Not an inspiring public speaker but had some understanding of foreign policy. Was saddled with all that Reagan arms race debt that came a calling as it always does... Terrible economic times for the country... up there with Carter's.

I remember Bill Clinton. As good as they come public speaking and explaining a message. Someone who brought the Democratic Party away from the Jessie Jackson far Left over the the middle. Worked hard to keep people talking together about peace in the Middle East. Presided over an almost perfect economy for two full terms (8 years) much of which happened through consumer confidence going through the roof do to his "war" on the Republican built deficit. Not only under Clinton's watch did we pay that monster off but we even built up a surplus.

While it's true he was relentlessly witch hunted from the Right on anything imaginable to try and kill off a JFK style wildly popular political legacy he did have a flaw for the ladies. I don't like it because it hurt the Democratic Juggernaut that would have surely come to pass had he not made those types of personal mistakes... but also I've concluded that these were not job mistakes. I wish he would have done what Bush #2 has done repeatedly when asked about his rampant drug use in college and just say "no comment on my personal life" but he didn't. Still if his his wife and daughter can forgive him and he ran my country well... then he did the job I elected him for. The proof was in the numbers. President Bill Clinton continued to have about a 62% job approval rating even after Impeachment when he concluded his 2nd term and left office.

I don't want to remember Bush #2 but I will. Lied us into war. Growing our government at it's highest rate ever dollar wise. Spending our tax money and building up a budget deficit like there is no tomorrow. Terrible at foreign policy. Hurt our standing in the world. Endorses civil liberty abuses against not only those captured in war but also the American people themselves. Looks the other way on torture. Commutes Libby's jail sentence to assure he never speaks on the involvement of Cheney and himself in the CIA operative outing. Probably not even at his low point yet and he has like a 27% job approval rating.

Looking at it all I have no choice but to appreciate what JFK and President Bill Clinton did for our nation. Steering the ship and not wrecking the ship is important.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

I remember Bush #1. Good person actually...

I'd have to disagree on that. He's just another NWO elitist. Another economically liberal/collectivist Republican.

I remember Bill Clinton. As good as they come public speaking and explaining a message.

Irrelevant. Someone can lie eloquently and brilliantly - that does not change a lie to truth though. We saw how passionately and eloquently he could lie to the nation as he claimed to "not have sex with that woman" while wagging his finger at us in the camera. Yeah, right... Charisma, public speaking ability, status - those things are all ultimately irrelevant. The only thing that matters is logical truth - and clinton had a problem with speaking the truth.

Someone who brought the Democratic Party away from the Jessie Jackson far Left over the the middle.

Please explain what a President Jesse Jackson would have done that would have been much more "far left" than Clinton. Please explain the specific policy differences between what you term as "far left" and "center left."

Worked hard to keep people talking together about peace in the Middle East.

And failed. And he did not change our foreign policy which is the cause of the terrorist attacks against us.

Presided over an almost perfect economy for two full terms (8 years) much of which happened through consumer confidence going through the roof do to his "war" on the Republican built deficit. Not only under Clinton's watch did we pay that monster off but we even built up a surplus.

Good God at the revisionist history we're getting here... Although it was a political move to deny Clinton spending power - the Republican Congress was what held him in check.

And "perfect" economy? You guys who ignore the national debt while focusing on the deficit are quite funny. As long as the national debt keeps rising, bad times are ahead. Even some offices of the government are admitting this now:

http://www.gao.gov/cghome/d07527cg.pdf

Clinton did nothing to reduce the national debt. The national debt was far higher when he left office. The only difference is that it didn't grow as fast as it has under Bush, but that's still not a moral policy. One cannot say "Well I'm moral because while I placed future generations of unborn Americans in greater debt, I didn't do it as fast as Bush."

While it's true he was relentlessly witch hunted from the Right on anything imaginable to try and kill off a JFK style wildly popular political legacy

ROTFLMAO. JFK style? Wildly popular? The guy was never even elected with a majority vote. He was a total fluke candidate who wouldn't have won in 1992 without the recession hitting.

I don't like it because it hurt the Democratic Juggernaut that would have surely come to pass had he not made those types of personal mistakes...

Democratic juggernaut? Again, ROTFLMAO. After you had a sitting speaker of the house voted out for the first time in over 150 years! And you lost Congress in a massive landslide... The American public isn't predominantly liberal - they're just predominantly ignorant and easily deceived by slick politicians like Clinton:

https://www.houseofpolitics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1023

but also I've concluded that these were not job mistakes. I wish he would have done what Bush #2 has done repeatedly when asked about his rampant drug use in college and just say "no comment on my personal life" but he didn't.

Well that's because he was so used to lying.

You want the truth about Clinton's term? Then start looking behind the scenes.

The proof was in the numbers. President Bill Clinton continued to have about a 62% job approval rating even after Impeachment when he concluded his 2nd term and left office.

After the Republican Congress had pulled him to the right and restrained his spending. Clinton just lucked out thanks to the dot com boom. Clinton had nothing to do with that. In fact, it would have never happened without the Reagan tax cuts - simply because people would not have been able to profit from creating all these new companies.

I don't want to remember Bush #2 but I will.

Bush has been a disaster, but Clinton was no savior. They're Nero and Caligula.

 

[SW85]

No, they're both Neroes. (Caligula's reign was mercifully limited to four years).

You may have left out China-gate, Truthbringer (I admit I skimmed your post) -- the selling of nuclear weapons technology to China in exchange for campaign donations. That alone is enough to sour me on the man permanently, and that's before you add in the general sleaziness that marked his administration (the adultery, sexual harrassment, and yes, there were just as many scandals as there were under Bush and they all faded quickly into obscurity -- Travelgate, Filegate, Whitewater, etc).

The only thing Clinton has done better than Bush II was spin, as witnessed by the fact that people still like him and are willing to vote for his hectoring shrew of a wife.

 

[Coyote]

No, they're both Neroes. (Caligula's reign was mercifully limited to four years).

You may have left out China-gate, Truthbringer (I admit I skimmed your post) -- the selling of nuclear weapons technology to China in exchange for campaign donations. That alone is enough to sour me on the man permanently, and that's before you add in the general sleaziness that marked his administration (the adultery, sexual harrassment, and yes, there were just as many scandals as there were under Bush and they all faded quickly into obscurity -- Travelgate, Filegate, Whitewater, etc).

The only thing Clinton has done better than Bush II was spin, as witnessed by the fact that people still like him and are willing to vote for his hectoring shrew of a wife.

Maybe people still like because...in hindsight, they realize he wasn't so bad afterall...especially now that the rightwing spin is wearing thin.

 

[top gun]

Truth-Bringer;16581]I'd have to disagree on that. He's just another NWO elitist. Another economically liberal/collectivist Republican.

Please understand I'm only listing the pros and cons as I've seen them. I didn't say I voted for him. I'm just comparing generalities.

Irrelevant. Someone can lie eloquently and brilliantly - that does not change a lie to truth though. We saw how passionately and eloquently he could lie to the nation as he claimed to "not have sex with that woman" while wagging his finger at us in the camera. Yeah, right... Charisma, public speaking ability, status - those things are all ultimately irrelevant. The only thing that matters is logical truth - and clinton had a problem with speaking the truth.

Well you're wrong here. Being able to present a vision clearly and connect with the American people is VERY important. In fact that's often what gets people elected in the first place. You can be as book smart as the day is long but if you can't connect you won't win much or stay long. A good example would be Adlai Stevenson v. Eisenhower.

FAR to much was made over Clinton having an affair. Yes it was wrong to lie about it under oath. But those questions had absolutely nothing to do with the nation nor his job performance. He was brilliant and a very hard worker for the American people.

I'm not justifying the lie but I do think people like to be overly critical at times and block out the circumstances and the laws of human nature. Every single day THOUSANDS of men and women walk right up in divorce court, swear to tell the truth, and then lie about having affairs. This isn't lying us into war or burglarizing the opposition party. I try to keep some perspective here.

Please explain what a President Jesse Jackson would have done that would have been much more "far left" than Clinton. Please explain the specific policy differences between what you term as "far left" and "center left."

Come on my friend. Jesse Jackson was/is far Left of Clinton. Clinton supported and authorized sweeping changes in welfare reform. Clinton focused on balancing the budget and ridding us of a Republican monster budget defecit and many other issues bringing the Democratic Party fairly peacefully towards the middle.

And failed. And he did not change our foreign policy which is the cause of the terrorist attacks against us.

I'm not trying to be argumentative but that's just BS and you know it. No president can prevent all terrorist attacks. They can try to minimize them. They can work with other nations toward peace. But they cannot just make it happen. They can however make it worse as we have now.

To blame Clinton for not stopping terrorism in the future is a interesting concept. I presume you are a fair minded, good for the goose good for the gander type person. Being such you must blame Ronald Reagan for not stopping terrorism during his 2 terms in office that led to the Marine barracks bombing in Lebanon?????????? Because it is the exact same scenario!

Good God at the revisionist history we're getting here... Although it was a political move to deny Clinton spending power - the Republican Congress was what held him in check.

There you go again. Personal feelings aside the truth is well documented. Clinton wanted and pushed for sweeping spending cuts. It's been noted hundreds of times even on 60 Minutes that President Clinton even had a small sign plaque on his desk in the Oval office that read... "It's the economy stupid!" Not exactly something someone unconcerned with the economy would have.

And "perfect" economy? You guys who ignore the national debt while focusing on the deficit are quite funny. As long as the national debt keeps rising, bad times are ahead. Even some offices of the government are admitting this now:

http://www.gao.gov/cghome/d07527cg.pdf

Clinton did nothing to reduce the national debt. The national debt was far higher when he left office. The only difference is that it didn't grow as fast as it has under Bush, but that's still not a moral policy. One cannot say "Well I'm moral because while I placed future generations of unborn Americans in greater debt, I didn't do it as fast as Bush."

The economy was excellent. I was born in 1957 so I remember well life through every president JFK and on. I've felt good and bad economies. The national debt is important. The budget defecit is important. The fact is Clinton started attacking a major problem built up during the Reagan years. That's just the fact of the matter.

And it's not who's more "moral" about the economy... it's who's at least trying.

ROTFLMAO. JFK style? Wildly popular? The guy was never even elected with a majority vote. He was a total fluke candidate who wouldn't have won in 1992 without the recession hitting.

I'll just say two things. Recession hitting why and 62% job approval rating even after impeachment.

Democratic juggernaut? Again, ROTFLMAO. After you had a sitting speaker of the house voted out for the first time in over 150 years! And you lost Congress in a massive landslide... The American public isn't predominantly liberal - they're just predominantly ignorant and easily deceived by slick politicians like Clinton:

You're entitled to your opinion. I think we are seeing the pendulum swing back now aren't we. The Republican contract with America ended up being the culture of corruption manifesto. Gingrich was running around with his secretary during the Clinton witch hunt, left his wife while she was in the hospital and married her... didn't even try to run for re-election. Gay Republicans popping out all over. People started noticing the hypocrisy from that side of the aisle my friend.

After the Republican Congress had pulled him to the right and restrained his spending. Clinton just lucked out thanks to the dot com boom. Clinton had nothing to do with that. In fact, it would have never happened without the Reagan tax cuts - simply because people would not have been able to profit from creating all these new companies.

Now you're just being silly so I won't even make much comment. None of that Reagan "Trickle Down" or as Bush #1 called it "Voodoo Economics" did crap but make the rich a little richer. Not a big secret.

As the old joke goes... Remember the time when the only thing the president screwed were his girlfriends?

Man I miss those times!!!!!!!

 

[top gun]

No, they're both Neroes. (Caligula's reign was mercifully limited to four years).

You may have left out China-gate, Truthbringer (I admit I skimmed your post) -- the selling of nuclear weapons technology to China in exchange for campaign donations. That alone is enough to sour me on the man permanently, and that's before you add in the general sleaziness that marked his administration (the adultery, sexual harrassment, and yes, there were just as many scandals as there were under Bush and they all faded quickly into obscurity -- Travelgate, Filegate, Whitewater, etc).

The only thing Clinton has done better than Bush II was spin, as witnessed by the fact that people still like him and are willing to vote for his hectoring shrew of a wife.

Well of course I disagree. I think the country would be very lucky to have another Clinton the Whitehouse. But any leading Democratic candidate would be light years better than George W. Bush so I'll support any of them.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

[B
I remember Bill Clinton. As good as they come public speaking and explaining a message.

So were a lot of Presidents. I'm asking you what made him stand out.

Someone who brought the Democratic Party away from the Jessie Jackson far Left over the the middle.

No, that was actually the Republican Congress that forced him to moderate his position.

Worked hard to keep people talking together about peace in the Middle East.

Unsuccessfully of course. He banked his entire legacy on Middle Eastern peace and he failed.

Presided over an almost perfect economy for two full terms (8 years) much of which happened through consumer confidence going through the roof do to his "war" on the Republican built deficit.

Has almost nothing to do with President. He was fortunate to be in the middle of the computer/information age.

Not only under Clinton's watch did we pay that monster off but we even built up a surplus.

So did Calvin Coolidge. This alone doesn't make him stand out.

While it's true he was relentlessly witch hunted from the Right on anything imaginable to try

...though not nearly to the extent that the leftist media goes after President Bush.

President Bill Clinton continued to have about a 62% job approval rating even after Impeachment when he concluded his 2nd term and left office.

No, during the impeachment hearings, he actually dipped below 30%.

 

[top gun]

USMC the Almighty;16659]So were a lot of Presidents. I'm asking you what made him stand out.

I think I answered that and in pretty good detail in my response to truth-bringer so I won't type it all out again. He did a very good job as to working hard and leading our country. He didn't win a world war or anything but as I said often times sailing the ship competently and not sinking the ship is pretty darn important.

No, that was actually the Republican Congress that forced him to moderate his position.

As someone who was extremely involved at the time I can tell you unequivocally that is a untrue. Clinton had a great desire to trim the budget and he did just that. If you want to believe the old scam that Republicans are somehow "frugal" go ahead but the numbers are crystal clear on the matter.

Unsuccessfully of course. He banked his entire legacy on Middle Eastern peace and he failed.

Another thing that is just not so. President Clinton did work hard as he did with many things to keep the Israelis and the Palestinians talking and at truce. Not all things work out long term just because America wants it that way. We are not the World Police... although you couldn't tell that at this moment. If I go with your premise than let's say that Reagan also failed due to the terrorist bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon.

Has almost nothing to do with President. He was fortunate to be in the middle of the computer/information age.

I really don't know what to say. Times were about as good as they get for 8 straight years with consumer confidence (which has a lot to do with belief in leadership and course) and you say Clinton barely had to show up for work. 911 happens and all the messes since then with Bush a the helm... those are all Clinton's fault. It so obviously partisan sour grapes and nothing more. But you have a right to spin as you wish... I guess?

So did Calvin Coolidge. This alone doesn't make him stand out.

And yet again... he was a respected world leader that did a good job running my country. That's all I ask. I don't want a Pope and I don't expect Superman.

...though not nearly to the extent that the leftist media goes after President Bush.

The right loves to spin that. The truth is most Americans are moderates not hard Left nor hard right. MAINSTREAM media is mainstream. Moderate mainstream may not be neo-con hard right but then it's not trying to be... it's MODERATE my friend!

No, during the impeachment hearings, he actually dipped below 30%.

Do ya think??? After all that Republican witch hunting and demonization that led to nada except about having a consensual adult affair that he then tried to keep personal and protect the feelings of his wife and child by disclaiming it.

This is why I so love it when the Republicans get caught out being gay or seducing Congressional pages. Or like when Newt served his wife divorce papers when she was in the hospital so he could marry his secretary. All this Republican holier than thou stuff...

And "OF COURSE" Clinton's numbers dropped during the impeachment hearings... take your foot off the spin machine for a second ... what I said was even with that they were back up to 62% when he left office. But I was even wrong. It was actually 65%!

USA TODAY
01/17/2001 - Updated 08:03 PM ET

Clinton: Retired, but hardly retiring

By Mimi Hall, USA TODAY

Going out on a high

Despite his legal difficulties, Clinton leaves office with a 65% approval rating in a recent USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll, the highest for a departing president in the half-century of modern polling. And, barring an accident or illness - on Tuesday doctors said a lesion removed from Clinton's back was a common and treatable skin cancer, Clinton could remain active in public life for another 20 or 30 years.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

Please understand I'm only listing the pros and cons as I've seen them. I didn't say I voted for him. I'm just comparing generalities.

Have you ever voted for a Republican or a third party candidate for President? Because you appear to be nothing more than a partisan Democrat hack.

Well you're wrong here. Being able to present a vision clearly and connect with the American people is VERY important. In fact that's often what gets people elected in the first place. You can be as book smart as the day is long but if you can't connect you won't win much or stay long. A good example would be Adlai Stevenson v. Eisenhower.

Again, this is the problem with the ignorance of the general population that I mentioned earlier. There is no "vision" to be presented. Our leaders should be stewards for the protection of each individual's unalienable rights under Natural Law. Each and every individual should have the liberty to engage in any peaceful, honest, voluntary activity that he or she chooses to participate in. Government should only become involved if someone uses force, fraud or coercion against innocent people. That is government's only legitimate role.

Now that is a logical truth. I shouldn't have to "sell" it to anyone. You should accept the truth and respect my right to engage in any peaceful, honest, voluntary activity that I choose. And I should respect your right to do the same.

FAR to much was made over Clinton having an affair.

Yes, far too much was made over the affair. They should have focused on his real crimes.

Yes it was wrong to lie about it under oath. But those questions had absolutely nothing to do with the nation nor his job performance. He was brilliant and a very hard worker for the American people.

Brilliant? No. He was misguided. Hard worker? He was a hard worker for himself and trying to secure some type of legacy.

I try to keep some perspective here.

How about the perspective that this didn't happen just once, but was happening with multiple women on a near constant basis? And that he was accused of harassing and raping some of the women? How about the perspective that it didn't happen with any other President? How about the perspective that a female foreign operative could have gained access to the President in this manner? In truth, there are lots of different perspectives to think about.

Come on my friend. Jesse Jackson was/is far Left of Clinton.

I'm not disagreeing with that. How's your reading comprehension these days? I'm asking you to DEFINE WHAT THAT MEANS EXACTLY.

Clinton supported and authorized sweeping changes in welfare reform. Clinton focused on balancing the budget and ridding us of a Republican monster budget defecit and many other issues bringing the Democratic Party fairly peacefully towards the middle.

Clinton wanted none of that. The Republicans took control of Congress and passed welfare reform on their own. Clinton just looked at the polls and saw it was popular and signed it based on an opinion poll. Clinton never would have pushed for welfare reform on his own.

And as far as the deficit, the original tax package in '90 was supposed to reduce the deficit - IT DIDN'T. I remember Jay Rockfeller being asked why it didn't work - his answer: "Because Bush didn't care." ROTFLMAO. "Caring" does not make a policy work. The percentage cuts or increases are what they are. Whatever happens is based on the laws of economics - not on "caring."

The Republicans were the ones who forced cuts in the spending levels. The Democrats fought it tooth and nail. I still remember the press conference with the Democrats in Congress at that time. They claimed there would be "children starving in the streets" after the Republicans alleged cuts of the school lunch program. No such thing ever happened after the cuts in spending occurred. I still have yet to see any starving children who were denied their lunches.

I'm not trying to be argumentative but that's just BS and you know it. No president can prevent all terrorist attacks.

No, they could not prevent all terrorist attacks, but that wasn't my point. You really like to argue Straw Men, don't you? My point is that certain policies make us a target for terrorists - which Bin Laden specifically stated in his fatwa.

To blame Clinton for not stopping terrorism in the future is a interesting concept. I presume you are a fair minded, good for the goose good for the gander type person. Being such you must blame Ronald Reagan for not stopping terrorism during his 2 terms in office that led to the Marine barracks bombing in Lebanon?????????? Because it is the exact same scenario!

Indeed I do. Which is why I'm a member of the Libertarian Party. I only vote for Libertarians. I do not vote for Democrats or Republicans, although this time I would vote for Ron Paul if he won the nomination because he is the only candidate from the major parties running who wants to change our foreign policy back to noninterventionism.

There you go again. Personal feelings aside the truth is well documented. Clinton wanted and pushed for sweeping spending cuts. It's been noted hundreds of times even on 60 Minutes that President Clinton even had a small sign plaque on his desk in the Oval office that read... "It's the economy stupid!" Not exactly something someone unconcerned with the economy would have.

And there you again. Clinton only went for spending cuts because the Republicans were forcing his hand. His smaller spending cuts were an attempt to portray the Republicans as wanting to cut spending too much. "It's the economy stupid" had nothing to do with spending cuts. Liberals falsely believe that more government spending and higher taxes equals a better economy, so why on earth would they equate "it's the economy stupid" to spending cuts. The Democrats controlled Congress for over 40 years - never once did they cut spending. Spending increased every single year under their control.

The economy was excellent. I was born in 1957 so I remember well life through every president JFK and on. I've felt good and bad economies.

The worst economy was under Carter. Reagan won big, much to the surprise of the media, and his tax cuts did spur economic growth. The evidence of that was his re-election in a landslide, crushing Mondale who represented Carter's policies.

The national debt is important. The budget defecit is important.

The budget deficit is only important in regards to its relation to the debt. The national debt is the main issue, as the interest payments rise every year, requiring more tax revenue to pay, and burdening future generations. Clinton did nothing to reduce the national debt. The national debt was far greater after he left office.

The fact is Clinton started attacking a major problem built up during the Reagan years. That's just the fact of the matter.

What did the budget deficit and the national debt do under Carter's administration? If you said they went up every single year and the debt topped $1 trillion for the first time in history under Carter's administration, you'd be correct. But yet it's somehow all Reagan's fault...

I'll just say two things. Recession hitting why

Recessions occur at cycles, Einstein. Roughly 10 year business cycles.

You're entitled to your opinion. I think we are seeing the pendulum swing back now aren't we.

No, we aren't. You're still quite delusional aren't you? The Democrats owe their control of the Senate to the Libertarians. Vote totals for Democrat victory in Montana and Missouri were less than the vote totals for the Libertarian candidate in each race. People were voting against the Republicans, not for the Democrats. And you guys just had a sitting minority leader in the Senate voted out - remember Daschle? First time in over 100 years for that as well I think. And some the Democrats elected to the house were pro-gun rights and held far different views than the liberal leadership.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

Now you're just being silly so I won't even make much comment. None of that Reagan "Trickle Down" or as Bush #1 called it "Voodoo Economics" did crap but make the rich a little richer. Not a big secret.

The rich get richer no matter what system you have. You need to stop worrying about trying to steal their money and worry about your own rights and respecting the rights of others.

The rich did nothing but get richer under your boy Clinton. Here's an article from a liberal website with the facts:

Incomes of the ultra-rich quadrupled in eight years

By Jeremy Johnson

The 400 top-earning US taxpayers nearly quadrupled their income over the past decade, according to a report released by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) last week. The IRS report documents just how much the rich got richer in the decade of the 1990’s. It states that the adjusted gross income (AGI) of these 400 super-rich taxpayers went from an average of $46.8 million in 1992 to $174 million in 2000. Similarly, the minimum AGI required to be included in the elite group rose from $24.4 million to $86.8 million.

The nearly $70 billion in income reported in 2000 on these few tax returns constituted 1.09 percent of the total income reported by all 129 million taxpayers, or over 3,500 times the average. The percentage of income concentrated in the top 400 more than doubled from 0.52 percent in 1992.

While the IRS did not provide details on individual returns, one report indicated that several taxpayers listed incomes greater than $1 billion.

As the incomes of the super-rich rocketed up, the percentage they paid in federal income tax dropped over the eight years from 26.4 percent to 22.3 percent. At the same time, average taxpayers saw their percentage rise from 13.1 percent to 15.4 percent.

These latest statistics confirm the extent to which the Democratic administration of President Clinton presided over a concentration of wealth at the top that went far beyond that of his Republican predecessors, Ronald Reagan and George Bush, Sr.

Rest of article here.

 

[Coyote]

Our leaders should be stewards for the protection of each individual's unalienable rights under Natural Law. Each and every individual should have the liberty to engage in any peaceful, honest, voluntary activity that he or she chooses to participate in. Government should only become involved if someone uses force, fraud or coercion against innocent people. That is government's only legitimate role.

Why?...

 

[top gun]

Truth-Bringer;16694]Have you ever voted for a Republican or a third party candidate for President? Because you appear to be nothing more than a partisan Democrat hack.

That seems a tad bit harsh . Actually when I look at my entire family and not just me we all tend to vote for "best" candidate at the time. I have voted for Republicans (not recently) and I always declared as an Independent until Clinton's 2nd term. Since I have been a registered Democrat... hack?

Again, this is the problem with the ignorance of the general population that I mentioned earlier. There is no "vision" to be presented. Our leaders should be stewards for the protection of each individual's unalienable rights under Natural Law. Each and every individual should have the liberty to engage in any peaceful, honest, voluntary activity that he or she chooses to participate in. Government should only become involved if someone uses force, fraud or coercion against innocent people. That is government's only legitimate role.

I would just say with all due respect... talk is cheap until you have to actually govern something. If it's your belief that somehow Libertarians have all the answers and things would just be so rosy if they were just given a chance I'd say the American people are not buying that sells job in large numbers for a reason.

Brilliant? No. He was misguided. Hard worker? He was a hard worker for himself and trying to secure some type of legacy.

I don't see that I'm persuading you toward the truth of the matter so it would seem just argumentative to respond further on this.

How about the perspective that this didn't happen just once, but was happening with multiple women on a near constant basis? And that he was accused of harassing and raping some of the women? How about the perspective that it didn't happen with any other President? How about the perspective that a female foreign operative could have gained access to the President in this manner? In truth, there are lots of different perspectives to think about.

How about... how about. How about if frogs had wings. Then they wouldn't bump their butts on the ground when they hopped.

Politics breed many attacks and allegations. If there were any legal charges I didn't hear about I'm sure you'll fill me in. If you think Bill Clinton was the first man in a high political power position to have an affair you are seriously misguided. It's probably actually more the norm or at the very least common. I would list names but you already know this to be true. I bet even Libs have affairs...

I'm not disagreeing with that. How's your reading comprehension these days? I'm asking you to DEFINE WHAT THAT MEANS EXACTLY.

I answered your question. You said little difference... and I gave you examples of things Clinton pushed for that Jackson was not in favor of. That means to me Clinton moved the Democratic Party to the center.

Clinton wanted none of that. The Republicans took control of Congress and passed welfare reform on their own. Clinton just looked at the polls and saw it was popular and signed it based on an opinion poll. Clinton never would have pushed for welfare reform on his own.

And as far as the deficit, the original tax package in '90 was supposed to reduce the deficit - IT DIDN'T. I remember Jay Rockfeller being asked why it didn't work - his answer: "Because Bush didn't care." ROTFLMAO. "Caring" does not make a policy work. The percentage cuts or increases are what they are. Whatever happens is based on the laws of economics - not on "caring."

The Republicans were the ones who forced cuts in the spending levels. The Democrats fought it tooth and nail. I still remember the press conference with the Democrats in Congress at that time. They claimed there would be "children starving in the streets" after the Republicans alleged cuts of the school lunch program. No such thing ever happened after the cuts in spending occurred. I still have yet to see any starving children who were denied their lunches.

I'm sorry but even with spin little of this is true. It is true SOME Democrats in Congress were against some of the spending cuts. Clinton was not... and that's my point. As I said before... believe the Republicans are frugal and the Dems are the spenders if you perfer... but no one else believes that anymore because you can't hide the numbers.

No, they could not prevent all terrorist attacks, but that wasn't my point. You really like to argue Straw Men, don't you? My point is that certain policies make us a target for terrorists - which Bin Laden specifically stated in his fatwa.

Then we can blame just about every single president since Kennedy in both parties and get off just Clinton's back. They all cared about National Security. They were not and will never be perfect at fighting terrorists many of which are completely unknown until attack.

And as a side note: Libertarian isolationism won't stop that either and you know it.

Indeed I do. Which is why I'm a member of the Libertarian Party. I only vote for Libertarians. I do not vote for Democrats or Republicans, although this time I would vote for Ron Paul if he won the nomination because he is the only candidate from the major parties running who wants to change our foreign policy back to noninterventionism.

Well then perhaps we've uncovered your real problem. It's election envy . As far a Ron Paul I'm sure he'll get the nomination and win the election by huge numbers because the vast majority of the American people agree with you. We will see...

And there you again. Clinton only went for spending cuts because the Republicans were forcing his hand. His smaller spending cuts were an attempt to portray the Republicans as wanting to cut spending too much. "It's the economy stupid" had nothing to do with spending cuts. Liberals falsely believe that more government spending and higher taxes equals a better economy, so why on earth would they equate "it's the economy stupid" to spending cuts. The Democrats controlled Congress for over 40 years - never once did they cut spending. Spending increased every single year under their control.

Well I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. The fact is the latest budget is probably always going to be the biggest budget because things don't ever get cheaper. That said Republican spending at multiple times including right now is just obscene.

The worst economy was under Carter. Reagan won big, much to the surprise of the media, and his tax cuts did spur economic growth. The evidence of that was his re-election in a landslide, crushing Mondale who represented Carter's policies.

Carter did have a bad economy and Reagan ran the country on credit that crashed down on his successor Bush #1 preventing him from winning a 2nd term... all true.

The budget deficit is only important in regards to its relation to the debt. The national debt is the main issue, as the interest payments rise every year, requiring more tax revenue to pay, and burdening future generations. Clinton did nothing to reduce the national debt. The national debt was far greater after he left office.

I believe both to be very important. The Democratic "pay as you go" policy seemed a good strategy for one problem. Perhaps more can be done when they gain more control to work on the other because old George ain't too shabby at running up that number either.

What did the budget deficit and the national debt do under Carter's administration? If you said they went up every single year and the debt topped $1 trillion for the first time in history under Carter's administration, you'd be correct. But yet it's somehow all Reagan's fault...

I'm saying Reagan ran up huge debt on the arms race. That's all I said and that is true. There have almost if not always been deficits. I'm just pointing out that the pubbies love them too.

Recessions occur at cycles, Einstein. Roughly 10 year business cycles.

Believe what you like but all things can be managed well or horribly, top gun.

No, we aren't. You're still quite delusional aren't you? The Democrats owe their control of the Senate to the Libertarians. Vote totals for Democrat victory in Montana and Missouri were less than the vote totals for the Libertarian candidate in each race. People were voting against the Republicans, not for the Democrats. And you guys just had a sitting minority leader in the Senate voted out - remember Daschle? First time in over 100 years for that as well I think. And some the Democrats elected to the house were pro-gun rights and held far different views than the liberal leadership.

I'm not sure what your point is here. You win elections by being able to energize your base while still bringing in the Independent moderates. The truth is the hard Right and hard Left seldom change it's who can bring the Independents over to their side that almost always wins.

Yes Daschle lost. I could print out a laundry list of high ranking Republicans that did the same.

I look forward to the sweeping Libertarian wins in 08. As I said before, we will see...

 

[Truth-Bringer]

Why?...

Why? Because government is nothing more than a collective of individuals. No one gains any new rights by joining a collective. No rights supercede the innate, unalienable rights of the individual. What is immoral for one individual to do to another individual, is still immoral if done by a collective.