Bill Clinton Was A Smart and Cool President and you Hobbyist Should Appreciate Him

Billy was cool and for those of you that love to hobby you should be thanking the man for setting a good example of pussy chasing; but doing in very great economic times while leaving the country with a surplus before Bush took over.


Originally Posted by Sistine Chapel

When Bill Clinton left office he didn't leave anything. Not a surplus, he didn't even leave the White House China, lol. No president can leave a surplus this countries economy is based on debt. So the idea that Clinton left a surplus is just liberal bullshit.

Jim

if you couldn't enjoy this thread for the humor that it is then you are definitely an up tight prick who couldn't get laid if you crawled up a chickens ass and waited. LOL Originally Posted by Sistine Chapel

Nice of YOU to tell us how YOU matriculated, Fisting Chap !

Nice of YOU to tell us how YOU matriculated, Fisting Chap ! Originally Posted by Rey Lengua

I guess his days chasing hens to fuck in the barnyard have his mind dwelling.

When Bill Clinton left office he didn't leave anything. Not a surplus, he didn't even leave the White House China, lol. No president can leave a surplus this countries economy is based on debt. So the idea that Clinton left a surplus is just liberal bullshit.

Jim Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

It's also bullshit, because he didn't spend the funds budgeted and authorized by Congress, and specifically in the areas of air transportation and border security, as well as military preparedness. There were hearings beginning January 2001.

The "issues" were discussed in the 911 hearings and report.

If I don't pay my bills this month I have a "surplus" in my "bill paying" account.

It's also bullshit, because he didn't spend the funds budgeted and authorized by Congress, and specifically in the areas of air transportation and border security, as well as military preparedness. There were hearings beginning January 2001.

The "issues" were discussed in the 911 hearings and report.

If I don't pay my bills this month I have a "surplus" in my "bill paying" account. Originally Posted by LexusLover

That's another reason why they call him "Slick Willie" . Clinton is nothing but a Flim Flam man. It's amazing how people still regard this guy as a good president.


Jim

It's amazing how people still regard this guy as a good president.


Jim Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

"We" see it daily in posted reviews!!!!

A lack of standards when evaluating quality.

I like Reagan but Reagan didn't see good results until the 2nd year of his 2nd term - check the UE rate from 1980 to 1985.... Originally Posted by Luke_Wyatt

You're full of shit, as usual. Under Reagan, the economy took off in 1983. That's the third year of his first term. Real GDP jumped by a full 6%. Nearly four million jobs were added in 13 months (Nov. 1982 to Dec. 1983). The unemployment rate fell by 2.5 percentage points to 8.2%. (It would have declined even more, but the labor participation rate was growing because new job seekers were pouring into the market - the exact opposite of what we see today, where Odumbo's jobless rate looks good because workers are discouraged and dropping out of the labor force in droves.)

And the year 1984 was more of the same - strong economic recovery accompanied by robust job growth. That's why Reagan carried 49 states in his landslide re-election in Nov. 1984.

Your memory ain't too hot, is it Lubed Ass?

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1984/02/art1full.pdf

When Bill Clinton left office he didn't leave anything. Not a surplus, he didn't even leave the White House China, lol. No president can leave a surplus this countries (sic) economy is based on debt. So the idea that Clinton left a surplus is just liberal bullshit. Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

It's also bullshit, because he didn't spend the funds budgeted and authorized by Congress... Originally Posted by LexusLover

It's not liberal bullshit. Clinton DID leave a surplus. Just like he left his DNA all over the Oval Office. The question is how much credit, if any, does he deserve for it? The GOP dragged him, kicking and screaming, into every budget he wound up signing. (Remember when we had annual budgets? Ah, the good old days.) He was lucky enough to go 8 years without a single recession. He benefited from the post-Cold War "peace dividend". The dot-com bubble fueled economic growth. In other words, the main drivers to achieving a surplus came from outside of his policy-making orbit. I do give him partial credit for lowering the long-term capital gains tax to 20% in 1997. That's one positive move that led to a spurt in federal tax revenues and helped push the budget into surplus.

LL, I doubt whether any funds that Clinton failed to spend near the end of his term were a material factor in creating the budget surplus. There would still have been a surplus even had those monies been spent.

He was lucky enough to go 8 years without a single recession. Originally Posted by lustylad

That is incorrect. The economic downturn with which Bush-Cheney had to deal began in March 2000 .... jobs were falling ... and October numbers reported (November report) were the same reported for October in September (in the BLS) ... the Unions went ballistic because they were cooking the books in the BLS.

AFL-CIO reported the real employment numbers in December 2000.

Also ... when he was "authorized to spend" and didn't spend that is not a "surplus" .... those expenditures were pushed off until the new administration would take over .... two major areas ..actually 3, but two are sort of combined: air and border safety and military preparedness. Both those areas had to do with the safety and welfare of the U.S.citizens ...

Had the 1996 recommendations for securing aircraft been implemented it might have prevented 911 as it was planned and completed .... Gore was the chair of the special committee and submitted the report to Clinton.

Had military expenditures been made it would not have been necessary to "retrofit" vehicles with armor plating and "homemade" protection .. and there would have been fewer initial casualties in the 2013 actions. If you look at the transcript of the 911 commission report there were "excuses given" by the Clinton administration for not initiating an assault in Afghanistan ... or into Western Pakistan to disrupt Al Qaeda. It had to do with the inability of the U.S. military to respond (sound familiar?)

It was not "toward the end of his administration" ... there were hearings held in January 2001 regarding the status of the borders and the needs of ICE ... 100's of border agents were NOT HIRED AND NOT TRAINED .... as required of the administration. There were provisions in the air safety act that were not followed and regs were not implemented to require compliance. If we had a surplus we had "matching funds" to make it happen. 911 in one day cost us $50 billion ... and it has kept on growing.

The same shit is happening now ... listen to the reports of the condition of the U.S. military ... the current administration, including Clint II, have been pissing off money with bankrupt "green" companies while are military decays.

It's not liberal bullshit. Clinton DID leave a surplus. Just like he left his DNA all over the Oval Office. The question is how much credit, if any, does he deserve for it? The GOP dragged him, kicking and screaming, into every budget he wound up signing. (Remember when we had annual budgets? Ah, the good old days.) He was lucky enough to go 8 years without a single recession. He benefited from the post-Cold War "peace dividend". The dot-com bubble fueled economic growth. In other words, the main drivers to achieving a surplus came from outside of his policy-making orbit. I do give him partial credit for lowering the long-term capital gains tax to 20% in 1997. That's one positive move that led to a spurt in federal tax revenues and helped push the budget into surplus.

LL, I doubt whether any funds that Clinton failed to spend near the end of his term were a material factor in creating the budget surplus. There would still have been a surplus even had those monies been spent. Originally Posted by lustylad

Well, ok if there was a surplus a real surplus that is. Why didn't this generous and caring Liberal offer the poor people of America a little stimulus money?

Jim

Well, ok if there was a surplus a real surplus that is. Why didn't this generous and caring Liberal offer the poor people of America a little stimulus money?

Jim Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

He was waiting for Gore to get in so Gore could get the brownie points!

That is incorrect. The economic downturn with which Bush-Cheney had to deal began in March 2000 .... jobs were falling ... and October numbers reported (November report) were the same reported for October in September (in the BLS) ... the Unions went ballistic because they were cooking the books in the BLS.

AFL-CIO reported the real employment numbers in December 2000. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Economists define a recession as two consecutive quarterly declines in real (inflation-adjusted) GDP.

Here is a link showing the GDP data... you can see that GDP shrank slightly in Q3 2000 but recovered in Q4, then declined for the first 3 quarters of 2001. So the economy was obviously sputtering in Slick Willy's last year in office, but it nevertheless ducked the technical definition of a recession.

http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/rec2001.htm

I would tend to be skeptical of any claims that the BLS was "cooking the books" in its employment data. For a number of reasons, economists and statisticians are not as easy to corrupt as DOJ attorneys or IRS employees. Here is a link to the BLS archives, including its monthly news releases. Which numbers are you talking about?

http://www.bls.gov/schedule/archives/empsit_nr.htm

He was waiting for Gore to get in so Gore could get the brownie points! Originally Posted by LexusLover

These Liberal Politicians push hard for votes from minorities and the poor but when it comes to giving back to their constituents they are forgotten. It's a bait and switch act from these assholes. The most uneducated and most unfortunate soles still vote for these charlatans . So if Clinton had surplus no one on "Main Street" benefited from it.
Jim

I like Reagan but Reagan didn't see good results until the 2nd year of his 2nd term - check the UE rate from 1980 to 1985. Also, Reagan was for amnesty he sure didn't believe in building walls and Reagan deallt with a lot of Islamic fundamentalist not once did he mention banning people from those countries. If you are even remotely trying to conparw Reagan to Trump then I say Fuck you! Originally Posted by Luke_Wyatt

Jimmy Carter had already banned people coming in from Iran before Reagan got into office. Reagan also admitted that the amnesty (and trusting the democrats to follow through) was one of his biggest regrets. So Fuck you, you history ignorant asshole.

I guess his days chasing hens to fuck in the barnyard have his mind dwelling. Originally Posted by LexusLover

It's no wonder the hens went " off " their laying cycle for a few days every time they saw him around ! And he'd die of thirst from drooling all of his saliva out if he were to ever go to a chicken farm !!!