Same goes for the Iran Contra investigation, right?
No Collusion?
- Thread starter davekc
- Start date
So you're for certain SC inestigations. Got it.
Not really but Reagan was caught red handed well into his presidency. Democrats actually worked with him.
On the other hand, I remember very well sitting in my van filling a customer’s order after Clinton was elected but before he took office. I was listening to an interview of a Republican congressman who said “ we’re going to run this guy out of office if it’s the last thing we do”.
Lord knows the right wing tried right from the start.
That’s one difference between Clinton’s witch-hunt and Reagan.
Sent from my iPhone using EO Forums
You think the Dems don't say the same thing. You had FBI agents working with people funded by the Clinton Campaign talking about an "insurance policy" in case Trump got elected.
But you mentioned Clinton v. Reagan.
So your criteria for an investigation is if someone is caught "red handed"?
They probably do say the same thing but they’re not stupid enough to say it on the public airwaves.
When it comes to an “insurance policy”, I never heard about that (which doesn’t mean that it didn’t happen).
One main difference between Clinton and Trump is that the Clintons care about humanity including the poor and those who fall between the cracks. The only thing Trump loves and cares about is Trump. He is a known for lying, cheating, not paying people who have done work for him as well as hiring illegals.
He has said that anyone who deliberately lies and spreads slander should be thrown in jail. I actually agree with him on that. He would be the first to go.
By the way, my point on Reagan was we weren’t out to get him from the start. He didn’t have any problems until he got caught selling arms to Iran unlike Clinton who righties were gunning for long before he took office.
Sent from my iPhone using EO Forums
One of the main reasons Trump won is because he tapped into the people who felt disaffected. So no, I wouldn't say Trump doesn't care for humanity. The proof is in the pudding regarding the economy with rising wages, and increased employment for women and minorities.
That and Hillary was the worst possible candidate the Dems could have chose.
Do you mean the upswing that began during the Obama Administration that Trump takes credit for?
Sent from my iPhone using EO Forums
The economy with Bush did ok. It wasn't mostly until the end, brought on by enabling unsound financial practices that a whole lot of Dems defended and protected.
With Obama's economy. "At least it was going up" was the lousy new normal thay many Americans had to suffer with.
There was no upswing in wages or increased employment for women and minorities under Obama. Just the opposite. The positive facia numbers to be found in Obama's unemployment numbers are unfortunately rooted in the net 11.6 million jobs during his tenure, where 9.8 million of those jobs were minimum wage jobs, with more than half of those (5.47 million) being part-time jobs. So while the employment rate for women went up during the Obama years, they were nearly all low wage and part time jobs. The employment rate for minorities went down.
The wages during the Obama years went up an average of 3.7% per year, after inflation, but that's a very misleading figure. It's s superficial number that means almost nothing, as it's not what they call "real wages." The "real wages" is accurately measured by the Employment Cost Index, a measure of salary and benefit costs (21 separate benefits, including health insurance, retirement plans and paid time off, etc.), or more simply, the bottom line of what companies pay out to their employees. It details the changes in the costs of labor for businesses in the United States economy. It is prepared by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in the U.S. Department of Labor.
Economists use the index to measure the change in labor costs and gauge the health of the economy. An upward trend represents a strong and growing economy. In other words, employers are passing on profits to their employees through wages and benefits. Employers use the index to evaluate the labor market and the amount of raises they can doll out each quarter.
The magic number on the Index is 2 percent. When the Index is at 2 percent (technically, anywhere between 1.8 and 2.2), it means dead stagnant wages. Anything above 2.2 is good, anything below 1.8 is very, very bad.
During the Obama presidency, his best showing was the 2.2 percent increases in 2016 and 2014. Six of Obama's eight years in office saw gains of 2 percent or less. His overall 8 years netted 1,9, which is stagnant or dropping.
During Trump's first full year the ECI was 2.6 percent, the highest since 2007. In 2018 the number was 2.9 percent, the highest since the Great Depression.
WIthin Trump's 2.9 percent of 2018, you have wages and salaries at 3.1 percent, and a Benefit Cost rise of 2.8 percent. That 2.8 percent is a monster number. It's such an in-the-weeds number that Trump isn't likely to tout it, but it's the highest Benefit Cost ever recorded. Best Obama ever got on that one is 0.8 percent (which isn't actually terrible, BTW. It's not good, but it's not OMG terrible). But Trump's is a direct result of the tax reform bill that Trump pushed through (you know they one, where all the corporations kept all the money and didn't give any of it to their employees, except they did give most of it to their employees).
Last edited:
What party’s policies got us into the Great Depression and who’s policies got us out? How about the 2008 recession? We were losing hundreds of thousands of jobs every month when Obama took over.
Say what you want, you can’t change history.
Sent from my iPhone using EO Forums
There are generally agreed upon 7 main reasons for the Great Depression, only one of which involves political policies, and even then it's peripheral. Historians and economists to this day have no real concensus on what caused it. To try and blame one political party's policies for creating the Great Depression, and then give another party's policies credit for ending it, is breathtakingly simplistic, and reeks of partisan ignorance.
For example, Democrats invariably credit FDR's New Deal for getting us out of the Great Depression. It did not. In 1939 unemployment was still at 20 percent.
The start of WWII didn't end the Depression. All the War did was institutionalize the lower standard of living brought on the the Depression, with food rationing and the like. The only difference was people thought the lower standard of living was now for a good cause.
We didn't recover from the Depression until after the end of WWII, and prosperity was restored by the sharp reductions in spending, taxes and regulation by policies enacted after a sweeping Republican victory in the Congressional election of 1946. Truman tried his darndest to spend his way to prosperity, but a conservative Congress went in the exact opposite direction, forcing Truman to work with Congress to get anything done. It was those cooperative political policies, led by Republicans, that got us out of the Depression. The policies that caused the Depression in the first place are far less clear.
Obama stunk. Short and simple version. Only koolaiders see anything other than that. Trump is abrasive and can be annoying. But he's doing a pretty good job, far better than Obama ever did. That's the clear lenses, maybe only like him a bit but see what good he's doing version.
Like our record deficit from the great tax cuts. Believing foreign leaders instead of our own intelligence. Not knowing what he’s talking about a good share of the time. He even shoved another leader out of the way so he could be in the spotlight. Don’t deny it because I saw it on a video. Supposed to be such a great businessman. He went bankrupt six times.
Sent from my iPhone using EO Forums
And yet our economy is showing absolute record numbers. Amazing. As for the deficit, no one added more than Obama. Hard to argue the actual numbers.
We were running deficits before Trump. I do think we need to get a handle on all the spending, but Trump wanted the Military taken care of. But his administration is cutting in a lot of departments. That obviously won't cure the debt. Have to hit the "entitlements" if you want to do that. But Dems and Republicans are kicking the can so the debt will continue to grow. The tax cuts didn't cause more added debt. The spending did. The tax cuts created more jobs and in turn more revenue to the government.
Yeah, what Trump went thru the last 2 years due to the "intelligence agencies", I wouldn't have much trust in them either.
You would believe the Russians before your own experts? You deserve Trump.
Sent from my iPhone using EO Forums