- This topic has 280 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 2 months ago by
KSMountain.
-
AuthorPosts
-
October 6, 2010 at 10:55 PM #614886October 7, 2010 at 12:08 AM #613870
SK in CV
Participant[quote=davelj]
Your argument is invalid because you’re cherry picking your starting and ending points. As the graph below shows, government spending as a percentage of GDP has generally increased over time regardless of which party was in office. (That big spike is WWII.) This isn’t a partisan observation – it’s just a fact. As a supporter of Big Government, you should be thrilled. And very upset with Mr. Clinton that he was so stingy during his reign.While I’d hesitate to necessarily attribute it entirely to who was in the white house, what the chart you linked to shows is that during each of the previous 4 democratic administrations over the last 50 years, spending, as a percentage of GDP, actually dropped, with the exception of the very end of the Johnson administration, when the costs of Viet Nam really kicked in. That same measurement grew during each of the Republican administrations. Each dealt with their own special economic circumstances, and absent examining those circumstances, this data is inconclusive. But it does tend to disprove the “tax and spend” rhetoric.
October 7, 2010 at 12:08 AM #613956Participant[quote=davelj]
Your argument is invalid because you’re cherry picking your starting and ending points. As the graph below shows, government spending as a percentage of GDP has generally increased over time regardless of which party was in office. (That big spike is WWII.) This isn’t a partisan observation – it’s just a fact. As a supporter of Big Government, you should be thrilled. And very upset with Mr. Clinton that he was so stingy during his reign.While I’d hesitate to necessarily attribute it entirely to who was in the white house, what the chart you linked to shows is that during each of the previous 4 democratic administrations over the last 50 years, spending, as a percentage of GDP, actually dropped, with the exception of the very end of the Johnson administration, when the costs of Viet Nam really kicked in. That same measurement grew during each of the Republican administrations. Each dealt with their own special economic circumstances, and absent examining those circumstances, this data is inconclusive. But it does tend to disprove the “tax and spend” rhetoric.
October 7, 2010 at 12:08 AM #614500Participant[quote=davelj]
Your argument is invalid because you’re cherry picking your starting and ending points. As the graph below shows, government spending as a percentage of GDP has generally increased over time regardless of which party was in office. (That big spike is WWII.) This isn’t a partisan observation – it’s just a fact. As a supporter of Big Government, you should be thrilled. And very upset with Mr. Clinton that he was so stingy during his reign.While I’d hesitate to necessarily attribute it entirely to who was in the white house, what the chart you linked to shows is that during each of the previous 4 democratic administrations over the last 50 years, spending, as a percentage of GDP, actually dropped, with the exception of the very end of the Johnson administration, when the costs of Viet Nam really kicked in. That same measurement grew during each of the Republican administrations. Each dealt with their own special economic circumstances, and absent examining those circumstances, this data is inconclusive. But it does tend to disprove the “tax and spend” rhetoric.
October 7, 2010 at 12:08 AM #614615Participant[quote=davelj]
Your argument is invalid because you’re cherry picking your starting and ending points. As the graph below shows, government spending as a percentage of GDP has generally increased over time regardless of which party was in office. (That big spike is WWII.) This isn’t a partisan observation – it’s just a fact. As a supporter of Big Government, you should be thrilled. And very upset with Mr. Clinton that he was so stingy during his reign.While I’d hesitate to necessarily attribute it entirely to who was in the white house, what the chart you linked to shows is that during each of the previous 4 democratic administrations over the last 50 years, spending, as a percentage of GDP, actually dropped, with the exception of the very end of the Johnson administration, when the costs of Viet Nam really kicked in. That same measurement grew during each of the Republican administrations. Each dealt with their own special economic circumstances, and absent examining those circumstances, this data is inconclusive. But it does tend to disprove the “tax and spend” rhetoric.
October 7, 2010 at 12:08 AM #614921Participant[quote=davelj]
Your argument is invalid because you’re cherry picking your starting and ending points. As the graph below shows, government spending as a percentage of GDP has generally increased over time regardless of which party was in office. (That big spike is WWII.) This isn’t a partisan observation – it’s just a fact. As a supporter of Big Government, you should be thrilled. And very upset with Mr. Clinton that he was so stingy during his reign.While I’d hesitate to necessarily attribute it entirely to who was in the white house, what the chart you linked to shows is that during each of the previous 4 democratic administrations over the last 50 years, spending, as a percentage of GDP, actually dropped, with the exception of the very end of the Johnson administration, when the costs of Viet Nam really kicked in. That same measurement grew during each of the Republican administrations. Each dealt with their own special economic circumstances, and absent examining those circumstances, this data is inconclusive. But it does tend to disprove the “tax and spend” rhetoric.
October 7, 2010 at 12:29 AM #613878CA renter
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=BigGovernmentIsGood]
Well, since you brought up Clinton, let’s look at the facts.
[/quote]BigGubment: Yeah, let’s look at the facts, shall we?
Bill Clinton gave us:
– First use of extraordinary rendition of suspected terrorists to black sites around the world, including peace-loving countries like Saudi Arabia and Jordan, where these “suspected” terrorists could be held without due cause, access to legal counsel or medical aid, and tortured for information,
– Vast expansion of the National Security State, including creation of the NSA’s “Echelon” and “Carnivore” eavesdropping programs (which were used on US citizens, as well as foreign nationals), as well as expansion of FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) further eroding American civil liberties,
– The Iraq Liberation Act (ILA) of 1998, advocating the removal of Saddam Hussein, by force if necessary. The ILA was used to support Clinton’s massive multi-year bombing campaign against Iraq, causing tens of thousands of CIVILIAN casualties (as documented by the UN, World Health Organization and Amnesty Int’l),
– Operation Desert Fox (Iraq), largest sustained US bombing campaign since Operation Rolling Thunder in Vietnam,
– Economic sanctions programs against Iraq resulting in the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi CIVILIANS (figures are from Unicef and World Health Organization).Yup, Clinton was a prince, wasn’t he?[/quote]
And for those of us who are “left-leaning” but still don’t like some Democratic policies, also under Clinton:
–June 3 President Bill Clinton on Wednesday proposed renewing mostfavorednation MFN trade status for China, saying it was clearly in our nations interest as he urged Congress to support the request.
“Mostfavorednation status offers low tariffs and treats countries as normal trading partners.
Trade is also an important part of our relationship with China. Our exports have tripled over the last decade and now support over 170,000 American jobs, Clinton argued.
—————-
AND…–The Repeal of Glass Steagall
In the background of the go-go economy, the feeling grew among some economists and the financial community that Glass-Steagall hampered America’s financial competitiveness. Among the many voices favoring this was Alan Greenspan along with former Goldman Sachs partner Robert Rubin, Bill Clinton’s Treasury Secretary. In a 1995 speech and testimony to Congress Rubin signaled the Clinton Administration was ready to repeal Glass-Steagall:
“The banking industry is fundamentally different from what it was two decades ago, let alone in 1933.” He said the industry has been transformed into a global business of facilitating capital formation through diverse new products, services and markets. “U.S. banks generally engage in a broader range of securities activities abroad than is permitted domestically,” said the Treasury secretary. “Even domestically, the separation of investment banking and commercial banking envisioned by Glass-Steagall has eroded significantly.”
Anyone who thinks the repeal of Glass-Steagall was forced on an unwilling Bill Clinton need only read Rubin’s testimony.
AND…
–CAPITAL GAINS TAX RATES
The top capital gains tax rate, which had been 28%, is lowered to 20%. People in the 15% income tax bracket will pay 10% on capital gains. The new rates apply to investments held for more than a year and sold after May 6, 1997, and before July 29, 1997. For assets sold July 29th or later, the lower rate will apply only if the assets have been held more than 18 months. Depreciated real property is subject to special recapture provisions.
Assets purchased in 2001 and later and held for more than five years will be taxed at an 8% rate for lowest bracket taxpayers and at 18% for the higher bracket taxpayers. To utilize the 18% and 8% rates on capital gains on property held more than five years, you can elect to treat certain property held prior to January 1, 2001 as having been sold and repurchased. You would be required to pay taxes on any gain. Losses are not deductible. Return to Index
AND…
-HOME SALES
The law exempts from taxation profits on the sale of a personal residence of up to $500,000 for married couples filing jointly and $250,000 for singles. To qualify, sellers must have owned and used the home as their principal residence for at least two of the last five years before the sale. Effective for sales after May 6, 1997, this new provision replaces the prior rollover provision on home sales and the $125,000 exclusion of gain for those 55 and over. There was no change in the rule that prohibits taxpayers from deducting losses on home sales.
http://www.filetax.com/97taxact.html
——————And then, we have NAFTA:
NAFTA passed the Senate 61-38. Clinton signed it into law on December 8, 1993; it went into effect on January 1, 1994.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement
[What’s funny is how the Democrats (especially Hillary Clinton) later tried to distance themselves from it…but there were politics involved for and against. -CAR]
Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Rodham Clinton distanced herself Monday from one of her husband’s signature White House achievements, saying NAFTA should be reassessed and “adjusted” and any new free trade agreements postponed.
“I think we do need to take a deep breath and figure out how we can make it work for the greatest numbers of people,” she told USA TODAY. Clinton said NAFTA’s benefits have gone to the wealthy and cost jobs for working people. She said a “timeout” in new accords would last until she felt the issue of trade in the 21st century had been adequately studied.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3705441&page=1
[Gosh, because NOBODY could have seen that coming, right? -CAR]
———…But, more importantly, the mailer misrepresents what former Clinton administration officials and biographers say was Hillary Clinton’s long-held opposition to the legislation.
“In August in 92, we had to make a decision,” Mickey Kantor the former U.S. Secretary of Commerce, Clinton adviser, and free trade advocate recalled for the Huffington Post. “President Clinton had to make a decision as governor, whether or not he would support [George H.W. Bush’s] NAFTA, and of course he did… Hillary Clinton was one of the great skeptics in the discussion as to whether he should do. So she was always skeptical beginning in 1992 and onward.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/14/did-hillary-clinton-reall_n_86674.html
——————-[And then, we apparently have politicians saying one thing to voters (“the little people”), but something else to “those who matter.” -CAR]
“Mr. Brodie, apparently seeking to play down the potential impact on Canada, told the reporters the threat was not serious, and that someone from Ms. Clinton’s campaign had even contacted Canadian diplomats to tell them not to worry because the NAFTA threats were mostly political posturing. The Canadian Press cited an unnamed source last night as saying that several people overheard the remark.
“The news agency quoted that source as saying that Mr. Brodie said that someone from Ms. Clinton’s campaign called and was ‘telling the embassy to take it with a grain of salt.’
“The story was followed by CTV’s Washington bureau chief, Tom Clark, who reported that the Obama campaign, not the Clinton’s, had reassured Canadian diplomats.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2008/03/06/4438881-clintons-nafta-gate
—————-
IMHO, policies enacted during Clinton’s presidency are most certainly behind our most recent bubbles, and also behind the devastation of our job base. I believe our elected representatives are merely puppets who serve the will of those who really run this country (the very wealthy and powerful). We’re supposed to go along with these fruitless elections because we’re supposed to believe that we can somehow hold them accountable. We can’t, and we won’t for as long as we vote for those who are put there by “those who matter” — always follow the money.
October 7, 2010 at 12:29 AM #613963Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=BigGovernmentIsGood]
Well, since you brought up Clinton, let’s look at the facts.
[/quote]BigGubment: Yeah, let’s look at the facts, shall we?
Bill Clinton gave us:
– First use of extraordinary rendition of suspected terrorists to black sites around the world, including peace-loving countries like Saudi Arabia and Jordan, where these “suspected” terrorists could be held without due cause, access to legal counsel or medical aid, and tortured for information,
– Vast expansion of the National Security State, including creation of the NSA’s “Echelon” and “Carnivore” eavesdropping programs (which were used on US citizens, as well as foreign nationals), as well as expansion of FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) further eroding American civil liberties,
– The Iraq Liberation Act (ILA) of 1998, advocating the removal of Saddam Hussein, by force if necessary. The ILA was used to support Clinton’s massive multi-year bombing campaign against Iraq, causing tens of thousands of CIVILIAN casualties (as documented by the UN, World Health Organization and Amnesty Int’l),
– Operation Desert Fox (Iraq), largest sustained US bombing campaign since Operation Rolling Thunder in Vietnam,
– Economic sanctions programs against Iraq resulting in the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi CIVILIANS (figures are from Unicef and World Health Organization).Yup, Clinton was a prince, wasn’t he?[/quote]
And for those of us who are “left-leaning” but still don’t like some Democratic policies, also under Clinton:
–June 3 President Bill Clinton on Wednesday proposed renewing mostfavorednation MFN trade status for China, saying it was clearly in our nations interest as he urged Congress to support the request.
“Mostfavorednation status offers low tariffs and treats countries as normal trading partners.
Trade is also an important part of our relationship with China. Our exports have tripled over the last decade and now support over 170,000 American jobs, Clinton argued.
—————-
AND…–The Repeal of Glass Steagall
In the background of the go-go economy, the feeling grew among some economists and the financial community that Glass-Steagall hampered America’s financial competitiveness. Among the many voices favoring this was Alan Greenspan along with former Goldman Sachs partner Robert Rubin, Bill Clinton’s Treasury Secretary. In a 1995 speech and testimony to Congress Rubin signaled the Clinton Administration was ready to repeal Glass-Steagall:
“The banking industry is fundamentally different from what it was two decades ago, let alone in 1933.” He said the industry has been transformed into a global business of facilitating capital formation through diverse new products, services and markets. “U.S. banks generally engage in a broader range of securities activities abroad than is permitted domestically,” said the Treasury secretary. “Even domestically, the separation of investment banking and commercial banking envisioned by Glass-Steagall has eroded significantly.”
Anyone who thinks the repeal of Glass-Steagall was forced on an unwilling Bill Clinton need only read Rubin’s testimony.
AND…
–CAPITAL GAINS TAX RATES
The top capital gains tax rate, which had been 28%, is lowered to 20%. People in the 15% income tax bracket will pay 10% on capital gains. The new rates apply to investments held for more than a year and sold after May 6, 1997, and before July 29, 1997. For assets sold July 29th or later, the lower rate will apply only if the assets have been held more than 18 months. Depreciated real property is subject to special recapture provisions.
Assets purchased in 2001 and later and held for more than five years will be taxed at an 8% rate for lowest bracket taxpayers and at 18% for the higher bracket taxpayers. To utilize the 18% and 8% rates on capital gains on property held more than five years, you can elect to treat certain property held prior to January 1, 2001 as having been sold and repurchased. You would be required to pay taxes on any gain. Losses are not deductible. Return to Index
AND…
-HOME SALES
The law exempts from taxation profits on the sale of a personal residence of up to $500,000 for married couples filing jointly and $250,000 for singles. To qualify, sellers must have owned and used the home as their principal residence for at least two of the last five years before the sale. Effective for sales after May 6, 1997, this new provision replaces the prior rollover provision on home sales and the $125,000 exclusion of gain for those 55 and over. There was no change in the rule that prohibits taxpayers from deducting losses on home sales.
http://www.filetax.com/97taxact.html
——————And then, we have NAFTA:
NAFTA passed the Senate 61-38. Clinton signed it into law on December 8, 1993; it went into effect on January 1, 1994.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement
[What’s funny is how the Democrats (especially Hillary Clinton) later tried to distance themselves from it…but there were politics involved for and against. -CAR]
Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Rodham Clinton distanced herself Monday from one of her husband’s signature White House achievements, saying NAFTA should be reassessed and “adjusted” and any new free trade agreements postponed.
“I think we do need to take a deep breath and figure out how we can make it work for the greatest numbers of people,” she told USA TODAY. Clinton said NAFTA’s benefits have gone to the wealthy and cost jobs for working people. She said a “timeout” in new accords would last until she felt the issue of trade in the 21st century had been adequately studied.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3705441&page=1
[Gosh, because NOBODY could have seen that coming, right? -CAR]
———…But, more importantly, the mailer misrepresents what former Clinton administration officials and biographers say was Hillary Clinton’s long-held opposition to the legislation.
“In August in 92, we had to make a decision,” Mickey Kantor the former U.S. Secretary of Commerce, Clinton adviser, and free trade advocate recalled for the Huffington Post. “President Clinton had to make a decision as governor, whether or not he would support [George H.W. Bush’s] NAFTA, and of course he did… Hillary Clinton was one of the great skeptics in the discussion as to whether he should do. So she was always skeptical beginning in 1992 and onward.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/14/did-hillary-clinton-reall_n_86674.html
——————-[And then, we apparently have politicians saying one thing to voters (“the little people”), but something else to “those who matter.” -CAR]
“Mr. Brodie, apparently seeking to play down the potential impact on Canada, told the reporters the threat was not serious, and that someone from Ms. Clinton’s campaign had even contacted Canadian diplomats to tell them not to worry because the NAFTA threats were mostly political posturing. The Canadian Press cited an unnamed source last night as saying that several people overheard the remark.
“The news agency quoted that source as saying that Mr. Brodie said that someone from Ms. Clinton’s campaign called and was ‘telling the embassy to take it with a grain of salt.’
“The story was followed by CTV’s Washington bureau chief, Tom Clark, who reported that the Obama campaign, not the Clinton’s, had reassured Canadian diplomats.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2008/03/06/4438881-clintons-nafta-gate
—————-
IMHO, policies enacted during Clinton’s presidency are most certainly behind our most recent bubbles, and also behind the devastation of our job base. I believe our elected representatives are merely puppets who serve the will of those who really run this country (the very wealthy and powerful). We’re supposed to go along with these fruitless elections because we’re supposed to believe that we can somehow hold them accountable. We can’t, and we won’t for as long as we vote for those who are put there by “those who matter” — always follow the money.
October 7, 2010 at 12:29 AM #614508Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=BigGovernmentIsGood]
Well, since you brought up Clinton, let’s look at the facts.
[/quote]BigGubment: Yeah, let’s look at the facts, shall we?
Bill Clinton gave us:
– First use of extraordinary rendition of suspected terrorists to black sites around the world, including peace-loving countries like Saudi Arabia and Jordan, where these “suspected” terrorists could be held without due cause, access to legal counsel or medical aid, and tortured for information,
– Vast expansion of the National Security State, including creation of the NSA’s “Echelon” and “Carnivore” eavesdropping programs (which were used on US citizens, as well as foreign nationals), as well as expansion of FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) further eroding American civil liberties,
– The Iraq Liberation Act (ILA) of 1998, advocating the removal of Saddam Hussein, by force if necessary. The ILA was used to support Clinton’s massive multi-year bombing campaign against Iraq, causing tens of thousands of CIVILIAN casualties (as documented by the UN, World Health Organization and Amnesty Int’l),
– Operation Desert Fox (Iraq), largest sustained US bombing campaign since Operation Rolling Thunder in Vietnam,
– Economic sanctions programs against Iraq resulting in the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi CIVILIANS (figures are from Unicef and World Health Organization).Yup, Clinton was a prince, wasn’t he?[/quote]
And for those of us who are “left-leaning” but still don’t like some Democratic policies, also under Clinton:
–June 3 President Bill Clinton on Wednesday proposed renewing mostfavorednation MFN trade status for China, saying it was clearly in our nations interest as he urged Congress to support the request.
“Mostfavorednation status offers low tariffs and treats countries as normal trading partners.
Trade is also an important part of our relationship with China. Our exports have tripled over the last decade and now support over 170,000 American jobs, Clinton argued.
—————-
AND…–The Repeal of Glass Steagall
In the background of the go-go economy, the feeling grew among some economists and the financial community that Glass-Steagall hampered America’s financial competitiveness. Among the many voices favoring this was Alan Greenspan along with former Goldman Sachs partner Robert Rubin, Bill Clinton’s Treasury Secretary. In a 1995 speech and testimony to Congress Rubin signaled the Clinton Administration was ready to repeal Glass-Steagall:
“The banking industry is fundamentally different from what it was two decades ago, let alone in 1933.” He said the industry has been transformed into a global business of facilitating capital formation through diverse new products, services and markets. “U.S. banks generally engage in a broader range of securities activities abroad than is permitted domestically,” said the Treasury secretary. “Even domestically, the separation of investment banking and commercial banking envisioned by Glass-Steagall has eroded significantly.”
Anyone who thinks the repeal of Glass-Steagall was forced on an unwilling Bill Clinton need only read Rubin’s testimony.
AND…
–CAPITAL GAINS TAX RATES
The top capital gains tax rate, which had been 28%, is lowered to 20%. People in the 15% income tax bracket will pay 10% on capital gains. The new rates apply to investments held for more than a year and sold after May 6, 1997, and before July 29, 1997. For assets sold July 29th or later, the lower rate will apply only if the assets have been held more than 18 months. Depreciated real property is subject to special recapture provisions.
Assets purchased in 2001 and later and held for more than five years will be taxed at an 8% rate for lowest bracket taxpayers and at 18% for the higher bracket taxpayers. To utilize the 18% and 8% rates on capital gains on property held more than five years, you can elect to treat certain property held prior to January 1, 2001 as having been sold and repurchased. You would be required to pay taxes on any gain. Losses are not deductible. Return to Index
AND…
-HOME SALES
The law exempts from taxation profits on the sale of a personal residence of up to $500,000 for married couples filing jointly and $250,000 for singles. To qualify, sellers must have owned and used the home as their principal residence for at least two of the last five years before the sale. Effective for sales after May 6, 1997, this new provision replaces the prior rollover provision on home sales and the $125,000 exclusion of gain for those 55 and over. There was no change in the rule that prohibits taxpayers from deducting losses on home sales.
http://www.filetax.com/97taxact.html
——————And then, we have NAFTA:
NAFTA passed the Senate 61-38. Clinton signed it into law on December 8, 1993; it went into effect on January 1, 1994.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement
[What’s funny is how the Democrats (especially Hillary Clinton) later tried to distance themselves from it…but there were politics involved for and against. -CAR]
Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Rodham Clinton distanced herself Monday from one of her husband’s signature White House achievements, saying NAFTA should be reassessed and “adjusted” and any new free trade agreements postponed.
“I think we do need to take a deep breath and figure out how we can make it work for the greatest numbers of people,” she told USA TODAY. Clinton said NAFTA’s benefits have gone to the wealthy and cost jobs for working people. She said a “timeout” in new accords would last until she felt the issue of trade in the 21st century had been adequately studied.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3705441&page=1
[Gosh, because NOBODY could have seen that coming, right? -CAR]
———…But, more importantly, the mailer misrepresents what former Clinton administration officials and biographers say was Hillary Clinton’s long-held opposition to the legislation.
“In August in 92, we had to make a decision,” Mickey Kantor the former U.S. Secretary of Commerce, Clinton adviser, and free trade advocate recalled for the Huffington Post. “President Clinton had to make a decision as governor, whether or not he would support [George H.W. Bush’s] NAFTA, and of course he did… Hillary Clinton was one of the great skeptics in the discussion as to whether he should do. So she was always skeptical beginning in 1992 and onward.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/14/did-hillary-clinton-reall_n_86674.html
——————-[And then, we apparently have politicians saying one thing to voters (“the little people”), but something else to “those who matter.” -CAR]
“Mr. Brodie, apparently seeking to play down the potential impact on Canada, told the reporters the threat was not serious, and that someone from Ms. Clinton’s campaign had even contacted Canadian diplomats to tell them not to worry because the NAFTA threats were mostly political posturing. The Canadian Press cited an unnamed source last night as saying that several people overheard the remark.
“The news agency quoted that source as saying that Mr. Brodie said that someone from Ms. Clinton’s campaign called and was ‘telling the embassy to take it with a grain of salt.’
“The story was followed by CTV’s Washington bureau chief, Tom Clark, who reported that the Obama campaign, not the Clinton’s, had reassured Canadian diplomats.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2008/03/06/4438881-clintons-nafta-gate
—————-
IMHO, policies enacted during Clinton’s presidency are most certainly behind our most recent bubbles, and also behind the devastation of our job base. I believe our elected representatives are merely puppets who serve the will of those who really run this country (the very wealthy and powerful). We’re supposed to go along with these fruitless elections because we’re supposed to believe that we can somehow hold them accountable. We can’t, and we won’t for as long as we vote for those who are put there by “those who matter” — always follow the money.
October 7, 2010 at 12:29 AM #614622Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=BigGovernmentIsGood]
Well, since you brought up Clinton, let’s look at the facts.
[/quote]BigGubment: Yeah, let’s look at the facts, shall we?
Bill Clinton gave us:
– First use of extraordinary rendition of suspected terrorists to black sites around the world, including peace-loving countries like Saudi Arabia and Jordan, where these “suspected” terrorists could be held without due cause, access to legal counsel or medical aid, and tortured for information,
– Vast expansion of the National Security State, including creation of the NSA’s “Echelon” and “Carnivore” eavesdropping programs (which were used on US citizens, as well as foreign nationals), as well as expansion of FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) further eroding American civil liberties,
– The Iraq Liberation Act (ILA) of 1998, advocating the removal of Saddam Hussein, by force if necessary. The ILA was used to support Clinton’s massive multi-year bombing campaign against Iraq, causing tens of thousands of CIVILIAN casualties (as documented by the UN, World Health Organization and Amnesty Int’l),
– Operation Desert Fox (Iraq), largest sustained US bombing campaign since Operation Rolling Thunder in Vietnam,
– Economic sanctions programs against Iraq resulting in the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi CIVILIANS (figures are from Unicef and World Health Organization).Yup, Clinton was a prince, wasn’t he?[/quote]
And for those of us who are “left-leaning” but still don’t like some Democratic policies, also under Clinton:
–June 3 President Bill Clinton on Wednesday proposed renewing mostfavorednation MFN trade status for China, saying it was clearly in our nations interest as he urged Congress to support the request.
“Mostfavorednation status offers low tariffs and treats countries as normal trading partners.
Trade is also an important part of our relationship with China. Our exports have tripled over the last decade and now support over 170,000 American jobs, Clinton argued.
—————-
AND…–The Repeal of Glass Steagall
In the background of the go-go economy, the feeling grew among some economists and the financial community that Glass-Steagall hampered America’s financial competitiveness. Among the many voices favoring this was Alan Greenspan along with former Goldman Sachs partner Robert Rubin, Bill Clinton’s Treasury Secretary. In a 1995 speech and testimony to Congress Rubin signaled the Clinton Administration was ready to repeal Glass-Steagall:
“The banking industry is fundamentally different from what it was two decades ago, let alone in 1933.” He said the industry has been transformed into a global business of facilitating capital formation through diverse new products, services and markets. “U.S. banks generally engage in a broader range of securities activities abroad than is permitted domestically,” said the Treasury secretary. “Even domestically, the separation of investment banking and commercial banking envisioned by Glass-Steagall has eroded significantly.”
Anyone who thinks the repeal of Glass-Steagall was forced on an unwilling Bill Clinton need only read Rubin’s testimony.
AND…
–CAPITAL GAINS TAX RATES
The top capital gains tax rate, which had been 28%, is lowered to 20%. People in the 15% income tax bracket will pay 10% on capital gains. The new rates apply to investments held for more than a year and sold after May 6, 1997, and before July 29, 1997. For assets sold July 29th or later, the lower rate will apply only if the assets have been held more than 18 months. Depreciated real property is subject to special recapture provisions.
Assets purchased in 2001 and later and held for more than five years will be taxed at an 8% rate for lowest bracket taxpayers and at 18% for the higher bracket taxpayers. To utilize the 18% and 8% rates on capital gains on property held more than five years, you can elect to treat certain property held prior to January 1, 2001 as having been sold and repurchased. You would be required to pay taxes on any gain. Losses are not deductible. Return to Index
AND…
-HOME SALES
The law exempts from taxation profits on the sale of a personal residence of up to $500,000 for married couples filing jointly and $250,000 for singles. To qualify, sellers must have owned and used the home as their principal residence for at least two of the last five years before the sale. Effective for sales after May 6, 1997, this new provision replaces the prior rollover provision on home sales and the $125,000 exclusion of gain for those 55 and over. There was no change in the rule that prohibits taxpayers from deducting losses on home sales.
http://www.filetax.com/97taxact.html
——————And then, we have NAFTA:
NAFTA passed the Senate 61-38. Clinton signed it into law on December 8, 1993; it went into effect on January 1, 1994.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement
[What’s funny is how the Democrats (especially Hillary Clinton) later tried to distance themselves from it…but there were politics involved for and against. -CAR]
Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Rodham Clinton distanced herself Monday from one of her husband’s signature White House achievements, saying NAFTA should be reassessed and “adjusted” and any new free trade agreements postponed.
“I think we do need to take a deep breath and figure out how we can make it work for the greatest numbers of people,” she told USA TODAY. Clinton said NAFTA’s benefits have gone to the wealthy and cost jobs for working people. She said a “timeout” in new accords would last until she felt the issue of trade in the 21st century had been adequately studied.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3705441&page=1
[Gosh, because NOBODY could have seen that coming, right? -CAR]
———…But, more importantly, the mailer misrepresents what former Clinton administration officials and biographers say was Hillary Clinton’s long-held opposition to the legislation.
“In August in 92, we had to make a decision,” Mickey Kantor the former U.S. Secretary of Commerce, Clinton adviser, and free trade advocate recalled for the Huffington Post. “President Clinton had to make a decision as governor, whether or not he would support [George H.W. Bush’s] NAFTA, and of course he did… Hillary Clinton was one of the great skeptics in the discussion as to whether he should do. So she was always skeptical beginning in 1992 and onward.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/14/did-hillary-clinton-reall_n_86674.html
——————-[And then, we apparently have politicians saying one thing to voters (“the little people”), but something else to “those who matter.” -CAR]
“Mr. Brodie, apparently seeking to play down the potential impact on Canada, told the reporters the threat was not serious, and that someone from Ms. Clinton’s campaign had even contacted Canadian diplomats to tell them not to worry because the NAFTA threats were mostly political posturing. The Canadian Press cited an unnamed source last night as saying that several people overheard the remark.
“The news agency quoted that source as saying that Mr. Brodie said that someone from Ms. Clinton’s campaign called and was ‘telling the embassy to take it with a grain of salt.’
“The story was followed by CTV’s Washington bureau chief, Tom Clark, who reported that the Obama campaign, not the Clinton’s, had reassured Canadian diplomats.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2008/03/06/4438881-clintons-nafta-gate
—————-
IMHO, policies enacted during Clinton’s presidency are most certainly behind our most recent bubbles, and also behind the devastation of our job base. I believe our elected representatives are merely puppets who serve the will of those who really run this country (the very wealthy and powerful). We’re supposed to go along with these fruitless elections because we’re supposed to believe that we can somehow hold them accountable. We can’t, and we won’t for as long as we vote for those who are put there by “those who matter” — always follow the money.
October 7, 2010 at 12:29 AM #614928Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=BigGovernmentIsGood]
Well, since you brought up Clinton, let’s look at the facts.
[/quote]BigGubment: Yeah, let’s look at the facts, shall we?
Bill Clinton gave us:
– First use of extraordinary rendition of suspected terrorists to black sites around the world, including peace-loving countries like Saudi Arabia and Jordan, where these “suspected” terrorists could be held without due cause, access to legal counsel or medical aid, and tortured for information,
– Vast expansion of the National Security State, including creation of the NSA’s “Echelon” and “Carnivore” eavesdropping programs (which were used on US citizens, as well as foreign nationals), as well as expansion of FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) further eroding American civil liberties,
– The Iraq Liberation Act (ILA) of 1998, advocating the removal of Saddam Hussein, by force if necessary. The ILA was used to support Clinton’s massive multi-year bombing campaign against Iraq, causing tens of thousands of CIVILIAN casualties (as documented by the UN, World Health Organization and Amnesty Int’l),
– Operation Desert Fox (Iraq), largest sustained US bombing campaign since Operation Rolling Thunder in Vietnam,
– Economic sanctions programs against Iraq resulting in the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi CIVILIANS (figures are from Unicef and World Health Organization).Yup, Clinton was a prince, wasn’t he?[/quote]
And for those of us who are “left-leaning” but still don’t like some Democratic policies, also under Clinton:
–June 3 President Bill Clinton on Wednesday proposed renewing mostfavorednation MFN trade status for China, saying it was clearly in our nations interest as he urged Congress to support the request.
“Mostfavorednation status offers low tariffs and treats countries as normal trading partners.
Trade is also an important part of our relationship with China. Our exports have tripled over the last decade and now support over 170,000 American jobs, Clinton argued.
—————-
AND…–The Repeal of Glass Steagall
In the background of the go-go economy, the feeling grew among some economists and the financial community that Glass-Steagall hampered America’s financial competitiveness. Among the many voices favoring this was Alan Greenspan along with former Goldman Sachs partner Robert Rubin, Bill Clinton’s Treasury Secretary. In a 1995 speech and testimony to Congress Rubin signaled the Clinton Administration was ready to repeal Glass-Steagall:
“The banking industry is fundamentally different from what it was two decades ago, let alone in 1933.” He said the industry has been transformed into a global business of facilitating capital formation through diverse new products, services and markets. “U.S. banks generally engage in a broader range of securities activities abroad than is permitted domestically,” said the Treasury secretary. “Even domestically, the separation of investment banking and commercial banking envisioned by Glass-Steagall has eroded significantly.”
Anyone who thinks the repeal of Glass-Steagall was forced on an unwilling Bill Clinton need only read Rubin’s testimony.
AND…
–CAPITAL GAINS TAX RATES
The top capital gains tax rate, which had been 28%, is lowered to 20%. People in the 15% income tax bracket will pay 10% on capital gains. The new rates apply to investments held for more than a year and sold after May 6, 1997, and before July 29, 1997. For assets sold July 29th or later, the lower rate will apply only if the assets have been held more than 18 months. Depreciated real property is subject to special recapture provisions.
Assets purchased in 2001 and later and held for more than five years will be taxed at an 8% rate for lowest bracket taxpayers and at 18% for the higher bracket taxpayers. To utilize the 18% and 8% rates on capital gains on property held more than five years, you can elect to treat certain property held prior to January 1, 2001 as having been sold and repurchased. You would be required to pay taxes on any gain. Losses are not deductible. Return to Index
AND…
-HOME SALES
The law exempts from taxation profits on the sale of a personal residence of up to $500,000 for married couples filing jointly and $250,000 for singles. To qualify, sellers must have owned and used the home as their principal residence for at least two of the last five years before the sale. Effective for sales after May 6, 1997, this new provision replaces the prior rollover provision on home sales and the $125,000 exclusion of gain for those 55 and over. There was no change in the rule that prohibits taxpayers from deducting losses on home sales.
http://www.filetax.com/97taxact.html
——————And then, we have NAFTA:
NAFTA passed the Senate 61-38. Clinton signed it into law on December 8, 1993; it went into effect on January 1, 1994.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement
[What’s funny is how the Democrats (especially Hillary Clinton) later tried to distance themselves from it…but there were politics involved for and against. -CAR]
Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Rodham Clinton distanced herself Monday from one of her husband’s signature White House achievements, saying NAFTA should be reassessed and “adjusted” and any new free trade agreements postponed.
“I think we do need to take a deep breath and figure out how we can make it work for the greatest numbers of people,” she told USA TODAY. Clinton said NAFTA’s benefits have gone to the wealthy and cost jobs for working people. She said a “timeout” in new accords would last until she felt the issue of trade in the 21st century had been adequately studied.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3705441&page=1
[Gosh, because NOBODY could have seen that coming, right? -CAR]
———…But, more importantly, the mailer misrepresents what former Clinton administration officials and biographers say was Hillary Clinton’s long-held opposition to the legislation.
“In August in 92, we had to make a decision,” Mickey Kantor the former U.S. Secretary of Commerce, Clinton adviser, and free trade advocate recalled for the Huffington Post. “President Clinton had to make a decision as governor, whether or not he would support [George H.W. Bush’s] NAFTA, and of course he did… Hillary Clinton was one of the great skeptics in the discussion as to whether he should do. So she was always skeptical beginning in 1992 and onward.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/14/did-hillary-clinton-reall_n_86674.html
——————-[And then, we apparently have politicians saying one thing to voters (“the little people”), but something else to “those who matter.” -CAR]
“Mr. Brodie, apparently seeking to play down the potential impact on Canada, told the reporters the threat was not serious, and that someone from Ms. Clinton’s campaign had even contacted Canadian diplomats to tell them not to worry because the NAFTA threats were mostly political posturing. The Canadian Press cited an unnamed source last night as saying that several people overheard the remark.
“The news agency quoted that source as saying that Mr. Brodie said that someone from Ms. Clinton’s campaign called and was ‘telling the embassy to take it with a grain of salt.’
“The story was followed by CTV’s Washington bureau chief, Tom Clark, who reported that the Obama campaign, not the Clinton’s, had reassured Canadian diplomats.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2008/03/06/4438881-clintons-nafta-gate
—————-
IMHO, policies enacted during Clinton’s presidency are most certainly behind our most recent bubbles, and also behind the devastation of our job base. I believe our elected representatives are merely puppets who serve the will of those who really run this country (the very wealthy and powerful). We’re supposed to go along with these fruitless elections because we’re supposed to believe that we can somehow hold them accountable. We can’t, and we won’t for as long as we vote for those who are put there by “those who matter” — always follow the money.
October 7, 2010 at 12:31 AM #613883Participant[quote=SK in CV][quote=davelj]
Your argument is invalid because you’re cherry picking your starting and ending points. As the graph below shows, government spending as a percentage of GDP has generally increased over time regardless of which party was in office. (That big spike is WWII.) This isn’t a partisan observation – it’s just a fact. As a supporter of Big Government, you should be thrilled. And very upset with Mr. Clinton that he was so stingy during his reign.While I’d hesitate to necessarily attribute it entirely to who was in the white house, what the chart you linked to shows is that during each of the previous 4 democratic administrations over the last 50 years, spending, as a percentage of GDP, actually dropped, with the exception of the very end of the Johnson administration, when the costs of Viet Nam really kicked in. That same measurement grew during each of the Republican administrations. Each dealt with their own special economic circumstances, and absent examining those circumstances, this data is inconclusive. But it does tend to disprove the “tax and spend” rhetoric.[/quote]
Agreed. That’s what I noticed as well.
October 7, 2010 at 12:31 AM #613968Participant[quote=SK in CV][quote=davelj]
Your argument is invalid because you’re cherry picking your starting and ending points. As the graph below shows, government spending as a percentage of GDP has generally increased over time regardless of which party was in office. (That big spike is WWII.) This isn’t a partisan observation – it’s just a fact. As a supporter of Big Government, you should be thrilled. And very upset with Mr. Clinton that he was so stingy during his reign.While I’d hesitate to necessarily attribute it entirely to who was in the white house, what the chart you linked to shows is that during each of the previous 4 democratic administrations over the last 50 years, spending, as a percentage of GDP, actually dropped, with the exception of the very end of the Johnson administration, when the costs of Viet Nam really kicked in. That same measurement grew during each of the Republican administrations. Each dealt with their own special economic circumstances, and absent examining those circumstances, this data is inconclusive. But it does tend to disprove the “tax and spend” rhetoric.[/quote]
Agreed. That’s what I noticed as well.
October 7, 2010 at 12:31 AM #614512Participant[quote=SK in CV][quote=davelj]
Your argument is invalid because you’re cherry picking your starting and ending points. As the graph below shows, government spending as a percentage of GDP has generally increased over time regardless of which party was in office. (That big spike is WWII.) This isn’t a partisan observation – it’s just a fact. As a supporter of Big Government, you should be thrilled. And very upset with Mr. Clinton that he was so stingy during his reign.While I’d hesitate to necessarily attribute it entirely to who was in the white house, what the chart you linked to shows is that during each of the previous 4 democratic administrations over the last 50 years, spending, as a percentage of GDP, actually dropped, with the exception of the very end of the Johnson administration, when the costs of Viet Nam really kicked in. That same measurement grew during each of the Republican administrations. Each dealt with their own special economic circumstances, and absent examining those circumstances, this data is inconclusive. But it does tend to disprove the “tax and spend” rhetoric.[/quote]
Agreed. That’s what I noticed as well.
October 7, 2010 at 12:31 AM #614627Participant[quote=SK in CV][quote=davelj]
Your argument is invalid because you’re cherry picking your starting and ending points. As the graph below shows, government spending as a percentage of GDP has generally increased over time regardless of which party was in office. (That big spike is WWII.) This isn’t a partisan observation – it’s just a fact. As a supporter of Big Government, you should be thrilled. And very upset with Mr. Clinton that he was so stingy during his reign.While I’d hesitate to necessarily attribute it entirely to who was in the white house, what the chart you linked to shows is that during each of the previous 4 democratic administrations over the last 50 years, spending, as a percentage of GDP, actually dropped, with the exception of the very end of the Johnson administration, when the costs of Viet Nam really kicked in. That same measurement grew during each of the Republican administrations. Each dealt with their own special economic circumstances, and absent examining those circumstances, this data is inconclusive. But it does tend to disprove the “tax and spend” rhetoric.[/quote]
Agreed. That’s what I noticed as well.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.