• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Bill Clinton: Romney had a "sterling" business career [W:29]

re: Bill Clinton: Romney had a "sterling" business career [W:29]

Fletch said:
Its not a conspiracy. And disemboweling the main focus of the Obama argument against Romney is not a "tiny difference on campaign policy." Ask yourself this question: does Hillary have a better chance of becoming president if Obama wins or loses?
Click to expand...

Depends. If the economy continues to get better, I think she has a better chance with Obama winning. If it gets worse then I think she's better with Romney winning.

I think the economy is to a point right now where after Europe settles down, it's going to continue it's trajectory in the right direction as long as who ever is in office doesn't **** it up. Given that, I think she'd be better off with Obama winning. Then she can tout 8 years of experience as secretary of state on top of all of her previous experience.

I also don't think that that argument is Obama's main focus campaign wise. Maybe I just haven't been paying enough attention. I agree with Bill Clinton, but I'm still planning on voting Obama. There's a few people who might hate the idea of what Bain does, ut in reality they do alot of good through there actions. If you have to fire some people or reduce benefits so that the company doesn't go under, that's just what you have to do. If it were my business I'd prefer to use those things as a last resort kind of think, but sometimes it just needs to be done.
 
re: Bill Clinton: Romney had a "sterling" business career [W:29]

Obama and the Dems are desperate; they can’t run on their record so they need a boogey man. First it was the war on women, then attacks on Baine, both have fallen apart. As we speak they are brainstorming a new boogey man but in the meantime will stick with the old standby, reps want to starve kids and old people , hate minorities and are anti-immigration.
 
re: Bill Clinton: Romney had a "sterling" business career [W:29]

AdamT said:
I think Clinton is right. Romney was obviously good at private equity and there's nothing wrong with private equity. But the point is that being good at private equity does not translate to being good at public office. That is what Romney is trying to hang his hat on and it's perfectly legitimate to knock that hat off.
Click to expand...

~~Those were the days, my Friend, thought that they would never end~~ but then democrats went back to the same failed policies of the past

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

My bet is Mass would love to see these kind of numbers again
 
re: Bill Clinton: Romney had a "sterling" business career [W:29]

Moderator's Warning:
Another thread with the usual suspects lobbing personal attacks. Enough. Stick to the topic, stop the baiting, flaming, trolling and personal attacks or else.
 
re: Bill Clinton: Romney had a "sterling" business career [W:29]

I have to wonder if Clinton isn't doing this to harm Obama. Does President Clinton think he can get his wife elected if he gets Obama voted out?
 
Watching all these Conservatives line up to suck off Romney the former Liberal is too much fun.
 
Hatuey said:
Watching all these Conservatives line up to suck off Romney the former Liberal is too much fun.
Click to expand...

So then, if Romney is a liberal, you are a liberal, why wouldn't you vote for Romney?
 
Conservative said:
So then, if Romney is a liberal, you are a liberal, why wouldn't you vote for Romney?
Click to expand...

Obama is my brand of liberal. Not completely to the left, willing to fall back on some of the more radical beliefs and most importantly: he´s not an etchasketch that changes his stances depending on the time of day and who he has in front of him.
 
Hatuey said:
Obama is my brand of liberal. Not completely to the left, willing to fall back on some of the more radical beliefs and most importantly: he´s not an etchasketch that changes his stances depending on the time of day and who he has in front of him.
Click to expand...

Your brand of liberal? Hmmm, 5.2 trillion added to the debt, 23 million unemployed/under employed, less than 2% GDP growth, and an increase in govt. employees as well as a bigger nanny state? I see, yes , Obama would be your choice.

Obama's next term?

http://www.aclu.org/pizza/images/screen.swf
 
roughdraft274 said:
Probably not very much at all. For the most part, liberals understand that everyone actually has their own set of opinions and beliefs and that they don't have to agree on every detail.
Click to expand...

Yeah, like "we support war when President Obama does it but not when President Bush does it". Every liberal doesn't agree on that do they
 
Hatuey said:
Obama is my brand of liberal. Not completely to the left, willing to fall back on some of the more radical beliefs and most importantly: he´s not an etchasketch that changes his stances depending on the time of day and who he has in front of him.
Click to expand...

I've seen you post on here a lot and I know you are a pretty sarcastic guy so I'll ask this question. Was this post sarcastic? I hope so.
 
MarineTpartier said:
I've seen you post on here a lot and I know you are a pretty sarcastic guy so I'll ask this question. Was this post sarcastic? I hope so.
Click to expand...

Are you saying Romney doesnt change his stance depending on the time of day?
 
Hatuey said:
Are you saying Romney doesnt change his stance depending on the time of day?
Click to expand...

Romney seems to change his stance when the events dictate that change and at least does what he says he is going to do unlike Obama who says one thing and does another.
 
Conservative said:
Romney seems to change his stance when the events dictate that change and at least does what he says he is going to do unlike Obama who says one thing and does another.
Click to expand...

lol... Oh I get it, they´re different, only they´re the same. Are you now a Liberal? :)
 
TurtleDude said:
being good at something is a better sign Romney will be good at being a president than the clown who really had no real accomplishments once he left school
Click to expand...

Obama was also good at what he did, or he wouldn't be where he is. To this point, he's certainly better at politics than Romney.
 
Conservative said:
Romney seems to change his stance when the events dictate that change and at least does what he says he is going to do unlike Obama who says one thing and does another.
Click to expand...

True. Unfortunately the events that dictate Romney's changing stance are literally events -- like campaign events and the lean of the audience he's addressing on a given day.
 
Hatuey said:
Watching all these Conservatives line up to suck off Romney the former Liberal is too much fun.
Click to expand...

Most of us would be supporting a dead hamster if it was the nominee against Obama since Obama sucks so bad
 
AdamT said:
Obama was also good at what he did, or he wouldn't be where he is. To this point, he's certainly better at politics than Romney.
Click to expand...

Yes, community organizing... :roll:

Obama won because he was the "feel good" candidate. I hoped he wouldn't make matters worse, but alas he has done just that. Economics are something that he does not understand. Job growth is something he does not understand. If being good at nothing relevant is great, it's time for someone else.
 
1. Abraham Lincoln
2. Franklin Roosevelt
3. George Washington
4. Thomas Jefferson
5. Theodre Roosevelt

43. Warren Harding

The 5 presidents ranked as the best in American history were not elected into office based on their "business" experience. Conversely, Warren Harding had a successful career as an "influential self-made newspaper publisher" prior to becoming president.

Although several presidents were farmers/planters, only Harding, GHW Bush and GW Bush were what might be considered major businessmen (Truman was a haberdasher).

Whether Romney's career was "sterling" or otherwise misses the point - based on past history, America's best presidents had little or no business experience!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States
 
Last edited:
Clinton: I'm endorsing Obama, not Romney


The nation's 42nd president expressed frustration with the coverage of his comments.

"Because I didn't attack (Romney) personally, and bash him, I wake up to read all these stories taking it out of context as if I had virtually endorsed him," Clinton said. "Which means the Tea Party has already won their first great victory: 'We are supposed to hate each to disagree.' That is wrong."

It should be noted: Clinton predicted Obama would beat Romney by "5 or 6 points" in November.​
 
jgarden47 said:
1. Abraham Lincoln
2. Franklin Roosevelt
3. George Washington
4. Thomas Jefferson
5. Theodre Roosevelt

43. Warren Harding

The 5 presidents ranked as the best in American history were not elected into office based on their "business" experience. Conversely, Warren Harding had a successful career as an "influential self-made newspaper publisher" prior to becoming president.

Although several presidents were farmers/planters, only Harding, GHW Bush and GW Bush were what might be considered major businessmen (Truman was a haberdasher).

Whether Romney's career was "sterling" or otherwise misses the point - based on past history, America's best presidents had little or no business experience!

Historical rankings of Presidents of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Let's help you out here with what is truly a terrible analogy that you have cooked up. Harding is ranked terribly because of the scandals of his administration. Which gave him bad Press, but had little if anything to do with the actual results of his Administration. From a business standpoint, that being the economy and finances of the country, he was one of our most successful Presidents, and he didn't even get a full term, due to his sudden death. From Wiki (as you cited them)

......... Domestically, Harding signed the first child welfare program in the United States and dealt with striking workers in the mining and railroad industries. Also, the Veterans Bureau was cleaned up by Harding in March, 1923.[6] The nation's unemployment rate dropped by half during Harding's administration.[7] In August 1923, President Harding suddenly collapsed and died during a stop in California on a return trip from Alaska.[8] He was succeeded by Vice President Calvin Coolidge.

Historians have traditionally been resistant to giving Harding good presidential reviews due to the multiple federal department scandals during his administration; as a result Harding has received low rankings as President.[9] His reputation, however, has increased among some historians for his conservative financial policies, fiscal responsibility, and his endorsement of African American civil rights.[10] Harding's creation of the Budget Bureau was a major economic accomplishment that reformed and streamlined wasteful federal spending.[10]
Click to expand...

and some more:

.... On March 4, President Harding assumed office while the nation was in the midst of a postwar economic decline, known as the Depression of 1920–21. By summer of his first year in office, an economic recovery began.

President Harding convened the Conference of Unemployment in 1921, headed by Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover, that proactively advocated stimulating the economy with local public work projects and encouraged businesses to apply shared work programs.[120]

Harding's Treasury Secretary, Andrew Mellon, ordered a study that claimed to demonstrate that as income tax rates were increased, money was driven underground or abroad. Mellon concluded that lower rates would increase tax revenues. Based on this advice, Harding cut taxes, starting in 1922. The top marginal rate was reduced annually in four stages from 73% in 1921 to 25% in 1925. Taxes were cut for lower incomes starting in 1923.[121]

Revenues to the treasury increased substantially. Unemployment also continued to fall. Libertarian historian Thomas Woods contends that the tax cuts ended the Depression of 1920–1921 — even though economic growth had begun before the cuts—and were responsible for creating a decade-long expansion.[117] Historians Schweikart and Allen attribute these changes to the tax cuts.[122] Schweikart and Allen also argue that Harding's tax and economic policies in part "... produced the most vibrant eight year burst of manufacturing and innovation in the nation's history."[123] The combined declines in unemployment and inflation (later known as the Misery Index) were among the sharpest in U.S. history. Wages, profits, and productivity all made substantial gains during the 1920s.

Daniel Kuehn attributes the improvement to the earlier monetary policy of the Federal Reserve, and notes that the changes in marginal tax rates were accompanied by an expansion in the tax base that could account for the increase in revenue.[124] However:

Robert Gordon, a Keynesian, admits, "government policy to moderate the depression and speed recovery was minimal. The Federal Reserve authorities were largely passive. ... Despite the absence of a stimulative government policy, however, recovery was not long delayed." Kenneth Weiher, an economic historian, notes, "despite the severity of the contraction, the Fed did not move to use its powers to turn the money supply around and fight the contraction." He then briskly concedes that "the economy rebounded quickly from the 1920–1921 depression and entered a period of quite vigorous growth.

read more: Warren G. Harding - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Franklin Roosevelt, on the other hand, might be popular, but he was a terrible steward of the economy. Jefferson sucked too, btw. Point being, Romney's business background, by all indications, including Harding, should serve the country well should he be elected President.
 
Last edited:
Hugh_Akston said:
Yes, community organizing... :roll:

Obama won because he was the "feel good" candidate. I hoped he wouldn't make matters worse, but alas he has done just that. Economics are something that he does not understand. Job growth is something he does not understand. If being good at nothing relevant is great, it's time for someone else.
Click to expand...
That's quite the claim. Disagreeing with his policies is one thing, but claiming he knows nothing about economics would be quite the stretch.
 
Last edited:
Eighty Deuce said:
Let's help you out here with what is truly a terrible analogy that you have cooked up. Harding is ranked terribly because of the scandals of his administration. Which gave him bad Press, but had little if anything to do with the actual results of his Administration. From a business standpoint, that being the economy and finances of the country, he was one of our most successful Presidents, and he didn't even get a full term, due to his sudden death. From Wiki (as you cited them)

and some more:

Franklin Roosevelt, on the other hand, might be popular, but he was a terrible steward of the economy. Jefferson sucked too, btw. Point being, Romney's business background, by all indications, including Harding, should serve the country well should he be elected President.
Click to expand...
With all due respect, the rankings were based on 17 surveys conducted between 1947 and 2011. None of the respondents over that 64 year priod appear to have shared "Eighty Deuce's" assessment of the Harding and Roosevelt presidencies.

President Obama inherited a national and world economy in turmoil but, like Harding, circumstances that may have been largely beyond his control didn't buy him any sympathy from his critics.
 
Last edited:
jgarden47 said:
With all due respect, the rankings were based on 17 surveys conducted between 1947 and 2011. None of the respondents appeared to have share "Eighty Deuce's" assessment of the Harding and Roosevelt presidencies.

President Obama inherited a national and world economy in turmoil but, like Harding, circumstances that may have been largely beyond his control didn't buy him any sympathy from his critics.
Click to expand...

Show us that Harding was a poor steward of the economy ? Show us how the experience with Harding and his business background would bode poorly for Romney.

It was your comparison. Your intent that the ranking somehow mattered. How so ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom