Of the last 50 yrs. who would you rather have?

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by beanfield, Feb 26, 2014.

  1. GatorBen
    Online

    GatorBen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    7,184
    Likes Received:
    623
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,455
    GDP wasn't going down when Clinton left office. The numbers I posted show that, the numbers you posted show that, the other set of numbers on the BEA spreadsheet show that. Every number either of us have looked at show that.

    The rate of GDP growth was going down, but there wasn't a single one of those quarters where the GDP was lower than it had been the prior quarter.

    There was not a single quarter between September 1991 and September 2008 when GDP went down. So how exactly did "the slide start when Clinton was in office" if the first quarter in nearly two decades with negative GDP growth was seven and a half years after Clinton left office?

    If you don't know what the numbers you posted mean, I'm sorry. But you're wrong.

    GDP isn't expressed as a percentage, the percentage is rate of GDP growth (or percent change over prior period, which is the same thing). If the percent change is positive, that means GDP went up. "Going up slower" isn't the same as "going down" because, well, it's still going up. Every time that number is positive, that means GDP is higher than it was in the quarter before that (aka "GDP was going up"). That number is positive, thus GDP was going up, for every single quarter Clinton was in office, plus every quarter for the next seven and a half years after he left office.
  2. ncgatr1
    Offline

    ncgatr1 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    5,342
    Likes Received:
    269
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,021
    What are you talking about? Who said 2008? Let me verify to you what I said because there seems to be some miscommunication. I said that Clinton left Bush a recession. This is indicated by the slowing GDP growth rate. The GDP started it's decline in June 2000 and went 5 consecutive quarters in a negative rate. The numbers I showed you, shows the GDP declining over 5 consecutive quarters starting in June 2000. This is indicative of a declining economy and a recession. The original thread was, who I considered the best president over the last 50 years and I said Reagan because of all the issues he overcame and the fact he did not leave a recession. You evidently believe Clinton was the greatest, I was in the workforce for both presidents and Clinton, although had good economies, was not as good as Reagan, get over it.
  3. GatorBen
    Online

    GatorBen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    7,184
    Likes Received:
    623
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,455
    You don't understand the terms you're talking about and I'm tired of trying to explain them to you. GDP did not decline at any point in the 17 year period between 1991 and 2008. Thus, the GDP did not "start a decline in June 2000" or "go 5 consecutive quarters in a negative rate." The numbers you posted agree with me on that.

    Sorry if you don't understand what you're talking about well enough to comprehend why I'm telling you that your contention (namely that GDP declined at any point in 2000, 2001, or 2002) is flat out wrong, not true, whatever. And all of the data that you posted agrees with me.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. beanfield
    Offline

    beanfield Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2009
    Messages:
    895
    Likes Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings Received:
    +232
    Tell me again....How does being a community organizer prepare you for being POTUS ??
  5. shelbygt350
    Offline

    shelbygt350 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    5,679
    Likes Received:
    227
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +867
    Reagan....then a toss up between Nixon and Clinton. Nixon would know how to handle Putin.

    Carter would have just sold Alaska to Russia for a bag of peanuts.

    Kennedy, today, would have banged so many women (due to today's women) that he would have died in office from an overdose of Viagra.
    • Funny Funny x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  6. beanfield
    Offline

    beanfield Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2009
    Messages:
    895
    Likes Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings Received:
    +232
    All things considered...with out this country's safety...what do we have... NOTHING... IMHO, Bush stands at the top as far as CHAMPION of prior... Current administration is riding on his coattails...
  7. wcj786
    Offline

    wcj786 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    1,344
    Likes Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +235
    When Clinton took office, we had already had 2 consecutive quarters of growth since the S&L crash. He did not take office until January of 1993, he was elected in November of 1992 (for which you can thank Ross Pero). By the time he took office, the economy was already growing again. There were people without jobs still, but the companies were already in the process of hiring again.

    That is quite different than today, where the country is still losing ground where hiring is concerned. It is not keeping pace with the amount of new workers available.
  8. Wormwood56
    Offline

    Wormwood56 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2011
    Messages:
    7,468
    Likes Received:
    761
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX
    Ratings Received:
    +3,052
    If we were strictly looking at economic policies, I would go with Reagan and Clinton, who were clearly centrist and business friendly.

    If I needed a president to have the intellect necessary to read the minds of our adversaries, Nixon is the one. Probably the most intellectually brilliant president we had since Hoover.

    If I needed someone who had the courage of his convictions and didn't care about polls or what the UN thought, I'd go with George W. Bush and Reagan.

    If I had to go with personal character, I'd rank them as follows:

    Bush I
    Ford
    Bush II
    Carter
    Obama
    Reagan
    Kennedy
    Nixon
    Clinton
    Johnson
  9. shelbygt350
    Offline

    shelbygt350 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    5,679
    Likes Received:
    227
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +867
    You rank 0bamao on Personal Character that high?

    What kind of "character" would a person have who has hidden records of college transcripts, secreted travel/passport info, dodged questions re: business dealings with a felon, bypassed ?s associations with people who planned murder, attended a church that bashed white people, blatantly lied to millions about insurance coverage to pass a law, etc?

    That is not a person of high character !

    A person of high character is authentic and transparent. They have no need to conceal, manipulate, and flat out lie.

    But I suspect your rebuttal will be: (i) all pols have bad character (ii) 0bamao's character is better than Reagan's because he was never divorced.
  10. rivergator
    Online

    rivergator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    32,583
    Likes Received:
    446
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +2,315
    All seems pretty random except for the bottom four. Why would the Bushes, for example, have higher personal character than Carter?
  11. DeanMeadGator
    Offline

    DeanMeadGator '63 Gator VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    2,674
    Likes Received:
    96
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +233
    I agree on all you said, include the zipper advice.

    The present administration impugns the other party, does not want to work with the other party, and will not work with the other party. Compromise is often reached based on personal relationships, and Obama neither has nor wants relationships with members of the other party. Therefore, he cannot get things done and it is going to get worse.
  12. beanfield
    Offline

    beanfield Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2009
    Messages:
    895
    Likes Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings Received:
    +232
    This deal that is currently going on with Putin...Which could get ugly...I would want George w. or Reagan...
  13. rivergator
    Online

    rivergator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    32,583
    Likes Received:
    446
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +2,315
    You know you had George W. when Putin invaded Georgia, right?

    And you had Reagan when our barracks were bombed in Beirut.

    Were you happy with their responses then?
  14. beanfield
    Offline

    beanfield Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2009
    Messages:
    895
    Likes Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings Received:
    +232
    River, you are obviously well read and in the know on this topic, I would like for you to tell us how then relates to now?
  15. 108
    Offline

    108 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    18,469
    Likes Received:
    486
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    NYC
    Ratings Received:
    +1,825
    hard to say, they are all mixed bags

    and as OBOB said, some were helped by good cyclical economic times

    but, much more the same then different, despite what both sides pretend them to be
  16. rivergator
    Online

    rivergator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    32,583
    Likes Received:
    446
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +2,315
    Well, let's see: You said you'd like to have Reagan or GW to handle the situation we have now. I asked you if you were happy with how they handled situations in the past?
    And, no offense, you can't figure out the connection?

    Do you know how they responded?
  17. GatorBen
    Online

    GatorBen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    7,184
    Likes Received:
    623
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,455
    Well that's not fair. It's a trick question, they didn't. :D
    • Funny Funny x 1
  18. GatorBen
    Online

    GatorBen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    7,184
    Likes Received:
    623
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,455
    If I could get his foreign policy only and nothing about the rest of his presidency? Nixon.

    After that probably a tossup between Clinton and H.W. (with some of that only his foreign policy and not the rest qualification there as well - although much less so than Nixon).
  19. vertigo0923
    Offline

    vertigo0923 night owl mod VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    39,881
    Likes Received:
    3,960
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    sec country
    Ratings Received:
    +5,689
    what about george HW bush? why on earth would you put the son above the father in this regard?
    • Agree Agree x 1
  20. peytiepie
    Offline

    peytiepie VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    1,385
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Ratings Received:
    +53
    Not even close at #1...Ronald Reagan. George W. Bush at #2 and Richard Nixon at #3.
    • Like Like x 1

Share This Page