Republicans playing the same card as in 96'

Jarod

Jarod

Well-known member
Contributor
Who else here is old enough to remember when they called Bill Clinton a BIG SPENDER who was going to ruin the economy and the USA?


Who else remembers when the economy is in such jeopardy from Bill Clinton's budget that Newt Gingrich and his cronies thought it was important enough to shut down the government.


Well if you remember, the Republicans caved, Clinton won his budget... and the Economy grew by leaps and bounds.....

They are trying to same game now with President Obama.... The only difference is that Obama is a Socialist and not from America instead of being a womanizer...
 
Jarod said:
Who else here is old enough to remember when they called Bill Clinton a BIG SPENDER who was going to ruin the economy and the USA?


Who else remembers when the economy is in such jeopardy from Bill Clinton's budget that Newt Gingrich and his cronies thought it was important enough to shut down the government.


Well if you remember, the Republicans caved, Clinton won his budget... and the Economy grew by leaps and bounds.....

They are trying to same game now with President Obama.... The only difference is that Obama is a Socialist and not from America instead of being a womanizer...
Click to expand...
Not really comparable. The tech bubble burst under Clinton for example. Also the deficit wasn't as high, nor was unemployment or inflation, and the housing market was getting set for it's own bubble (that burst around 05-08). In short they're not comparable situations.
 
I think it does show that both of the major parties have campaigned on fiscal responsibility and have then increased federal spending by leaps and bounds.

Maybe its time to replace them both?
 
WinterBorn said:
I think it does show that both of the major parties have campaigned on fiscal responsibility and have then increased federal spending by leaps and bounds.

Maybe its time to replace them both?
Click to expand...

I am up for trying some anarchy for a couple years. Gives us time to 'sort out' the politicians without ramifications ;)
 
Social libertarianism and Economic liberalism....

The only thing that will improve America.
 
I love it when Conservatardus Libertarianus starts talking third party in the run-up to a major election.


Didn't Perot split the rightwing vote very nicely in '92?
 
Perot might have won if we had the kind of communication capabilities we have today. Perot was a victim of media memes. Saturday night live destroyed his chances with their comedy sketches. Many more people than today used to watch and take all their cues from TV. These days, more and more people search out the information rather than being spoonfed the latest media meme.
 
Yeah, his Vice Presidential pick helped a whole bunch, didn't he?








It was hard to tell where the parodies left off and the reality of Perot's looniness began. Didn't he blame the CIA for ruining his daughter's wedding, or was it space aliens?






Thanks for reminding everyone that the nutbag fringe is ready to split the rightwing vote again.
 
Wow, talk about revisionist history there Jarod...

In reality, Clinton resisted budget cuts every step of the way. Clinton was the one who caved, but somehow managed to take credit for creating a surplus.

Furthermore, the deficit (and overall budget) was MUCH smaller in the 90s. Hell, the Federal budget was only $1.8 trillion when Clinton left office. Bush grew the government by leaps and bounds, and now Obama is giving him a run for his money. Our deficit now isn't much less than the entire Federal budget in 2001.

There will be dire consequences if you libs continue to make excuses why spending cannot be cut. Some people have to learn the hard way... and some never learn at all.
 
The fact remains that the budget surplus was created during the Clinton administration....remember the "peace dividend"?
 
It's not surprising Jarod has a very distorted view of what was going on in the '90's. As one who graduated school in '95 and started looking for work in '96 today's economic environment is FAR worse than then. In '96 we were at the start of the dot com boom so we had an economy that was getting ready to take off. Not quite the case today. In fact it is basically the opposite. And the national debt was nowhere near in '95 what it is today. Not even close so again another poor comparison.
 
I love it.



Please, please, please, let dim-witted specimens of Conservatardus Libertarianus like Tintard, Dolt and Cawack-off back a third-party race in 2012.
 
cawacko said:
It's not surprising Jarod has a very distorted view of what was going on in the '90's. As one who graduated school in '95 and started looking for work in '96 today's economic environment is FAR worse than then. In '96 we were at the start of the dot com boom so we had an economy that was getting ready to take off. Not quite the case today. In fact it is basically the opposite. And the national debt was nowhere near in '95 what it is today. Not even close so again another poor comparison.
Click to expand...


The differences (higher unemployment and worse economic conditions generally) are reasons in favor of higher debt and deficit spending now as compared to 1996, not reasons against them.

And the comparison to 1996 is also inapt as in 1996 the Republicans were merely threatening to shut down the government, not to have the government default on its debt (which would lead to worse economic conditions, even higher debt and higher unemployment).
 
As I recall, didn't Newt threaten to shut down the government because he felt "snubbed"?




http://edition.cnn.com/US/9511/debt_limit/11-16/budget_gingrich/




Some things never change.






Then we had Newt the big baby, now we have Diaper Dave the big baby.




Newt-Gingrich-Cry-Baby-Post.jpg
vitter_baby.jpg




Thanks, Jarod, for such a great thread.
 
\(\(\(\/)/)/)/ said:
The fact remains that the budget surplus was created during the Clinton administration....remember the "peace dividend"?
Click to expand...

Do you think that surplus would have materialized if the Democrats controlled the House? That the Democrats would have fought tooth and nail against Clinton to balance the budget?
 
Volt said:
Do you think that surplus would have materialized if the Democrats controlled the House? That the Democrats would have fought tooth and nail against Clinton to balance the budget?
Click to expand...



Who knows?


Who cares?
 
The Dude said:
Clinton owning the republican congresses surplus is the reason Obama has to own the overspending.
Click to expand...



Agreed.


Wasn't there someone named Booooooooooooooooosh, or something that sounded like it, involved somehow?
 
Fond memories of the last big Conservatardus Libertartianus campaign:












​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top