By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Great info in healthcare bill (really). And an apology.

To make my point though... compare Clinton's results to Carters.

I don't know much about his economic policy, but I do know that just about everyone regards it as catastrophic.

Reagan actually saved the Carter missfalls, but messed it up by deficit spending. Reagonomics worked. He just decided to combine it with a lot of wastful spending.



Around the Network
psrock said:
Kasz216 said:
Yeah, none of that actually accounts for all the booms unrelated to clinton. it also has a lot of nice quotes from the same people who caused the giant recession.

I am tired, and you beat me at debating again , but at least give the man some credit. His goal were acheived and did many things few president will ever do again with the help of a republican congress.  His era was better, luck or not.


Was Clinton a better president then Bush?  Yes.

I'd go so far as say that Clinton was the best president of my lifetime.  Was Clinton responsible for economic gains?  No... and if he was it may have actually been a bad thing... since afterall the internet and housing bubbles were just that... bubbles. 

Being a good president doesn't mean your economic policy is sound.  Pretty much no president has had a sound economic policy.  They've had elements that are good and then mostly bad elements.



Kasz216 said:

Reagonomics worked. He just decided to combine it with a lot of wastful spending.

Yes and no. What he did, was outspend the Russians in an attempt to bankrupt them. It worked, and if that's all we did, we could have gotten out of it.

In the end though, he might have bankrupted us both. Time will tell. 



Kasz216 said:


Was Clinton a better president then Bush?  Yes.

I'd go so far as say that Clinton was the best president of my lifetime.

I agree Clinton was better then Bush Jr.

I might be the only one who thinks this, but I actually likes Bush Sr. a lot. if not for Ross Perot, Bush would have won a second term.

His only real failing, was to increase taxes to pay for the bills we racked up. Sad that people thought paying for what we spent was a bad thing.

He has had a very interesting life:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_H._W._Bush

 



TheRealMafoo said:
Kasz216 said:


Was Clinton a better president then Bush?  Yes.

I'd go so far as say that Clinton was the best president of my lifetime.

I agree Clinton was better then Bush Jr.

I might be the only one who thinks this, but I actually likes Bush Sr. a lot. if not for Ross Perot, Bush would have won a second term.

His only real failing, was to increase taxes to pay for the bills we racked up. Sad that people thought paying for what we spent was a bad thing.

He has has a very interesting life:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_H._W._Bush

 

Bush was ok, who he had around him was the problem. That might be Obama's biggest problemas well.



 Next Gen 

11/20/09 04:25 makingmusic476 Warning Other (Your avatar is borderline NSFW. Please keep it for as long as possible.)
Around the Network

Obama, and the people around him are extremely effective at getting what they want. The problem with Obama, is he wants us to be a socialest country.

It's his ideas that are the problem, not his ability to execute them, or the people he hired to get him to where he wants us to be.



TheRealMafoo said:
Kasz216 said:

Reagonomics worked. He just decided to combine it with a lot of wastful spending.

Yes and no. What he did, was outspend the Russians in an attempt to bankrupt them. It worked, and if that's all we did, we could have gotten out of it.

In the end though, he might have bankrupted us both. Time will tell. 

Difference is that Russia has a very small national debt, and ours is massive. 

If it was a contest, they won.



 

 

MontanaHatchet said:
TheRealMafoo said:
Kasz216 said:

Reagonomics worked. He just decided to combine it with a lot of wastful spending.

Yes and no. What he did, was outspend the Russians in an attempt to bankrupt them. It worked, and if that's all we did, we could have gotten out of it.

In the end though, he might have bankrupted us both. Time will tell. 

Difference is that Russia has a very small national debt, and ours is massive. 

If it was a contest, they won.

There is no Russia. Not the Russia I am talking about :)



TheRealMafoo said:
MontanaHatchet said:
TheRealMafoo said:
Kasz216 said:

Reagonomics worked. He just decided to combine it with a lot of wastful spending.

Yes and no. What he did, was outspend the Russians in an attempt to bankrupt them. It worked, and if that's all we did, we could have gotten out of it.

In the end though, he might have bankrupted us both. Time will tell. 

Difference is that Russia has a very small national debt, and ours is massive. 

If it was a contest, they won.

There is no Russia. Not the Russia I am talking about :)

The Russia with the hot girls and vodka, or the one with the angry guys and vodka?

I'm confused.



 

 

MontanaHatchet said:
TheRealMafoo said:
MontanaHatchet said:
TheRealMafoo said:
Kasz216 said:

Reagonomics worked. He just decided to combine it with a lot of wastful spending.

Yes and no. What he did, was outspend the Russians in an attempt to bankrupt them. It worked, and if that's all we did, we could have gotten out of it.

In the end though, he might have bankrupted us both. Time will tell. 

Difference is that Russia has a very small national debt, and ours is massive. 

If it was a contest, they won.

There is no Russia. Not the Russia I am talking about :)

The Russia with the hot girls and vodka, or the one with the angry guys and vodka?

I'm confused.

The Russia with dozens of countries under there control, with a leader who had ultimate power to do anything he wanted. That Russia.

They still have hot chicks, lots of vodka, and lots of angry guys :p