Retrospective approval rating

[Scam of God]

Clinton talked a lot about reforming welfare, but essentially dragged his feet until he was forced to accept the GOP's (toned down) proposals. In fact one of his original budget proposals actually would have increased overall spending by about $15 billion by 1999 (check CBO figures for his initial plan if you don't believe me). Besides that there's also the issue of his tax hikes on just about everything from the top marginal rate to social security... blah blah blah.

So what? The fact remains that the budget was balanced on his watch. I don't see Saint Ronnie having balanced it, or Bush the Elder. But Clinton did, and regardless of the political pressures on him at the time, he gets a pass just for it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Uh, yes, because the Voting Rights' Act single-handedly negates all of that. Of course you support a "States' right" to a poll tax, so I shouldn't be surprised. It would be asking too much of you not to be a massive hypocrite in any area that might make your theofascist masters uncomfortable.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sort of the way you worship at the altar of St. Ronnie of Raygun despite his massive escalation of the War on Drugs, his ruthless support of death squads (and interventionism generally), and his tax hikes? Or how you seem to slather over Tricky "Price Controls" Dick?

Please, do yourself and all of us a favor and move that social score into the positive percentages. Stop lying to us and doing us the discourtesy of your false pretensions.

[opebo]

Disapprove of all except for LBJ; Vietnam should rule even him out, but I don't want to look too cynical.

Well done and correct, but though I agree with you I voted approve for Democrats and Disapprove for Republicans.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Truman: ✓
Eisenhower: ✓
Kennedy: ✓
Johnson: ✓
Nixon: X
Ford: X
Carter: ✓
Reagan: X
Bush: ✓
Clinton: ✓
Bush: X

My list precisely, aside from the first Bush.

You guys actually approved of Clinton?

I'm on the fence with Clinton, leaning to a slight approve. I'm not thrilled with him, especially his legacy, but he did a fair bit of reasonable things, and, despite being a spineless poll watcher, kept the Republicans from going completely nuts with their agenda.

[Stranger in a strange land]

Truman: approve
Eisenhower: approve
Kennedy: approve
Johnson: disapprove
Nixon: disapprove
Ford: disapprove
Carter: disapprove
Reagan: disapprove
Bush I: approve
Clinton: approve
Bush II: disapprove

[pogo stick]

Truman- Approve
Eisenhower- Approve
Kennedy- Approve
Johnson-Disapprove
Nixon- Approve
Ford-Approve
Carter-Disapprove
Reagan- Approve
Bush 41- Approve
Clinton- Lean Disapprove. Mixed. Feel sorry for him about the Monica Scandal
Bush 42- Approve

[SPC]

Clinton talked a lot about reforming welfare, but essentially dragged his feet until he was forced to accept the GOP's (toned down) proposals. In fact one of his original budget proposals actually would have increased overall spending by about $15 billion by 1999 (check CBO figures for his initial plan if you don't believe me). Besides that there's also the issue of his tax hikes on just about everything from the top marginal rate to social security... blah blah blah.

So what? The fact remains that the budget was balanced on his watch. I don't see Saint Ronnie having balanced it, or Bush the Elder. But Clinton did, and regardless of the political pressures on him at the time, he gets a pass just for it.

So mass murdering civilians (domestic and foreign) is excusable because he balanced the budget? You sound like those neoconservatives that you always foam at the mouth at.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Uh, yes, because the Voting Rights' Act single-handedly negates all of that. Of course you support a "States' right" to a poll tax, so I shouldn't be surprised. It would be asking too much of you not to be a massive hypocrite in any area that might make your theofascist masters uncomfortable. [/quote]

Again, killing millions of Indochinese and tens of thousands of Americans, socializing education, health care, and many other sectors, and using the draft is excusable because he let some black people pretend they have a voice in this system?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sort of the way you worship at the altar of St. Ronnie of Raygun despite his massive escalation of the War on Drugs, his ruthless support of death squads (and interventionism generally), and his tax hikes? Or how you seem to slather over Tricky "Price Controls" Dick?

Please, do yourself and all of us a favor and move that social score into the positive percentages. Stop lying to us and doing us the discourtesy of your false pretensions.
[/quote]

You didn't respond to the statement, you just made an ad hominem attack.

[hcallega]

Oh libertarians, them and there crazy words and such.

Anyway, approve of Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton
Disaprove Johnson, Ford, Carter, Bush, Bush

[Mint]

Clinton talked a lot about reforming welfare, but essentially dragged his feet until he was forced to accept the GOP's (toned down) proposals. In fact one of his original budget proposals actually would have increased overall spending by about $15 billion by 1999 (check CBO figures for his initial plan if you don't believe me). Besides that there's also the issue of his tax hikes on just about everything from the top marginal rate to social security... blah blah blah.

So what? The fact remains that the budget was balanced on his watch. I don't see Saint Ronnie having balanced it, or Bush the Elder. But Clinton did, and regardless of the political pressures on him at the time, he gets a pass just for it.

The point is how he did it, which largely amounts to a lot of tax raises and slight of hand like borrowing from social security. Balancing a budget doesn't really mean much if in order to do so you raise taxes on the 'rich,' capital gains, social security and then some.

And even if I did agree with you on the budget issue how do you justify his policies on guns, drugs, various nations, etc. alongside some of his more infamous statements while condemning the Republicans for those same things? You're doing the exact same thing you're accusing me of.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Uh, yes, because the Voting Rights' Act single-handedly negates all of that. Of course you support a "States' right" to a poll tax, so I shouldn't be surprised. It would be asking too much of you not to be a massive hypocrite in any area that might make your theofascist masters uncomfortable. [/quote]

Nice ad hominems.

Anyway, I agree with almost everything SPC said in response to this nonsense so I feel no need to really elaborate.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I already criticized Reagan and Nixon on this thread. Get a clue.

[Hash]

Truman
Eisenhower
Kennedy
Johnson
Nixon
Ford
Carter
Reagan
Bush I
Clinton
Bush II

[Scam of God]

Clinton talked a lot about reforming welfare, but essentially dragged his feet until he was forced to accept the GOP's (toned down) proposals. In fact one of his original budget proposals actually would have increased overall spending by about $15 billion by 1999 (check CBO figures for his initial plan if you don't believe me). Besides that there's also the issue of his tax hikes on just about everything from the top marginal rate to social security... blah blah blah.

So what? The fact remains that the budget was balanced on his watch. I don't see Saint Ronnie having balanced it, or Bush the Elder. But Clinton did, and regardless of the political pressures on him at the time, he gets a pass just for it.

The point is how he did it, which largely amounts to a lot of tax raises and slight of hand like borrowing from social security. Balancing a budget doesn't really mean much if in order to do so you raise taxes on the 'rich,' capital gains, social security and then some.

So? Taxes are secondary to balancing the budget, dumbass; "low taxes" is a supply side mantra, not a libertarian one. If taxes must be raised to keep the nation out of debt, then raise them as much as necessary. It's preferable, but by no means necessary, to keep taxes low - but hardly at the expense of the deficit.

Do you even think before you fart out your ideas?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

... Because he wasn't as bad as Reagan or Nixon on the social issues? Jesus Christ, you're the biggest hypocrite on this forum. I'm supposed to be overawed by Reagan's phony law-and-order populism, yet reject Clinton for a lighter version of the same? Again: you ought to get your pockets sewn together, as I'm pretty sure they fell out on the road of mindless partisanship.

Hey, that's a-okay. Keep up the fake-ass fusionist alliance as far as you can f**k its corpse. Let's see where it gets you.

[Mint]

So? Taxes are secondary to balancing the budget, dumbass; "low taxes" is a supply side mantra, not a libertarian one. If taxes must be raised to keep the nation out of debt, then raise them as much as necessary. It's preferable, but by no means necessary, to keep taxes low - but hardly at the expense of the deficit.

Low taxes and low spending are a libertarian concept, at least in the commonly accepted meaning of the term. Clinton had ample opportunity to actually cut entitlement spending when the GOP congress was talking about cutting medicare and similar programs. He didn't because a) it was unpopular and b) he had no interest in doing so as a typical Democrat. Not only that but again, a lot of the budget 'surplus' was actually financed by taking money from social security. Congress has been doing that trick for decades.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, where did I say anything positive about Reagan on this thread? I said I approved of some of his policies then gave him low marks for the deficits, financial meltdown and other scandals which happened during his term. I've made it clear multiple times I have no love for the man, I just view him as better than the proven failure of Carter/Mondale. And if you're allowed to vote on someone being 'not as bad' on social issues (really pretty much just abortion, if you look at Clinton's record) what invalidates my decision to vote on other issues be they economic or otherwise? You're just as guilty if not more so than I am.

Bottom line: The last 45+ years pretty much just produced mediocre-to-horrible presidents as far as I'm concerned.

[Scam of God]

Low taxes and low spending are a libertarian concept, at least in the commonly accepted meaning of the term. Clinton had ample opportunity to actually cut entitlement spending when the GOP congress was talking about cutting medicare and similar programs. He didn't because a) it was unpopular and b) he had no interest in doing so as a typical Democrat.

WOW.

Holy Christ. I understood that some libertarians had no idea as to what the ideology entails, and choose to call themselves one because it's "teh kewl"... but this takes the cake.

No, dumbass, low taxes is not the core theme of libertarian economics. Hard money and a balanced budget, on the other hand, are. Without solid backing for the dollar it will go into freefall; and without a balanced budget we'll undergo hyperinflation. Friedmanite monetary policy is aimed at both stemming off either a devaluation or inflation - low taxes are entirely secondary to the goal of a stable fiscal policy. Libertarians emphasize stability (and sustainability), not growth. You are confusing supply-side with Friedmanite economics.

Low taxes are desirable, but in an instance where a previous administration has racked up massive deficits, then hiking taxes to pay off the balance is fine. The main point is avoiding deficits and preventing a currency collapse.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because it's pretty much clear that your concern for liberty only runs as far as your pocketbook?

*snip run-of-the-mill fusionism*

[Mint]

BTW: LOL @ you thinking I'm partisan Republican. I've voted for and donated to Democratic candidates several times. In fact when Cicilline declined to run for Governor I was very disappointed because he was far more effective than most of the clowns in this state. I consider party 'loyalty' of any kind to be absolutely retarded in case the avatar didn't tip you off.

[Mint]

No, dumbass, low taxes is not the core theme of libertarian economics. Hard money and a balanced budget, on the other hand, are. Without solid backing for the dollar it will go into freefall; and without a balanced budget we'll undergo hyperinflation. Friedmanite monetary policy is aimed at both stemming off either a devaluation or inflation - low taxes are entirely secondary to the goal of a stable fiscal policy. Libertarians emphasize stability (and sustainability), not growth. You are confusing supply-side with Friedmanite economics.

I didn't say they were. I said low taxes and spending were a basic libertarian principle, and earlier implied Reagan really didn't do enough in that area (among many other things I have called him out on). You're straw manning right now.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But he didn't HAVE to have the sort of tax rates he implemented. I already explained to you that in the mid-90s the Republicans were proposing steep cuts to Medicare and similar programs. After much initial compromising he put his foot down. That helped his approvals recover and he painted them as heartless extremists. That's a good political maneuver for a career politician like Clinton, but it should be anathema to anyone actually serious about reducing the size, scope and cost of government. You're the one being a hack here.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Right, because Obama had a great record on FISA and the Patriot Act. Oh wait...

Look, I'm not totally happy with my vote. McCain did a lot to piss me off between the bail outs and amnesty and a lot of the other establishment crap he supported. But after looking at Obama's economic agenda, foreign policy, past associations and the reality that he also supported almost all the parts of McCain's platform I didn't care for the lesser of the two evils was obvious.

[Scam of God]

I didn't say they were. I said low taxes and spending were a basic libertarian principle, and earlier implied Reagan really didn't do enough in that area (among many other things I have called him out on). You're straw manning right now.

No, I'm correcting your insane misconceptions of libertarianism.

You may find this as a shock, but most (ideological) libertarians don't care about taxes. Keeping taxes low is only seen as the most surefire way to achieve a balanced budget, by keeping the government from borrowing money to fund social programs - but if the budget can be balanced by a high rate of taxation, then I am all for that as well. That's why a vocal minority of libertarians want to return to the gold standard, despite the massive tax spike it would inevitably bring.

Until you can bring the dollar to a stable value and balance the budget, there's no reason to cut taxes. In fact, cutting taxes during a deficit is a surefire way to not ever pay it off.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As soon as you show me that the Republican plan would have worked, I'll concede. But - and here's the thing - I don't think it would have. It's clear to me that the insane Reagan deficits had to be taxed out of existence; and the dollar had to be saved from Alan "Cut The Margins!!!!" Greenspan's insane fiscal policies. Stability is the watchword of economic libertarianism.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Better than the opposition.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Truman=Approve
Eisenhower=Approve 
Kennedy=Approve   
Johnson=Approve
Nixon=Disapprove 
Ford=Neutral
Carter=Neutral
Reagan=Disapprove
G.W.H. Bush=Neutral
Clinton=Neutral
G. W. Bush=Disapprove

[SPC]

I didn't say they were. I said low taxes and spending were a basic libertarian principle, and earlier implied Reagan really didn't do enough in that area (among many other things I have called him out on). You're straw manning right now.

No, I'm correcting your insane misconceptions of libertarianism.

You may find this as a shock, but most (ideological) libertarians don't care about taxes.

That is the biggest load of crap I've ever heard. All libertarians I've heard want to at minimum lower taxes.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Returning to the gold standard wouldn't spark a massive tax spike, it would force the government not to spend so much money. And, even without the gold standard, the government still taxes us for that, they just do it indirectly via inflation rather than sending you a bill.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Who cares? The bugdet isn't my problem, it's the government's problem. If a thief has trouble paying his bills, is it justified for him to steal the money from me? Of course not!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As soon as you show me that the Republican plan would have worked, I'll concede. But - and here's the thing - I don't think it would have. It's clear to me that the insane Reagan deficits had to be taxed out of existence; and the dollar had to be saved from Alan "Cut The Margins!!!!" Greenspan's insane fiscal policies. Stability is the watchword of economic libertarianism.[/quote]

Obviously Reagan's plan was bad because those deficits would mean future tax hikes or inflation. The proper plan would be to lower taxes and lower spending.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Better than the opposition.
[/quote]

How could it be better than the opposition if IT'S THE SAME POSITION?!

[Scam of God]

I didn't say they were. I said low taxes and spending were a basic libertarian principle, and earlier implied Reagan really didn't do enough in that area (among many other things I have called him out on). You're straw manning right now.

No, I'm correcting your insane misconceptions of libertarianism.

You may find this as a shock, but most (ideological) libertarians don't care about taxes.

That is the biggest load of crap I've ever heard. All libertarians I've heard want to at minimum lower taxes.

Those aren't libertarians, dipsh**t. Those are supply-siders. I understand that you, in your propaganda-induced addle-brained mindset, might be ignorant enough to confuse the two. I am not so unfortunate.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hey, boy genius, I've got a question for you: how is the government supposed to pay for the gold bullion to re-align the dollar with if we go back on the gold standard?

I'll give you a hint: it's a three letter word.

Of course going back on the gold standard would cause a massive overnight tax spike, you blithering idiot! The gold has to be bought first - and gold is expensive as hell relative to paper. Jesus Christ, did you ever take even an introductory economics class? Or are you just a drooling Paulbot that can't distinguish sound monetarist policy from voodoo economics?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It would force the government to spend many times more than what it already does, to buy the massive amounts of bullion to peg each dollar to. Or are you too stupid to realize that there are literally hundreds of times as many dollars in circulation today as there was when we went off the gold standard?

*snip*

You must be logged in to read this quote.

ROFFLE-f'ing-LOFFLE. Yeah man, when you start paying twenty-five hundred dollars for your imported video game consoles, don't cry to me about it, moron.

[snip non-thinking Paulbot asininity]

[SPC]

I didn't say they were. I said low taxes and spending were a basic libertarian principle, and earlier implied Reagan really didn't do enough in that area (among many other things I have called him out on). You're straw manning right now.

No, I'm correcting your insane misconceptions of libertarianism.

You may find this as a shock, but most (ideological) libertarians don't care about taxes.

That is the biggest load of crap I've ever heard. All libertarians I've heard want to at minimum lower taxes.

Those aren't libertarians, dipsh**t. Those are supply-siders. I understand that you, in your propaganda-induced addle-brained mindset, might be ignorant enough to confuse the two. I am not so unfortunate.

Oh really, now?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.theadvocates.org/library/issues-taxes.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.lp.org/issues/taxes

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://voluntaryist.com/taxation/hessmytaxes.php

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote/lysander_spooner_quote_b8f9

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_within_libertarianism (Notice that the controversy is whether we should lower taxes or abolish taxes, not whether or not we should lower taxes)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hey, boy genius, I've got a question for you: how is the government supposed to pay for the gold bullion to re-align the dollar with if we go back on the gold standard?

I'll give you a hint: it's a three letter word.[/quote]

They have plenty of gold at Fort Knox. Plus, I never said that I supported a government-sanctioned gold standard. I think they shouldn't regulate money at all.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, the government doesn't have to be the one exchanging the gold. All they would have to do is get rid of the Federal Reserve and legal tender laws, and private banks could take care of the rest.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It would force the government to spend many times more than what it already does, to buy the massive amounts of bullion to peg each dollar to. Or are you too stupid to realize that there are literally hundreds of times as many dollars in circulation today as there was when we went off the gold standard?

*snip*[/quote]

Even if the government was the one who exchanged gold, who said that we would have to go back to the same exchange rate that we were on when we left the gold standard?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

ROFFLE-f'ing-LOFFLE. Yeah man, when you start paying twenty-five hundred dollars for your imported video game consoles, don't cry to me about it, moron.

[snip non-thinking Paulbot asininity]
[/quote]

Complete non-sequitor.

[Marokai Backbeat]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

lol

I can't imagine what it's like to be that ignorant.

[SPC]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

lol

I can't imagine what it's like to be that ignorant.

What's wrong with people not being coerced into giving away over a third of their income?

[Vepres]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

lol

I can't imagine what it's like to be that ignorant.

What's wrong with people not being coerced into giving away over a third of their income?

Oh you libertarians are so adorable.

One day, when you get in touch with reality instead of being stuck in your utopian dreams, you'll realize that the roads you drive on are *gasp* built by the government with those tax dollars. You'll realize that the education you got so you can read was *gasp* paid for by the government with those tax dollars. Shockingly, it turns out that those guys who put out forest fires are *gasp* paid for and employed by the government.

[they don't love you like i love you]

SPC has openly called for privatizing all those services. He also supports allowing "competing currencies".

[Vepres]

SPC has openly called for privatizing all those services. He also supports allowing "competing currencies".

How cute. You know what, I want a pet libertarian this Christmas.

Braces for the inevitable SPC rant

[SPC]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

lol

I can't imagine what it's like to be that ignorant.

What's wrong with people not being coerced into giving away over a third of their income?

Oh you libertarians are so adorable.

One day, when you get in touch with reality instead of being stuck in your utopian dreams, you'll realize that the roads you drive on are *gasp* built by the government with those tax dollars. You'll realize that the education you got so you can read was *gasp* paid for by the government with those tax dollars. Shockingly, it turns out that those guys who put out forest fires are *gasp* paid for and employed by the government.

And if I were not forced to pay taxes, I could pay for roads, education, and fire protection on the market for a cheaper and higher quality service.