Hillary Clinton

• ptown_trojans_1

  

  QuakerOats;1783822 wrote:We have just concluded the 8th straight year of sub-3% growth --- the worst stretch ever. You are absolutely correct that it is obama's policies that have crushed economic growth, investment and incentive. It started with obamaKare which has done nothing but pervert job creation along with wrecking insurance and starting to impact actual care. Then you look at his regulatory agencies and the job-destroying agenda that goes along with every executive fiat and appointment - from EPA to NLRB to OHSA to MSHA to banking and on down the line. It is practically a nightmare to be in manufacturing in this country anymore; it is no wonder that this once-formidable sector of our economy has largely moved offshore. His assault on capitalism and free enterprise will kill us if not reversed quickly.

  No freaking way. Here you go again saying something is the worst ever, when in reality, it is not.
  Go back and look at the 1930s, and then the late 1800s.
• like_that

  

  ZWICK 4 PREZ;1783797 wrote:No, he asked for citation on something he knows would be impossible to cite. Which is why I asked him for citation proving otherwise, which would be impossible to cite.

  So then why did you say it when there is no proof either way?
• ZWICK 4 PREZ

  

  like_that;1783855 wrote:So then why did you say it when there is no proof either way?

  
  Why not? Have you ever said anything you witnessed and/or believed that you didn't have unequivocal proof either way? Or perhaps probably normal people didn't ask you to cite it?
• like_that

  

  ZWICK 4 PREZ;1783858 wrote:Why not? Have you ever said anything you witnessed and/or believed that you didn't have unequivocal proof either way? Or perhaps probably normal people didn't ask you to cite it?

  There is a difference between that and speaking with certainty/absolute statements when you're actually speaking out of your ass.
• ZWICK 4 PREZ

  

  like_that;1783860 wrote:There is a difference between that and speaking with certainty/absolute statements when you're actually speaking out of your ass.

  
  dude.. lol whatever you say.
• Al Bundy

  ptown_trojans_1;1783835 wrote:No freaking way. Here you go again saying something is the worst ever, when in reality, it is not.
  Go back and look at the 1930s, and then the late 1800s.

  The stretch in the 1930s wasn't as long as the current stretch below 3% growth. http://useconomy.about.com/od/GDP-by-Year/a/US-GDP-History.htm
• like_that

  

  Typical zwick, never can man up.
• BR1986FB

  like_that;1783870 wrote:Typical LIBERAL, never can man up.

  Fixed
• QuakerOats

  ptown_trojans_1;1783835 wrote:No freaking way. Here you go again saying something is the worst ever, when in reality, it is not.
  Go back and look at the 1930s, and then the late 1800s.

  Hopefully, Barack Obama hasn’t “fundamentally transformed” the American economy. The Bureau of Economic Analysis recently reported that the United States has experienced 10 straight years of GDP growth below 3% — a first since the agency started to track the data in 1929. Furthermore, a report that Obama’s economic advisers sent to Congress predicted much of the same economic activity for the next few years. It predicted the once great American economy would only increase the GDP by 2.7% for 2016, and decline after that. This isn’t normal, as every American recovery since the 1960s experienced an average GDP growth of 3.9%. Sen. Dan Coats, who chairs Congress' Joint Economic Committee, said he will investigate the causes of the crippled economy at an upcoming hearing. “In order to boost GDP,” Coats said, “we need to overhaul our tax code and strip away unnecessary government regulations to give employers the confidence they need grow their businesses and create new jobs. Congress can take action to help grow our economy, but we need a willing partner in the White House.” Indeed, Americans need to see past Obama’s economic fantasies and elect someone who understands that the American economy needs Liberty to thrive.
  
  
  
  
  I deal in facts and reality, unlike liberals.
• ZWICK 4 PREZ

  

  BR1986FB;1783873 wrote:Fixed

  Hates liberals.
  
  On a thread about a Liberal.
• HitsRus

  

  It has nothing to do with Obamacare or taxes.

  
  You don't own a small business, do you? I will tell you definitively that it does....as well as over regulation.
  Our hiring practices have been "transformed".
• BR1986FB

  ZWICK 4 PREZ;1783878 wrote:Hates liberals.
  
  On a thread about a Liberal.

  No, just extreme liberals.
• ZWICK 4 PREZ

  

  HitsRus;1783880 wrote:You don't own a small business, do you? I will tell you definitively that it does....as well as over regulation.

  
  I completely agree small businesses need tax reform and exemptions. You won't hear disagreements from me. Big businesses need tax reforms also, just the other way.
• QuakerOats

  Compare and contrast to:
  
  The longest consecutive stretch of years in which the United State saw real GDP grow by 3.0 percent or better was the seven year period from 1983-1989, during the presidency of Ronald Reagan.
  
  
  
  
  a time when virtually everyone did well.
  
  The difference between Reagan and obama is simply immeasurable.
• ZWICK 4 PREZ

  

  BR1986FB;1783881 wrote:No, just extreme liberals.

  that's not what you said 1 post prior.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  QuakerOats;1783876 wrote:Hopefully, Barack Obama hasn’t “fundamentally transformed” the American economy. The Bureau of Economic Analysis recently reported that the United States has experienced 10 straight years of GDP growth below 3% — a first since the agency started to track the data in 1929. Furthermore, a report that Obama’s economic advisers sent to Congress predicted much of the same economic activity for the next few years. It predicted the once great American economy would only increase the GDP by 2.7% for 2016, and decline after that. This isn’t normal, as every American recovery since the 1960s experienced an average GDP growth of 3.9%. Sen. Dan Coats, who chairs Congress' Joint Economic Committee, said he will investigate the causes of the crippled economy at an upcoming hearing. “In order to boost GDP,” Coats said, “we need to overhaul our tax code and strip away unnecessary government regulations to give employers the confidence they need grow their businesses and create new jobs. Congress can take action to help grow our economy, but we need a willing partner in the White House.” Indeed, Americans need to see past Obama’s economic fantasies and elect someone who understands that the American economy needs Liberty to thrive.
  
  
  
  
  I deal in facts and reality, unlike liberals.

  The facts since 1929, correct.
  However, to it is the worst growth ever, is simply not true.
  If you collectively take the growth from 1929 to 1941, that is worse than now, even with the spike in the early 1930s. The same data shows that.
  I would also say the peaks and valleys from late the 1880s, with the various booms and busts, were much worse than today.
  
  My whole point is you are suggesting this is the worst growth in US history, I am saying, only if you look at it from a recently standpoint, is that the case.
  Nice shot at the end chief.
• like_that

  

  ptown_trojans_1;1783889 wrote:The facts since 1929, correct.
  However, to it is the worst growth ever, is simply not true.
  If you collectively take the growth from 1929 to 1941, that is worse than now, even with the spike in the early 1930s. The same data shows that.
  I would also say the peaks and valleys from late the 1880s, with the various booms and busts, were much worse than today.
  
  My whole point is you are suggesting this is the worst growth in US history, I am saying, only if you look at it from a recently standpoint, is that the case.
  Nice shot at the end chief.

  Don't let the main point get in your way, it's still very shitty growth.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  like_that;1783890 wrote:Don't let the main point get in your way, it's still very shitty growth.

  Very true.
  Still, growth. But, as you said, shitty growth.
• QuakerOats

  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/02/29/senior-clinton-aide-maintained-top-secret-clearance-amid-email-probe-letters-show.html?intcmp=hpbt3
  
  
  the double standard rolls on .........
• Dr Winston O'Boogie

  

  Unfortunately, I believe the coronation will proceed. I really do hope that if Trump were elected, he'd push for charges brought. Not to the detriment of the country, of course. But if it would perhaps end the Clinton era in Washington, that'd be wonderful.
• Apple

  

  Dr Winston O'Boogie;1783935 wrote:Unfortunately, I believe the coronation will proceed. I really do hope that if Trump were elected, he'd push for charges brought. Not to the detriment of the country, of course. But if it would perhaps end the Clinton era in Washington, that'd be wonderful.

  It would be quite the accomplishment for ANYONE to first knock out the Bushs and then the Clintons. Even if it means we end up with Trump, on the whole, America would be in a better place.
• isadore

  Apple;1783999 wrote:It would be quite the accomplishment for ANYONE to first knock out the Bushs and then the Clintons. Even if it means we end up with Trump, on the whole, America would be in a better place.

  gosh a ruddies Apple in Germany in November, 1932 election "it would be quite and accomplishment for Anyone to knock out Wels and those damn liberal socials SPDers. Even if we end up with Hilter, on the whole, Germany would be a better place."
• MontyBrunswick

  

  Hillary is going to lock up the nomination today and be on her way to presidency!!!!!!
• BoatShoes

  Apple;1783999 wrote:It would be quite the accomplishment for ANYONE to first knock out the Bushs and then the Clintons. Even if it means we end up with Trump, on the whole, America would be in a better place.

  Sadly, in reality, it's not that simple and you're probably wrong - but hence the appeal of Trump.
• HitsRus

  

  Wow...I agree with boatshoes....imagine that! I don't think Trump would be a very good president....his 'appeal' is just not a very good reason to elect him to such an important office.