Who won the first debate?

I do not have a party, nor did I deny those who originated the phenomenon in the US have been mimicked.

I decry the practice, and all who persist in it.

 

Ahh, the ubiquitous personal insult routine. Since I'm right and you can't defend yourself you
find it necessary to start the insult game.

Must be murder trying to defend yourself without anything to back you up.

Oh, I can't help but notice you can't find any evidence to support any of her policies, i.e.
tax increases, economics, immigration, etc... Yes, it must be murder not having any evidence
to support your candidate.

 

You are a person who actually thinks Trump won the first debate "hands down."

There is no reasoning with you.

I intend to vote for Hillary Clinton, with enthusiasm, because I see her as an intelligent, capable, competent, professional individual who will represent our nation on the world's stage with dignity and competence.

Get use to the term, Madam President, Prune.

 

Neither of your posits are accurate.

I'm for Trump because he is the only candidate who wants to fix the economy. And history shows that
cutting income tax cuts are the first step to prosperity. Since the enacting of the Income Tax Act of 1913
there hasn't been a single incident of an economy improving after a tax increase. In fact the economy
started failing immediately in 1913. Just like it did every other time tax rates were increased.

However, every single time the personal income rate has been cut the economy has improved and
unemployment dropped. Every single time.

I'm for Trump because he wants to do something about illegal immigration. Bill's wife doesn't have
a plan. Just more of the same that isn't solving the problem.

I'm for Trump because he understands we need less government. Not more.

Are you for Bill's wife, i.e. the woman who wouldn't be where she is had she not been married to a
president, because of her despicable treatment of women? You know, paying them less than men. Or
for saying women who have been sexually assaulted need protection while defending her husbands
actions? Are you for Bill's wife because you don't understand economics and honestly believe that
raising income taxes will work this time even though it has never worked? Never ever?

Are you for Bill's wife because she wants to keep the flames of racism burning? Ferguson. White cops
want to kill black people.
Are you for Bill's wife because of her failed foreign policy? Benghazi? Russian reset? isis?
Are you for Bill's wife because she's a liar? Again, Benghazi, sniper fire in Bosnia, wanting to join
the Marines. Lying about what happened while signing up to take the lsat test? Saying she's for women's
rights and other lies.

At least Trump wants to fix our problems and has a plan. Bill's wife wants to keep the status quo.

 

I watch very little TV. Don't have cable, only the airwaves. It's so intellectually draining.

 

We had massive tax cuts in 2001 and since then the economy has been pathetic.

The economy did far better after the Clinton tax increases in 1993, along with a balanced budget.

1993 2.7%
1994 4.0%
1995 2.7%
1996 3.8%
1997 4.5%
1998 4.4%
1999 4.7%
2000 4.1%

Average: 3.88%


2001 1.0%
2002 1.8%
2003 2.8%
2004 3.8%
2005 3.3%
2006 2.7%
2007 1.8%
2008 -0.3%
2009 -2.8%
2010 2.5%
2011 1.6%
2012 2.2%

Average: 1.70%

Source data: BEA.gov

Additionally, employment skyrocketed after the Clinton tax increase, with a record 23 million additional jobs being created. They sucked after the Bush tax cut, with a net 400,000 loss in private sector jobs during the period the last Republican was in the WH.

So much for that claim.

 

So many prominent Republicans and historically Republican newspaper editorial boards have, quite reluctantly in some cases, reached the same conclusion and expressed the same sentiments.

The Trumpery Cult of Personality is impervious to such rational considerations.

 

The current Exhibit A is TP Sam Brownback's once-touted Red State Model "experiment."

The conservative electorate that bought his pitch have voted him the worst governor in the nation three times. He wreaked economic havoc with his daffy dogma, but provided a valuable lesson for the nation.

 

Ooops. You didn't mention the Republican tax cuts that improved the economy. Clinton's tax increase didn't
help the economy and was still reeling in the benefits of the Reagan tax cuts.

Other examples of tax cuts working.
Harding
Coolidge
Kennedy
Reagan.

Other examples of tax increase failures.
Wilson
Hoover
fdr
Bush 41
Obama

They just don't work. Never have and never will.

 

No, I included the Republican tax cuts 2001-2012. The economy basically sucked.

Clinton's tax increase didn't help the economy?

After the Clinton tax increase and until the Bush tax cuts, we had the longest sustained period of growth post WWII, a record 23 million additional jobs created, poverty levels dropping to all time lows, stock markets tripling even with the correction, the unemployment rate dropping to the lowest level in decades, real incomes rising for all income classes, and the best average annual real GDP growth since the 1960s. Oh yeah, and a then record deficit turning into a surplus.

You're just making baseless and erroneous assertions without any support for it.

The last 25 years has proved that the conservatives' claims about taxes and the economy is bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

 

The economy was very good, thanks to the tax cuts, until the housing bubble burst. The bubble
that W warned the left about for years, but they ignored, gave us the recession. In 2007 the economy
tanked thanks to typical collectivist economics that always fail.

You didn't include the Republican tax cuts during the Clinton era. The one's they dragged him
kicking and screaming to sign. The tax cuts that improved the economy.

No. He was riding on the coat tails of Reagan.

Correction. It was the Reagan tax cuts that you're quoting. Thanks to the Republican tax cuts
Clinton received the credit for the economic growth.

Not true. The current president has the worst record and evidence that collectivist policies don't
work.

The claims about cutting taxes improving the economy is 100% accurate. It's worked every single time.
Tax increases don't work. They take money OUT of the economy which is laundered/filtered by the
government and return with an eyedropper. They don't help economic growth. They can't.

Taxes reduce economic growth.

 

The bubble is why the economy was good.

Bush didn't warn about anything. He relaxed lending rules and expanded home ownership initiatives. He turned a blind eye to the crap going on because his philosophy was that business could regulate itself. And he killed the only law passed by a chamber of the Republican controlled Congress to regulation Fannie/Freddie, while his administration reported over and over that F/F were sound right up to the quarter they failed.

The only tax cut was the cap gains tax cut that the Republicans demanded and Clinton compromised. They made up only a small portion of overall revenues.

It wasn't until 2001 when the Supremes appointed Bush that the Republicans got their way and did the tax cuts they wanted.

And we saw the result:

Year - Revenues - Surplus/deficit on budget
2000 2,025.2 86.4
2001 1,991.1 -32.4
2002 1,853.1 -317.4
2003 1,782.3 -538.4
2004 1,880.1 -568.0

Clinton passed a massive tax increase, following the smaller one by Bush1, that undercut a big part of Reagan's policies.

No, when Reagan left the top tax rate was 28%. After the Clnton tax increase it was 40%. Reagan's tax cuts, which gave us huge deficits, were largely gone.

The current administration did not create the great recession, nor was it responsible for the austerity we've had. But the Bush tax cuts were fully in place until 2013. And as I demonstrated, the economy was pathetic while we had those tax cuts.

False as I've proved:

1993 2.7% <- Clinton tax increase
1994 4.0%
1995 2.7%
1996 3.8%
1997 4.5%
1998 4.4%
1999 4.7%
2000 4.1%

Average: 3.88%


2001 1.0% <- Bush tax cuts
2002 1.8%
2003 2.8%
2004 3.8%
2005 3.3%
2006 2.7%
2007 1.8%
2008 -0.3%
2009 -2.8%
2010 2.5%
2011 1.6%
2012 2.2%

Average: 1.70%

They surely work to generate more revenues, witnessed by the fact that after inheriting a then record deficit, we had a surplus with the Clinton tax increase until the Bush tax cuts.

Redistributing trillions of dollars to the richest who stash it in their offshore accounts and portfolios doesn't help economic growth. Or we would have seen spectacular growth with the Bush tax cuts, as conservatives claimed, instead of the anemic growth we've gotten.

That's what conservatives claimed with the Clinton tax increase, called the biggest of all time.

Here's what conservatives said:


Rep. Robert Michel (R-IL), Los Angeles Times, 5/28/93: They will remember who let loose this deadly virus into our economic bloodstream.

Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-GA), GOP Press Conference, House TV Gallery, 8/5/93:
believe this will lead to a recession next year. This is the Democrat machine's recession, and each one of them will be held personally accountable.

Rep. John Kasich (R-OH), 8/5/93: Do you know what? This is your package. We will come back here next year and try to help you when this puts the economy in the gutter...

Rep. John Kasich (R-OH), CNN, 7/28/93: This plan will not work. If it was to work, then I'd have to become a Democrat...

Rep. Robert Dornan (R-CA), 8/5/93: The problem with our economy is that there is too little employment and too little growth. This plan will do nothing to improve that condition and will actually make it worse.

Rep. Christopher Cox (R-CA), 5/27/93: This is really the Dr. Kevorkian plan for our economy.

Rep. Thomas Ewing (R-IL), 8/5/93: ...This bill is a disaster waiting to happen.

Rep. Jim Ramstad (R-MN), 3/17/93: ...will stifle economic growth, destroy jobs, reduce revenues, and increase the deficit.

Rep. Phil Crane (R-IL), 3/18/93: ...a recipe for economic and fiscal disaster.

Rep. Dick Armey (R-TX), CNN, 8/2/93: The impact on job creation is going to be devastating, and the American young people in particular will suffer a fairly substantial deferment of their lives because there simply won't be jobs for the next two to three years to go around to our young graduates across the country.

Rep. John Kasich (R-OH), 5/27/93: ...your economic program is a job killer.

Rep. Dick Armey (R-TX), 8/5/93: The economy will sputter along. Dreams will be put off and all this for the hollow promise of deficit reduction and magical theories of lower interest rates. Like so many of the President's past promises, deficit reduction will be another cruel hoax.

Rep. Wally Herger (R-CA), 8/4/93: The simple fact is that the Clinton plan will not lower interest rates. It will not lower inflation. It will not create jobs. And it will no lower the deficit. The Clinton tax plan will spur inflation, lose jobs, increase the deficit, and hurt our economic growth.

Rep. Deborah Pryce (R-OH), 5/27/93: The votes we will take today will not be soon forgotten by the American voter. [They] will lead to more taxes, higher inflation, and slower economic growth.

Rep. John Kasich (R-OH), GOP News Conference, Senate Gallery, 8/3/93: Come next year... we're going to find out whether we have higher deficits, we're going to find out whether we have a slower economy, we're going to find out what's going to happen to interest rates, and it's our bet that this is a job killer.

Rep. Dick Armey (R-TX), CNN, 8/2/93: Clearly this is a job killer in the short run. The revenues forecast for this budget will not materialize; the costs of this budget will be greater than what is forecast. The deficit will be worse, and it is not a good omen for the American economy.

Rep. Jim Bunning (R-KY), 8/5/93: It will not cut the deficit. It will not create jobs. And it will not cut spending.

Rep. Dick Armey, CNN, 2/18/93: I will tell you, this program will not give you deficit reduction. It will be a disaster for the performance of the economy.

Rep. Clifford Stearns (R-FL), 3/17/93: ...It will be the kind of impact that this country can't absorb. It will slow economic growth, contribute to the massive federal deficit....

Rep. Joel Hefley (R-CO), 8/4/93: ...It will raise your taxes, increase the deficit, and kill over one million jobs.

Phil Graham (R-TX) warned the tax increase will "cause the greatest recession since the Great Depression"

https://books.google.com/books?id=l...A#v=onepage&q=phil graham supply side&f=false

www.congressmatters.com/storyonly/2009/2/15/92441/0913/399/636

+++

Instead during the time of the Clinton tax increase we saw the longest sustained period of growth post WWII, a record 23 million additional jobs created, poverty levels dropping to all time lows, stock markets tripling even with the correction, the unemployment rate dropping to the lowest level in decades, real incomes rising for all income classes, and the best average annual real GDP growth since the 1960s. Oh yeah, and a then record deficit turning into a surplus.

Could conservatives be more wrong?

 

Who would of thought that muckraking would garner such a large following.

 

Wrong. Just wrong. The bubble caused the recession.

See for yourself.

[video=youtube;cMnSp4qEXNM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM[/video]


The rest of your post is pure fairy tale. Clinton's tax increase didn't help the economy and
the following Republican tax cut (mid 90's) gave him the good economy people praised him for.

 

Exactly. And I just spelled out what the last Republican "business can regulate itself" president did for the bubble.

Sure. Blame a minority Congressmen who didn't have the power to pass a law about chewing gum. Because he talks funny. A natural conservative scapegoat.

For those interested in truth on the Democrats and Freddie and Fannie, as opposed to the distorted spin of an right wing propaganda internet video, here is the vote of the Democrats on HR 1461, the Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005, which was the *only* bill to regulate F/F to ever be passed (in 2005) by a chamber of the Republican controlled Congress.

Party - Ayes - Nays
Republican 209 15
Democratic 122 74

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll547.xml

And here is the Bush administration's response to this, the only bill to regulate F/F ever pased by either chamber of the Republican controlled Congress:

"the Administration opposes the bill"

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=24851

And here's a link to an article about Republican Mike Oxley, of Sarbannes-Oxley fame, then ranking Republican majority member and chair of the House Financial Committee on Financial Services and sponsor of that bill, saying how they "got a one-finger salute” from the Bush White House.


He fumes about the criticism of his House colleagues. “All the handwringing and bedwetting is going on without remembering how the House stepped up on this,” he says. “What did we get from the White House? We got a one-finger salute.”

The House bill, the 2005 Federal Housing Finance Reform Act, would have created a stronger regulator with new powers to increase capital at Fannie and Freddie, to limit their portfolios and to deal with the possibility of receivership.

Mr Oxley reached out to Barney Frank, then the ranking Democrat on the committee and now its chairman, to secure support on the other side of the aisle. But after winning bipartisan support in the House, where the bill passed by 331 to 90 votes, the legislation lacked a champion in the Senate and faced hostility from the Bush administration. Adamant that the only solution to the problems posed by Fannie and Freddie was their privatisation, the White House attacked the bill. Mr Greenspan also weighed in, saying that the House legislation was worse than no bill at all.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8780c35e-7e91-11dd-b1af-000077b07658.html
http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2008/09/10/greenspan_bush_fannie_freddie/index.html
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/10/one-finger-salute/

These are "fairy tales"?

Year - Real GDP growth
1993 2.7% <- Clinton tax increase
1994 4.0%
1995 2.7%
1996 3.8%
1997 4.5%
1998 4.4%
1999 4.7%
2000 4.1%

Average: 3.88%

2001 1.0% <- Bush tax cuts
2002 1.8%
2003 2.8%
2004 3.8%
2005 3.3%
2006 2.7%
2007 1.8%
2008 -0.3%
2009 -2.8%
2010 2.5%
2011 1.6%
2012 2.2%

Average: 1.70%


Year - Revenues - Surplus/deficit on budget

1992 1,091.3 -340.4
1993 1,154.4 -300.4 <- Clinton tax increase
1994 1,258.6 -258.8
1995 1,351.8 -226.4
1996 1,453.1 -174.0
1997 1,579.3 -103.2
1998 1,721.8 -29.9
1999 1,827.5 1.9
2000 2,025.2 86.4

2000 2,025.2 86.4
2001 1,991.1 -32.4 <- Bush tax cuts
2002 1,853.1 -317.4
2003 1,782.3 -538.4
2004 1,880.1 -568.0

Source data: CBO.gov, BEA.gov

You're confused. Those are facts. They crap you get from the RW propaganda sources are the fairy tales.

I didn't say it did.

I pointed out that conservatives claimed the Clinton tax increase would wreck the economy and destroy jobs.

Instead during the time of the Clinton tax increase we saw the longest sustained period of growth post WWII, a record 23 million additional jobs created, poverty levels dropping to all time lows, stock markets tripling even with the correction, the unemployment rate dropping to the lowest level in decades, real incomes rising for all income classes, and the best average annual real GDP growth since the 1960s. Oh yeah, and a then record deficit turning into a surplus.

 

This is shooting fish in a barrel.

Once again you're forgetting history, as your entire cherry picked post reflects.

The Democrats were in total control of both houses. They refused to curb Fannie and Freddie
lending. They kept forcing banks to make loans to people who couldn't possibly pay
the mortgage. Even after long warnings they refused to be responsible. Typical.

No such thing was said. You're making up more fairy tale statemente,.

And you're totally ignoring the tax cuts that Republicans dragged Clinton to sign which
was the real reason of the grown. NOT THE BUSH CUTS.

Another part that helped the economy was the Internet. NOT TAX INCREASES. Clinton was
at the right place at the right time. Imagine how great the economy had become if he hadn't
raised taxes.

Face the facts. Clintons tax increase did very little. The economy was still reeling in from
the Reagan tax cuts that provided the longest sustained period of growth post WWII
which was created after a horrible recession.

Fact: Taking money out of the economy cannot, nor has it ever, help an economy. That is basic
economics.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435465/bill-clinton-hillary-clinton-economy-1990s-ronald-reagan-george-h-w-bush

 

Then why do you keeping missing?

No, I don't think so.

Jeez and you claim *I'm* forgetting history. Or is it you're just duped by RW propaganda? Better check your facts.

The Republicans controlled Congress for the entire period the housing bubble blew up to its peak, absurd level, and started tanking.



By the time the Dems took control of Congress in 2007, the bubble was already imploding and the economic catastrophe was just a matter of time.

Did you forget my prior post? Or just not bother to read it because you'd prefer to stay misinformed?

Here it is again:

 

I haven't. I've been right on.

Republicans don't matter a hill of beans. (btw I'm not Republican) I have checked my facts.
That's why I've been right.

But not a super majority. Democrats refused to budge. That always walk in lock step.l

I have. Several times

Screw the revenues (government getting money) That's when the big increase to the
economy came.

And the economy grew. Once again, screw the revenues (government getting money)

I've never not had it. But you may be coming around.

Then the jobs come back and the economy soars. Tax cuts always stimulate the economy.

 

I'm sorry, you're wrong. Republicans controlled Congress when the housing bubble blew up to its absurd level and started crashing.

LOL


But for those interested in truth on the Democrats and Freddie and Fannie, as opposed to the distorted spin of an right wing propaganda internet video, here is the vote of the Democrats on HR 1461, the Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005, which was the *only* bill to regulate F/F to ever be passed (in 2005) by a chamber of the Republican controlled Congress.

Party - Ayes - Nays
Republican 209 15
Democratic 122 74

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll547.xml

And here is the the Bush administration's response to this, the only bill to regulate F/F ever passed by either chamber of the Republican controlled Congress:

"the Administration opposes the bill"

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=24851

And here's links to an article about Republican Mike Oxley, of Sarbannes-Oxley fame, then ranking Republican majority member and chair of the House Financial Committee on Financial Services and sponsor of that bill, saying how they "got a one-finger salute&#8221; from the Bush White House.

He fumes about the criticism of his House colleagues. &#8220;All the handwringing and bedwetting is going on without remembering how the House stepped up on this,&#8221; he says. &#8220;What did we get from the White House? We got a one-finger salute.&#8221;

The House bill, the 2005 Federal Housing Finance Reform Act, would have created a stronger regulator with new powers to increase capital at Fannie and Freddie, to limit their portfolios and to deal with the possibility of receivership.

Mr Oxley reached out to Barney Frank, then the ranking Democrat on the committee and now its chairman, to secure support on the other side of the aisle. But after winning bipartisan support in the House, where the bill passed by 331 to 90 votes, the legislation lacked a champion in the Senate and faced hostility from the Bush administration. Adamant that the only solution to the problems posed by Fannie and Freddie was their privatisation, the White House attacked the bill. Mr Greenspan also weighed in, saying that the House legislation was worse than no bill at all.


http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8780c35e-7e91-11dd-b1af-000077b07658.html
http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2008/09/10/greenspan_bush_fannie_freddie/index.html
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/10/one-finger-salute/

Once again, you confuse your baseless blather for proof. It's a common trait amongst conservatives, I've noticed.

The economy was doing just fine after the Clinton tax increase.

You know, the one that conservatives claimed would wreck the economy and destroy jobs?

Instead during the time of the Clinton tax increase we saw the longest sustained period of growth post WWII, a record 23 million additional jobs created, poverty levels dropping to all time lows, stock markets tripling even with the correction, the unemployment rate dropping to the lowest level in decades, real incomes rising for all income classes, and the best average annual real GDP growth since the 1960s. Oh yeah, and a then record deficit turning into a surplus.

Could conservatives be more wrong?

Because revenues have nothing to do with deficits. Rightthink.

The economy sucked with the Bush tax cuts. Wrong again.

These are "fairy tales"?

Year - Real GDP growth
1993 2.7% <- Clinton tax increase
1994 4.0%
1995 2.7%
1996 3.8%
1997 4.5%
1998 4.4%
1999 4.7%
2000 4.1%

Average: 3.88%

2001 1.0% <- Bush tax cuts
2002 1.8%
2003 2.8%
2004 3.8%
2005 3.3%
2006 2.7%
2007 1.8%
2008 -0.3%
2009 -2.8%
2010 2.5%
2011 1.6%
2012 2.2%

Average: 1.70%

Source data: BEA.gov, CBO.gov

 

I'm sorry but you're not paying attention to what I said. The Republicans didn't have a
super majority. The Democrats stalled and refused to do the right thing.

I.
The rest of your post is mindless unless you can put it into context. The tax increase
didn't help the economy. Taking money out of the economy cannot and will not
improve the economy. The fact remains that the 1990's were reeling and still
growing from the 1980's economy. The fact remains that new technology was coming
into play that had a huge impact on the economy which the tax cuts didn't have anything
to do with.

II.
Of course revenue for the irresponsible government grew. They always do with tax increases.
That doesn't help the economy grow, either.

III.
I'm not Republican or Conservative. However, I'm right and you're wrong.