Liberal Forum

roadkill » 20 Oct 2017 7:00 pm » wrote:
Clinton road the surfboard of tax cuts for R&D in the tech sector in the, 80s.

We headed into a recession before Clinton left office and the subprime loans finished the job during the Bush years.

Whatever you do, don't mention the dems' roll it in all...or should I say, the primary cause.

Reagan didn't inherit a legacy that was loaded for bear...but Clinton did.

Okay, now do Carter. His numbers beat Nixon's. His numbers beat Bush's.

Obie's gave reagan a run for his momey.

Help us understand why NOT JUST CLINTON but virtually every democrat president does a better job for the dow than their republican counterparts.

Cannonpointer » 20 Oct 2017 7:05 pm » wrote:Okay, now do Carter. His numbers beat Nixon's. His numbers beat Bush's.

Obie's gave reagan a run for his momey.

Help us understand why NOT JUST CLINTON but virtually every democrat president does a better job for the dow than their republican counterparts.

As many have said...the president has little to do with the stock market...if that's true it wipes out both our claims.

But if they do, then Reagan gets credit for Clinton's stock market.

Now that we've argued it again...here's an article that would hand us both some wins and losses.

This excerpt will encourage you to pluck some excerpts out of the article that support your views...


"There were two big economic events during the Clinton administration that had profound effects on the world economy. One was the emergence of the web as an important cultural and economic phenomenon, a blessing for which we may thank, among others, Tim Berners-Lee and Marc Andreessen (and a whole lot of taxpayers from around the world) and which the Clinton administration had effectively nothing to do with. The other, which seems to be largely forgotten in the English-speaking world, was the 1997 Asian financial crisis, which was a catastrophe but one that spurred important corporate and banking reforms (especially in the Republic of Korea) that helped lay the foundations for much of the prosperity of developed Asia today. That has profound effects on the U.S. economy, too, which are not mainly the result of policies pursued by the Clinton administration or any other administration."

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... ttle-do-it

Termin8tor » 20 Oct 2017 3:55 pm » wrote:Ever heard of anticipation, Dim? People are anticipating a much stronger economy due to tax cuts and deregulation.

So it's all based on a feeling. LOL

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4NwP3wes4M8

Termin8tor » 20 Oct 2017 3:56 pm » wrote:Have Repubs expressed quiet support, even admiration for these wackjobs the way Democrats did for ANTIFA?

Yeah. The head of Cult45 said some of them were good people.

Termin8tor » 20 Oct 2017 4:15 pm » wrote:Absolutely. A president whose policies badly hurt economic growth, and a president whose policies will stimulate a boom.

You know what else will stimulate a boom?

roadkill » 20 Oct 2017 4:15 pm » wrote:People invest on sentiment and future expectations. Like the tax cuts Trump is pushing for.

So they invest on feelings and hope. Got it.

roadkill » 20 Oct 2017 4:15 pm » wrote:BTW...if the market had gone down after Trump was sworn in, what would the left have said?

I would have ignored it like you did when it went up under Obama.

When Obama assumed office, the U.S. economy was in financial turmoil. The Dow fell precipitously during the first months of his presidency, ultimately bottoming out in March 2009.

Once the stock market stabilized, it went on to experience the second-longest bull market in U.S. history, a trend that continues today.

The Dow closed at about 7,949 on Inauguration Day in 2009, and about 19,732 on Obama’s last full day in office.

This represents a 148 percent increase over eight years.

http://checkyourfact.com/2017/08/02/fac ... der-obama/

Misty » 20 Oct 2017 8:17 pm » wrote: Yeah. The head of Cult45 said some of them were good people.

No he didn't, liar.

He was referring to residents of Charlottesville who were objecting to statues being taken down.

Psychopath.

Misty » 20 Oct 2017 8:21 pm » wrote: You know what else will stimulate a boom?

You're too dishonest to admit that Obama had one of the worst economic records in US history.

Psychopath.

roadkill » 20 Oct 2017 7:18 pm » wrote:
As many have said...the president has little to do with the stock market...if that's true it wipes out both our claims.

But if they do, then Reagan gets credit for Clinton's stock market.

So poppi bush never happened?

And does that give carter credit for reagan's stock market? Or does reagan gets to hog ALL the credit, just because you girls like the taste of his dick?

Also, if pResidents don't get credit for the stock market, why did you bring it up?

Zugzwang, mother ****.

Cannonpointer » 20 Oct 2017 9:16 pm » wrote: And does that give carter credit for reagan's stock market? Or does reagan gets to hog ALL the credit, just because you girls like the taste of his dick?

Also, if pResidents don't get credit for the stock market, why did you bring it up?

Zagzwang, mother ****.

Blah, blah, blah, blah.

You're too dishonest to admit that Obama had one of the worst economic records in US history.

Or too freaking stupid.

Termin8tor » 20 Oct 2017 9:11 pm » wrote:
You're too dishonest to admit that Obama had one of the worst economic records in US history.

Psychopath.

Termin8tor » 20 Oct 2017 9:19 pm » wrote:
Blah, blah, blah, blah.

You're too dishonest to admit that Obama had one of the worst economic records in US history.

Or too freaking stupid.

roadkill » 20 Oct 2017 7:00 pm » wrote:
Clinton road the surfboard of tax cuts for R&D in the tech sector in the, 80s.

We headed into a recession before Clinton left office and the subprime loans finished the job during the Bush years.

Whatever you do, don't mention the dems' roll it in all...or should I say, the primary cause.

Reagan didn't inherit a legacy that was loaded for bear...but Clinton did.

False by definition, *******.

If Reagan caused clinton's numbers, then carter caused reagan's.

This ain't a rest area toilet, when you get to have it both ways, boy.

Cannonpointer » 20 Oct 2017 9:20 pm » wrote: Blah, blah, blah

Hey moonbat, I referred to the Obama Economy.

GDP growth, income growth, jobs growth, etc.


The DJA isn't the economy, imbecile.

Termin8tor » 20 Oct 2017 9:26 pm » wrote:
Hey moonbat, I referred to the Obama Economy.

GDP growth, income growth, jobs growth, etc.

The DJA isn't the economy, imbecile.

Here's what most of the board knows from history, and the rest can read between the lines.

1. You don't have the chops to ask the question that will make me duck.
2. The only "questions" of yours that I have ignored were either rhetorical or dishonestly premised.
3. You run from me in every thread we both post in. You never answer challenges or acknowledge refutations.
4. I have run you OFF THE BOARD several times. The most recent time, you were so humiliated that you came back as a new poster, so your old posts wouldn't be rubbed in your face.

You are a gnat, boy.

Cannonpointer » 20 Oct 2017 9:22 pm » wrote:False by definition, *******.

If Reagan caused clinton's numbers, then carter caused reagan's.

This ain't a rest area toilet, when you get to have it both ways, boy.

Utterly stupid, because you're discussing economic issues without even considering their economic policies.

Stupid, stupid, stupid.

Termin8tor » 20 Oct 2017 9:27 pm » wrote:
Utterly stupid, because you're discussing economic issues without even considering their economic policies.

Stupid, stupid, stupid.

Keep blathering, *** - and let me say AGAIN:

Here's what most of the board knows from history, and the rest can read between the lines.

1. You don't have the chops to ask the question that will make me duck.
2. The only "questions" of yours that I have ignored were either rhetorical or dishonestly premised.
3. You run from me in every thread we both post in. You never answer challenges or acknowledge refutations.
4. I have run you OFF THE BOARD several times. The most recent time, you were so humiliated that you came back as a new poster, so your old posts wouldn't be rubbed in your face.

You are a gnat, boy.

Cannonpointer » 20 Oct 2017 9:27 pm » wrote: Here's what most of the board knows from history, and the rest can read between the lines.

That you're a liar and a babbling psychotic who can't answer my questions or address the facts I cite.

1. You don't have the chops to ask the question that will make me duck.

Oh, so that's why you refuse to answer them.

Shameless **** liar.

2. The only "questions" of yours that I have ignored were either rhetorical or dishonestly premised.
3. You run from me in every thread we both post in. You never answer challenges or acknowledge refutations.
4. I have run you OFF THE BOARD several times. The most recent time, you were so humiliated that you came back as a new poster, so your old posts wouldn't be rubbed in your face.

You are a gnat, boy.

Blah, blah, blah.

No one with any common sense buys your endless ****.

Cannonpointer » 20 Oct 2017 9:31 pm » wrote:Keep blathering, *** - and let me say AGAIN:

Here's what most of the board knows from history, and the rest can read between the lines.

1. You don't have the chops to ask the question that will make me duck.
2. The only "questions" of yours that I have ignored were either rhetorical or dishonestly premised.
3. You run from me in every thread we both post in. You never answer challenges or acknowledge refutations.
4. I have run you OFF THE BOARD several times. The most recent time, you were so humiliated that you came back as a new poster, so your old posts wouldn't be rubbed in your face.

You are a gnat, boy.

Oh my!

**** you and your endless lies and ****.

.