Radlibs are Liars. Clinton has NO economic policy. He hasn't needed one. Here's why.

[Thomas Odell]

Here's is another wake-up call for Usenet's lunatic leftists. Read and
weep.

Anyone who is sane knows that Ronald Reagan was the finest U.S.
president of the 20th century. AND Everyone knows that Bill Clinton is
a small-time loser bound to go down in the history books as a totally
inconsequential figure. There are no questions about either of these
facts. Somethings in life are just obvious.

But radical liberals (radlibs) aren't interested in facts and the
obvious. Radlibs are only interested in lies.

Radlibs flee from facts because facts unmask them as the ideologically
bankrupt bunch that they so clearly are. Radlibs are merely liars. The
whole rotten bunch. We know this. Some may have cause to reflect back
upon the blunt reference of the use of the word "liar." It is the
correct word. It is not inappropriate. Indeed radlibs certainly should
not take offense at the word. They should EMBRACE it. Calling a radlib
a liar is not an insult. How do you insult a pig by calling it a pig?
Radlibs are not bound by a common morality. They say that any crime,
including lying, is ok if it advances the cause of their socialism.

Radlibs spew their bitter vile about Reagan. They tell us that Clinton
has done a better job. They are lying. Radlibs always lie. It is just
their nature. Bill Clinton has been an absolute failure as a
president. He has had NO economic policy. He hasn't needed one. The
U.S. economy continues to expand based on the policies of President
Reagan. Clinton has merely watched from the sidelines and reaped the
benefits of the policies of the Reagan Revolution. To claim anything
else is but a lie. And the truth of it just kills the radlibs.

> How Reagan Reelected Clinton
>
> By Dinesh D'Souza
>
> BILL CLINTON'S PRESIDENCY has
> witnessed an uninterrupted series of scandals:
> Whitewater, Travelgate, Paula Jones, the renting
> out of the Lincoln bedroom—why go on?
> Surveys show that many Americans regard
> Clinton with suspicion.
>
> Yet, like a well-greased wrestler slithering out of a
> full nelson, Bill Clinton has won a national
> approval rating of 60%. The political pundits
> attribute this to the exceptional political skills that
> Clinton supposedly has. There is a better
> explanation: Ronald Reagan. Writer William
> Kristol has spoken of "Ronald Reagan's fourth
> term." It's an apt description.
>
> Clinton's approval ratings indicate that those
> polled are economically content; they do not
> indicate that Clinton is loved or admired. A strong
> stock market, low unemployment and flat inflation
> have made the American people satisfied with a
> President they do not regard highly.
>
> Actually, Bill Clinton is reaping a harvest that
> Ronald Reagan sowed. Reagan's economic
> policies and his victory in the Cold War laid the
> solid, if painfully built, foundation for a boom that
> picked up in the 1980s, was interrupted by the
> mild Bush recession of 1990-91 and got rolling
> around the time Clinton took office.
>
> Except for an ill-advised tax increase early in his
> first term, and a blundering attempt to introduce
> socialized medicine to the U.S., Clinton has had
> no economic policy. He hasn't needed one.
>
> Ronald Reagan came to
> Washington with the most
> ambitious program since the New
> Deal, and a serene confidence
> that its adoption would turn the
> country around.

[James R. Olson, jr.]

KotM Thomas Odell <od...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

<foamclip compression engaged>

->> How Reagan Reelected Clinton
->>
->> By Dinesh D'Souza
->>
->> BILL CLINTON'S PRESIDENCY has
->> witnessed an uninterrupted series of scandals:
->> Whitewater, Travelgate, Paula Jones, the renting
->> out of the Lincoln bedroom—why go on?

Umm, because you ran out of things to list? Could that be it?

->> Surveys show that many Americans regard
->> Clinton with suspicion.

Oh, like that one we took in November?

->> Yet, like a well-greased wrestler slithering out of a
->> full nelson, Bill Clinton has won a national
->> approval rating of 60%. The political pundits
->> attribute this to the exceptional political skills that
->> Clinton supposedly has. There is a better
->> explanation: Ronald Reagan. Writer William
->> Kristol has spoken of "Ronald Reagan's fourth
->> term." It's an apt description.

I can think of one big difference between Reagan and Clinton. It's
called a deficit, and if it weren't for the Reagan legacy, we'd be
running a surplus right now.

->> Clinton's approval ratings indicate that those
->> polled are economically content; they do not
->> indicate that Clinton is loved or admired. A strong
->> stock market, low unemployment and flat inflation
->> have made the American people satisfied with a
->> President they do not regard highly.
->>
->> Actually, Bill Clinton is reaping a harvest that
->> Ronald Reagan sowed. Reagan's economic
->> policies and his victory in the Cold War laid the
->> solid, if painfully built, foundation for a boom that
->> picked up in the 1980s, was interrupted by the
->> mild Bush recession of 1990-91 and got rolling
->> around the time Clinton took office.

<snicker> On the other hand, most of us would say that the Bush
recession was Reagan's chickens coming home to roost, and that
Clinton's probusiness economic policies have revitalized the economy,
although at a cost to the lower segments that is slowly becoming more
obvious as time goes on.

->> Except for an ill-advised tax increase early in his
->> first term, and a blundering attempt to introduce
->> socialized medicine to the U.S., Clinton has had
->> no economic policy. He hasn't needed one.

Bets: This will be the Republican's Big Lie du jour. It's absurd to
claim that a president has no economic policy, since even NOT having a
policy is de facto a policy. And there's no way that the economy
could run on autopilot for six years.

But mark my word, you'll see editorials claiming that Clinton has no
economic policy for the next two months from all the usual suspects.
Will, Krauthammer, Sowell, and possibly even Samuelson. I'm sure the
American Expectorator has already chimed in, they seem to be the
bellwether of the pack.

->> Ronald Reagan came to
->> Washington with the most
->> ambitious program since the New
->> Deal, and a serene confidence
->> that its adoption would turn the
->> country around.

And it certainly worked, He turned the country from the leader of the
First World into the richest Third World nation around. He took an
essentially solvent nation and made it the world's largest debtor, and
poured all its riches into the pockets of the wealthy of the world in
a process that continues to this day.