the Clinton years was economically strong mainly due the fact Clinton was fiscally responsible. Clinton had inherited a messy economy from Reagan's successor, Bush Sr. who was fired by American voters, despite winning Desert Storm and once had enjoyed an approval rate of ~90%, due to his mis-handling of the economy. Reagan could never balance the federal deficit. Bush Sr. worsen it. By the end of his 3rd year, Clinton was able turn that huge deficit into a surplus, something Reagan could not accomplished. Clinton implemented a different set of economic policies, the antithesis of trickle-down economics, which paved the way for the prosperity of the 1990's. Both Reagan and Bush ran on the campaign pledge to cut taxes. both did that and then, when the deficit was worsening, they had to renege on the "no taxation" campaign pledges, as they both eventually raise taxes. one of the first thing that Clinton did was to raise taxes towards balancing the huge deficit passed down by the fiscally irresponsible "tricke-down-economics" cheerleaders.
Manuel noriega was on the right's payroll, and he symbolizes the corruption of the party. When they didn't need him anymore, they captured him. All of the sudden, the party became "aware" of his drug trafficking and violations against human rights. Many like to say that kerry is a traitor to his country, but the truths is, he is one of the few that stood up to reagan's evil war in el salvador. Reagan would go on to give amnesty to the victims of the civil war, but that was not due to his kindness. It had to do more with the pressure placed on him by the left. Kerry and teddy saved more than a million lives. They are true heroes in every sense of the word. The day reagan passed away, I smiled, just like i'm sure cuban exiles living in florida will smile when castro dies. (that's if he is not dead already) The question I was asking was... can someone explain ronald reagan to me too? It seems that those who think he was a great president base it on the "success" of reaganomics, and completely leave out his support for terrorism in the americas. Why not hitler for the greatest president ever? He did bring germany out of a depression. What, No three finger salute from the party?
I liked Clinton as President and I agree he was one of the most fiscally responsible presidents we have had recently, but he did not balance the budget or have a surplus. The government and media would report it that way, but it is not true. To come to that conclusion you must ignore the 800 pound gorilla in the room of medicare and social security.
I think you are overstating a president's role in an economy. If we are to give Clinton credit for the economic growth of the nineties, then we must also blame him for the recession soon after. Truth is, it was a dot-com bubble that fueled economic growth, that in turn fueled tax revenues. Also - tax revenues increased under "Reagonomics". That goes against the "theory" that trickle-down reduced tax revenues. The problem, as it is now, is spending. Reagan can at least point to the end of the cold war as the result of "his" deficit. Bush can only point to Iraq.
Single handedly beat the Russians? Laughable on its face. Great Communicator? Not to Black folx. Trickle Down Economy? Think Beggers Table. The ideal was GIVE THE MONEY TO THE RICH . . . CAUSE THEY ARE THE MOST NOBLE/HONEST/BEST OF US . . .AND THEY WILL 'DO THE RIGHT THING' AND SOCIETY WILL BENEFIT. It was a lie. . . so it failed. Iran/Contra - Back handed deal with Iran to hold the hostages until AFTER the election against carter . .then gave them what they wanted. Funded The Contras - Even used drug money [funneling cocaine it to 'urban' areas to fund wars in Latin America] He got in front of the supreme court and then claimed he had Madd Cow Disease <Danny Crane> He is parodied because Reagan hated black folx it was the general concensus among alot of black folx his opposition and tactics against the Black Panthers were both illegal and immoral. His funnelling drugs into black communities to fund foreign wars There is a saying in the black community "When American catches a cold. . . black folx catch Pneumonia" meaning if things get back in america. . .black folx get the worse of it well When America Caught reagan . . . Black America caught HELL. While Reagan is the reason alot of folx are republicans he is the reason most Black folx ARE NOT! this is slightly slanted but these will at least give you and Ideal of what people are talking about http://www.workers.org/ww/2004/reagan0617.php Rocket River
Clinton didn't get the budget balanced magically by himself. He worked with Newt Gingrich and struck a deal with Republicans to Balance the budget. BTW...Reagan and Bush Sr. didn't have control of the Senate and Congress. It wasn't until 1994 that the Republicans took control of both houses. The notion that Clinton balanced the budget by himself is wrong just like how Obama is going to change America all by himself. I think DaDa is onto something about Americans feeling good. As he stated, Americans felt good when Reagan was in office. I think it's safe to say Obama makes more Americans feel good. At the end of the day, it's up to the American People to work, spend, save (Consumer confidence). If consumer confidence is up then that helps our economy. Having Obama could help consumer confidence. I'm just worried about how he plans on spending the taxpayers money once CC is up. Clinton was a moderate Democrat IMO. I just don't think Obama is. I think he's way too far left. Clinton worked with Republicans. McCain worked with Democrats. Obama's rhetoric LATELY sounds like he's one of exclusion.
"You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them, And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." -Barrack Obama
Why does it matter how far left Obama is when it comes to spending? Congress controls the purse strings of the government. It's not like Obama can veto a budget for being too small. He has the power of the pulpit, but otherwise Obama is powerless over increasing spending. He only has power to decrease it, and direct how the money is used by the executive branch.
you live in houston right. why do you think a school like Lamar has so much better facilities than some of the schools in poorer areas?
anyone who supported clinton (hillary) and talks about worrying about obama and taxes has no leg to stand on
Worse than that, go to a post office in River Oaks and then one in the Fifth Ward. The difference is staggering. The Fifth Ward post office is old and falling apart, while the ones in River Oaks are sparkling, clean, and new.
Who is he excluding here. The point of this statement, whether you want to call it elitist or not, is that those groups of people have been ignored and ****ed over the last couple decades. Wanting to help people is the exact opposite of excluding them.
You like like the notion that Reagan Single handed defeated the Russians No man does anything ALONE in government Rocket River
Re: Reagan and the commies: I know that no one man can single-handedly do anything on such a scale. He was given a lot (probably most) of the credit due to being president at the time. That's the only point I was trying to make. Lots of varied opinions here, thanks for that. So what's the evidence re: holding the hostages longer in Iran and why in the hell would any sane person do this? I would think that if the evidence had any legs, Reagan would be demonized by everyone, but that isn't the case. So what gives with that?
The basic theory here is that if you provide tax breaks to the "supply side" of the economic chain - businesses - they will invest that into expanding their businesses and creating jobs. The basic problem with the theory is that businesses don't invest much because they have money - they invest it because there is a market for their products. If you were to instead provide tax breaks to the people that spend the money (middle/lower class aka demand-side economics), they will buy the products from the businesses, making them more profitable, and giving them incentive to produce more stuff. I think this has been demonstrated to not be a terribly effective strategy. Reagan had a separate strategy of lowering the top tax rates by a significant amount - something like 70% to 40%. That, in my opinion, was far more effective. It was premised on the idea that if one gets to keep more of their money, there will be more incentive to work harder. In Reagan's case, changing it so you can keep $0.60 of every additional $1.00 instead of $0.30 would provide a real incentive. More recently, Bush tried this by lowering tax rates so that you could keep $0.65 instead of $0.62 or something that - this isn't effective because it doesn't produce substantive changes in behavior. So that was a "one time only" type change because you can't dramatically lower tax rates from their current levels without bankrupting government.
"It's not what you know. . .it is what you can prove" - Alonzo "Training Day" Reagan is demonized but of course the Demos are weak and won't do jack about it .. . like they won't do jack about Bush and his lies and illegalities while in office Rocket River
My understanding - and this could be totally false - is that Carter negotiated the release, but Iran didn't like Carter, so to make him look bad, they didn't actually execute the release until he was stepping down.
