Hillary Clinton began her Presidential campaign officially on April 12, the day that Franklin D. Roosevelt died in 1945.
She began her aggressive, active campaign today, June 13, on Roosevelt Island in New York, evoking the New Deal of Franklin D. Roosevelt, and came out fighting to make America a better place than it has been under Republican leadership in Congress, and the disastrous Republican field of Presidential candidates.
Just as Hillary inspired people when she spoke in Texas recently about enforcing the right to vote, which has been worked against in Republican controlled state governments, when Hillary gets out on the stump, she gives people new hope that she can be an outstanding Presidential candidate; defeat whichever GOP candidate survives the upcoming campaign; and emerge triumphant and successful as the 45th President!
Hillary has faults and shortcomings, as she herself admits; and she said she knew she would make mistakes as any candidate, any human being would, but that she would always be fighting for the middle class, and for those left behind, meaning the poor and disadvantaged, as well.
That is the message we want to hear from Hillary Clinton, and while Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley and Lincoln Chafee offer more “liberal” alternatives to Hillary in the Democratic Presidential race, and are all decent and inspirational in nature, the odds are still that Hillary will win and carry the mantle of the Democratic Party into November 2016.
And ultimately, the issue is not whether Hillary is “liberal enough”, but the future of the federal courts, and particularly, the Supreme Court, as that will be the most lasting impact of the next President of the United States.
We cannot allow a reactionary, right wing Republican gain control of the future of the Supreme Court, as that would condemn much of what Democratic Presidents have achieved in the past century since FDR!
Hillary’s relaunch quarantined reporters, Ignored foreign policy, and wowed the women who already love her because of her gender. Any word about how to get our country back to the path of economic growth?
I second that Professor!
Max, we ARE on the path of economic growth, the longest sustained growth since Bill Clinton. Where have you been?
Really? Are you sure about that? You call this anemic performance growth? I understand that young millennials consider this malaise to be the new normal, I can understand these young people not knowing what real economic growth and opportunity for all really is, after all they didn’t live through the 80’s. I am sorry but I know what real economic growth, wealth creation and opportunity for all looks like. http://www.tradingeconomics.com/embed/?s=gdp+cyoy&d1=19810101&d2=20151231&h=300&w=600&ref=%2Funited-states%2Fgdp-growth-annual
The Reagan years were great for the wealthy and upper middle class, but a vast number of jobs created were low wage jobs, while in the 90s, they were high wage jobs. And the national debt TRIPLED under Reagan. Trickle Down Economics DID not work!
You can’t be serious. I find it hard to believe that someone educated as yourself actually believe that. You know those aren’t the facts. Seriously, Come on…
Max, these ARE the facts, whether you accept them or not!
Sorry to puncture the bubble you apparently live in, drinking the Kool-Aid fed by the right wing media!
Oh I got to see this. Do you have data to support these “facts”?
I am busy finishing the final changes in my forthcoming book on Presidential Assassinations, so do not have time to check this in deail , but it is a well known fact to anyone who wants the truth about Reagan.
If you wish not to accept it, that is your privilege, Max!
Sources other than Fox News – MSNBC, CNN, PBS, ABC, CBS, NBC – are where you will hear facts.
Actually I based my facts on the beloved government. Like the BLS, IRS,Census etc. And you?
We speak the truth here, Max. As the Professor said, if you wish not to accept it, that is your privilege.
OMG you mean the government agencies that provide the data do not speak the truth? Now tell me where should I go to seek the “truth”? LOL!!!!
The sources that Leia listed tells you the truth about government.
You mean to say that the government doesn’t tell the truth about government, it’s policies and the stats? You mean to say the BLS, IRS, Treasury and Census data all lie? Interesting.
Get this through your stubborn mind: Those news sources that Leia listed get truthful stats from the government.
The Professor wrote ” And the national debt TRIPLED under Reagan.” So I asked where he got this info and some of you named sources. Leia wrote “Sources other than Fox News – MSNBC, CNN, PBS, ABC, CBS, NBC – are where you will hear facts.” Thus I ask again, are you sure Reagan tripled the debt? Is this what you get from your sources? Seriously???
For Reagan to have tripled the debt it would have had to go from 30.98 % of GDP to almost 93% of GDP. Fact : It rose to 49.52% of GDP. And in nominal terms from $3.2 trillion in 1981 to $9.6 trillion in 1988. Fact: It rose to $5.2 trillion. In any event it would not have been Reagan’s sole responsibility, Congress was also involved just like today.
Year Billions Population % GDP
1981 3211 228.670 30.98
1982 3345 230.815 34.00
1983 3638.1 232.979 37.70
1984 4040.7 235.164 38.72
1985 4346.7 237.369 41.81
1986 4590.2 239.595 46.20
1987 4870.2 241.842 48.17
1988 5252.6 244.110 49.52
Data Sources for 1980:
GDP, GO: GDP, GO Sources
Federal: Fed. Budget: Hist. Tables 3.2, 5.1, 7.1
State and Local: Statistical Abstract of the United States
Data Sources for 1990:
GDP, GO: GDP, GO Sources
Federal: Fed. Budget: Hist. Tables 3.2, 5.1, 7.1
State and Local: Statistical Abstract of the United States
Cheers!
You are correct, Max, in that, of course, the Congress plays a major role in the debt growth, but Reagan went along with it, particularly on defense spending. But our debt level grew greater by far under him than under any other President since World War II! And Bush II is the other President under whom the debt level grew dramatically, in both cases because of massive tax cuts to the wealthy, what Republicans call “trickle down economics”, which never works for anyone but the wealthy!
Yes. Seriously. It’s a well-known fact.
See here: http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2014/12/ronald-reagan-big-government-legacy
Now get over it.
Thanks, Pragmatic Progressive, for providing evidence of the tripling of the national debut under Reagan.
MOST of the national debt increase from Carter through Bush was under Republicans, and while the debt has grown under Obama, it is due to a great extent to the mess left by Bush II, big tax cuts, and wild spending on two wars.
I have been busy finishing my forthcoming book, out on August 15, so have not had the time to find this material, so I really appreciate it, Pragmatic Progressive!
When I make I typo I admit it. In my previous posting when looking at the columns I confused the US GDP with the US Gross Public debt column. Thus, the $3.2 trillion in 1981 was the GDP and the $5.2 trillion in 1988. In other words the GDP increased 62.5%!! The gross debt was $ 994 billion in 1981 and was $ 2.6 trillion a 160% increase. In other words in relation to GDP the debt increased from 31.7% to 50%, a 57% increase not a triple increase. Source : US Government Publishing Office (excel spreadsheet) http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/pagedetails.action?granuleId=BUDGET-2016-TAB-8-1&packageId=BUDGET-2016-TAB&fromBrowse=true
Chart: https://www.flickr.com/photos/134016092@N05/18719707598/
Debt nominal value chart 1980-2020
http://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/download_multi_year_1980_2020USr_16s2li101mcn_H0f
Debt % GDP 1980-2020 http://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/download_multi_year_1980_2020USp_16s2li101mcn_H0f
The data in that article Pragmatic Progressive posted comes from the US Department of Treasury and the Office of Personnel Management. The links for those agencies are in blue under the charts. As the data from those agencies shows, the debt went from 907 billion in 1980 to 2.6 trillion in 1988.
But that is only have the truth and really misleading because if you look at the same government data, from the Treasury, BLS it will show that the debt in relation to GDP went from from 31.7% to 50% of GDP, a 57% increase not a triple increase. And the article from Mother Jones fails not only to mention that but more importantly that GDP increased from$3.2 trillion in 1981 to $5.2 trillion in 1988, a 62.5% increase! In other word what happened it those 8 yrs economically was the equivalent of adding the entire size and production of the German economy to that of the US. The net job growth over eight years was 16.1 million meaning nearly 20 million more Americans were working in 1988 than in 1981. And famed military buildup often credited with ending the Cold War and hence delivering the “peace dividend†(Clinton grateful) that helped dampen federal spending in the 1990’s, in which Reagan’s economic policy largely stayed in place.
Typo: But that is only HALF the truth…(not have)
The beginning of the destruction of the middle class began in the Reagan years and was accelerated under Bush II! Those are facts, Max, whether you choose to recognize it or not!
I’ve have come to the conclusion that Max is Joe “You Lie” Wilson in disguise. 😉
If wealth were seized by Obama and redistributed to the working class and poor, one could measure this redistribution through standard national measures including wage growth, median income, labor force participation, unemployment, and growth in wealth, and see improvement in all these measures. These measures can then be compared to the results of the policies of Ronald Reagan, the Republican president who allegedly acted to help the rich keep more of their money.
Seven years into Obama’s policies a comparison can be made between the effects of Obama’s and Reagan’s policies on income redistribution. For example, lets consider wage growth. Social Security (meaning the Federal Government not some leftist website!) uses a standard measure called the national wage indexing series. Its data show that during the first four years of Reagan’s first term the national average wage index rose from $13,773 in 1981 to $19,334 in 1988, an increase of 40%. By comparison, during the six years of the Obama’s first term the wage index went from $40,711 to $44,888 an increase of 10%. So it’s accurate to say that the national average wage increase rose almost four times as much under Reagan than under Obama. Since the median income of Americans has declined to where the average working family now earns as much as they did in 1996, it’s fairly safe to say we won’t see an increase of 40% by the end of Obama’s Presidency. And by the way, during the Clinton administration the national average wage increased from $23,132.67 in 1993 to $32,154.82 in 2000, a 39% increase. And finally during the Bush administration the national average wage increased from $32,921.92 in 2001 to $41,334.97 in 2008, a 25% increase. Obama’s 10% national wage increase is truly miserable and rotten for the, and I shall use leftist language here, “poor and middle class.” But hey, the left is for the poor! LOL!
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/AWI.html
Typo: Its data show that during the Reagan’s Presidency (not first four years. I later collected the data from 1981 to 1988 and forgot to correct my first assessment)
So, Max, you mean to tell us that you don’t spin numbers out of context, like you accuse news sources (that most people know are more reliable than Fox News) of doing?
Rustbelt Democrat, you gave me a good laugh! HAHA! LOL
Quite the contrary, I provided the context. That is the whole picture. And there is no spin here, those are the numbers. If you have an issue with them, well tell that to the government, its their numbers.
Yeah! Get ’em Rustbelt! 🙂
Another news source more reliable than Fox News and “Max”, telling that, yes, Reagan, tripled the debt.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2011-02-03-raasch04_ST_N.htm
Even Wikipedia confirms that Reagan soared the spending, Clinton brought it back down, and Dubya took it way back up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_public_debt#Changes_in_debt_by_political_affiliation
Thanks, Princess Leia, and Pragmatic Progressive!
This newspaper explains about what the national debt is and, also confirms, that, yes, it did triple.
http://cjonline.com/interact/blog/matsofatso/2010-04-20/setting_the_record_straight_about_the_national_debt
The first column of the chart in the Appendix is your total debt: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_of_the_United_States
Now I understand and confirm why the left has such a problem with economics. They just can seem to come to grips with basic math and how to calculate percentages. In other words they are hopeless. Seriously what part of percentage of GDP do you folks not understand? What part of that is how economist measure spending, deficits and debt do you not understand? The debt can double if you wish, but if the GDP triples then then what? What part of going from a debt to GDP ratio of 31% to 49% do liberals not understand is in no way a triple of the debt? Also with respect to spending in 1980 the last year of the Carter administration Federal spending was 21% of GDP and the deficit was 3% of GDP ( see: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/breakdown_1980USpf_16ps5n ), while in 1988 the last year of the Reagan administration Federal Spending was reduced to 20% of GDP and the deficit was 3% of GDP, all with tax cuts across the board and an economic growth of 62.5% of the GDP. ( see: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/breakdown_1988USpf_16ps5n ). But all these are facts that will be willfully ignored by the left.
The last column in that chart shows a difference of 3000 between 1980 and 1990. Yet “Max” doesn’t call that tripling?! LOL!
As I was looking through the source site usgovernmentspending.com that “Max” uses, I stumbled on a link specifically for Tea Party people:
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/tea_party.php
That usgovernmentdebt.us site is run by the same person.
LOL! It was just as I figured! Those are not legit government sites.
Wow, Rustbelt Democrat, what a revelation about Max! LOL
So it is the Tea Party whackos who are trying to undermine the truth, once again!
They have undermined this country over the past seven years, and all to benefit only themselves, but the truth shall set us free!
Ha! Ha! Thanks for outing him Rustbelt!
The news sources and the Wikipedia entry we used use legit government sites, which always end in dot.gov.
I believe this is a .gov site, as in the government. So try not to be a smart ass. http://www.bea.gov/national/index.htm#gdp
Also Social Security is also from the government, I mean it hasn’t been privatized yet , has it? http://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/AWI.html
Hey and look at this it is also a .gov site.
Oh what do we have here? US Department of Commerce, US Bureau of Economic Analysis! Why yes, it’s a .gov site, like in government site. And as I said GDP increased from$3.2 trillion in 1981 to $5.2 trillion in 1988, in other words a 62.5% increase. https://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=9&step=1#reqid=9&step=3&isuri=1&910=x&911=0&903=5&904=1981&905=1988&906=a
Here’s a dot.gov site. It’s the Treasury Dept.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_presentday.htm
And it says this: Between 1980 and 1990, the debt more than tripled as the government borrowed money to fund military build-ups and many elaborate new policies, such as “the war on drugs.” Americans began relying more and more on credit cards and jumbo mortgages, and being “in debt” became a new way of life in America.
As I said GDP increased from$3.2 trillion in 1981 to $5.2 trillion in 1988, in other words a 62.5% increase. From the US Dept of Commerce. This is a better link. https://www.bea.gov/iTable/print.cfm?fid=2CE80CB3D0C7C84CE9E4730FE04A0D91217EE57D2C09EC5B28F787EB5C4CED02FAFACB553BC1DDF732D75AB292209C4BFD582E96785FEC7E320F4A6FB9634143
Leia: Not when you take into account the debt to GDP ratio! Do you understand what that means? Or are you just going to ignore it? Do you know how much our debt was in relation to GDP in 1981, 1988? In 2009 and 2015? Or is that just to hard for you ? Or do you just prefer to shut your eyes and ears?
Are you just going to sit there and deny that the federal debt went from 31% of GDP in 1988 to 50% of GDP in 1988? http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/government-debt-to-gdp
LOL! Now Max thinks that facts from the Treasury Department are lies!
But the Treasury doesn’t tell what the debt to GDP ratio was. True or false? You seem like a brick wall.
The chart on this page shows the national debt as a percentage of GDP. The data in the chart is from the WhiteHouse.gov. Even on that page, it’s mentioned that debt tripled between 1980 and 1990.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_ourheritage.htm
Max, give it up!
Max,
You’re the one who is the brick wall. That’s the only thing you are focused on.
Pragmatic: You can’t read charts can’t you? That same damn page shows that from 1981 to 1988 the debt as % of GDP went from 31% to 50%! How on earth by that measure has the debt tripled? This is the last hypothetical I will give. When Obama was sworn in our GDP was $14 trillion and our debt $10 trillion, or 76% of GDP. Suppose the debt rose to $18 trillion like it did under Obama but our GDP would have double to $ 28 trillion, then as percentage of GDP the debt would have decreased to 64% of GDP. Not optimal, in real dollars the debt increased but we had an economic growth that actually decreased the impact of our debt. Unfortunately that growth didn’t happen. Our economy only grew to $16 trillion therefore our present debt is 112% of GDP! This is why the relation of debt to GDP is more important that the nominal number of the debt. And if you want to get really picky some economist sustain that the real important ratio is debt to revenues. Well in that case we are really screwed. Our revenues are just over $3 trillion while our debt is $18 trillion. This is now Greece levels. But let the QE 3 party continue, correct?
“Max” is the one who doesn’t understand. The thing that he can’t get through his stubborn Teabag skull is the gross debt is what we are talking about tripling, NOT the GDP. The gross debt jumped from 907 billion to 2.6 trillion between 1980 and 1990.