Does Bill Clinton think people are THAT stupid?

[Fasglas]

Believe it or not, I actually listened to BC's "speech" at the DNC .

I know he's a smart guy, but even he can't believe the outright lies he put forward.

BTW: I wonder if BC was required to bow when the MESSIAH "magically" appeared to remind one and all, it's ALL about him.

[VITE1]

Yes, He does. The 2008 elections prove it.

[Joecooool]

Originally Posted by Fasglas

Believe it or not, I actually listened to BC's "speech" at the DNC .

I know he's a smart guy, but even he can't believe the outright lies he put forward.

BTW: I wonder if BC was required to bow when the MESSIAH "magically" appeared to remind one and all, it's ALL about him.

The fact checkers had very little to disagree with him on.

[Fasglas]

Originally Posted by TxAg

Source?

Here let me give you one:
Bill Clinton's DNC speech: Fact check finds former president's claims of compromise a stretch - NY Daily News

[Craig]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

The fact checkers had very little to disagree with him on.

I'm guessing because he didn't really say anything.

[Sea Six]

Toughest job ever: fact-checking Bill Clinton « Hot Air


Warning: this one's so long, your computer might run out of 1's and 0's trying to download all of Billy Boy's lies.

Doesn't really matter, though... Joecooool won't read a single byte.

[Blue 92]

Does Bill Clinton think people are THAT stupid?

Of course he does, he's a politician.

And we constantly verify our collective stupidity by voting the same azzhats back into office over and over again.

[Joecooool]

As I said, the fact checkers had very little to disagree with him on.

[VITE1]

Originally Posted by TxAg

Source?

Here let me give you one:
Bill Clinton's DNC speech: Fact check finds former president's claims of compromise a stretch - NY Daily News

Originally Posted by TxAg

How about another source?
Fact-Checking Bill Clinton

Originally Posted by Sea Six

Toughest job ever: fact-checking Bill Clinton « Hot Air


Warning: this one's so long, your computer might run out of 1's and 0's trying to download all of Billy Boy's lies.

Doesn't really matter, though... Joecooool won't read a single byte.

Originally Posted by Joecooool

As I said, the fact checkers had very little to disagree with him on.

Facts don't matter when you want to beleive.

And you ridicule People who believe in God.

[Joecooool]

Originally Posted by VITE1

Facts don't matter when you want to beleive.

And you ridicule People who believe in God.

As I said, the fact checkers had very little to disagree with him on.

[VITE1]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

As I said, the fact checkers had very little to disagree with him on.

They only disagreed with the major statement's he made. He LIED yet again.

[Loco Vette]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

The fact checkers had very little to disagree with him on.

Originally Posted by Joecooool

As I said, the fact checkers had very little to disagree with him on.

Originally Posted by Joecooool

As I said, the fact checkers had very little to disagree with him on.

Despite it being a fundamental tactic of the Democrats, repetition of a lie does not make it the truth.

[Joecooool]

Originally Posted by VITE1

They only disagreed with the major statement's he made. He LIED yet again.

None of the fact checkers said he "lied" about anything. In a speach approaching an hour fact checkers take issues with two or three statements.

So again, the fact checkers had very little to disagree with him on.

[vetteman9368]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

None of the fact checkers said he "lied" about anything. In a speach approaching an hour fact checkers take issues with two or three statements.

So again, the fact checkers had very little to disagree with him on.

Phil, please change your password and stop letting Debbie Blabbermouth Shultz post in your name.

[VITE1]

Fact-Checking Bill Clinton

by Dana Loesch

Bill Clinton was off his game tonight in one of the longest nomination speeches in the history of humankind.
The former president began his DNC speech mocking the the very idea of self empowerment and individual success. After seeming to imply that he could work better with compromise than the man he was nominating, he launched into his trademark rhetoric:

In Tampa, we heard a lot of talk about how the President and the Democrats don't believe in free enterprise and individual initiative, how we want everyone to be dependent on the government, how bad we are for the economy.

[...]
We Democrats think the country works better with a strong middle class, real opportunities for poor people to work their way into it and a relentless focus on the future, with business and government working together to promote growth and broadly shared prosperity. We think "we're all in this together" is a better philosophy than "you're on your own."
Unfortunately for Clinton, the facts work against him. Under Barack Obama, more people than ever before have been reduced to government dependency. Offering meager entitlements in exchange for a chunk of self sovereignty is not only bad for the economy, it's antithetical to the spirit with which America was founded.

Clinton tried to claim credit on behalf of the Democrats concerning jobs and touted his own record -- that wasn't possible without a Republican controlled-congress which passed welfare reform and balanced the budget in spite of him, not because of him.

Clinton attacked the tea party:

Unfortunately, the faction that now dominates the Republican Party doesn't see it that way. They think government is the enemy, and compromise is weakness.
I don't get it: either the tea party is dead or it's all-powerful and controls the GOP. If the Republican party is dominated by the tea party, why is their presidential candidate a moderate?

Clinton remarked that Obama has done wonders for our economy:

I like the argument for President Obama's re-election a lot better. He inherited a deeply damaged economy, put a floor under the crash, began the long hard road to recovery, and laid the foundation for a modern, more well-balanced economy that will produce millions of good new jobs, vibrant new businesses, and lots of new wealth for the innovators. Are we where we want to be? No. Is the President satisfied? No. Are we better off than we were when he took office, with an economy in free fall, losing 750,000 jobs a month. The answer is YES.
Let's see:

- a $16 trillion-dollar debt
- 740k women driven from the workforce
- more Americans than ever on government assistance
- shrinking workforce
- devaluing the dollar
We're better off? Really?

Clinton tried to shift the blame to Bush. Again, the facts do not support Clinton's assertions:
In the wake of a recession that began roughly seven weeks after President Bush took office, America experienced six years of uninterrupted economic growth and a record 52 straight months of job creation that produced more than 8 million new jobs. During the Bush presidency, the unemployment rate averaged 5.3 percent. We saw labor-productivity gains that averaged 2.5 percent annually — a rate that exceeds the averages of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. Real after-tax income per capita increased by more than 11 percent. And from 2000 to 2007, real GDP grew by more than 17 percent, a gain of nearly $2.1 trillion.

As for Obama’s claim that Bush “turned a budget surplus into a deficit”: by January 2001, when Bush was inaugurated, the budget surpluses were already evaporating as the economy was skidding toward recession (it officially began in March 2001). Combined with the devastating economic effects of 9/11, when we lost around 1 million jobs over 90 days, the surplus went into deficit.

Rather than whine incessantly about the situation, President Bush proposed policies that triggered the kind of sustained growth that saw the deficit fall to 1 percent of GDP ($162 billion) by 2007. Indeed, before the financial crisis of 2008 – which I’ll return to in a moment — Bush’s budget deficits were 0.6 percentage points below the historical average. (My former White House colleague Keith Hennessey eviscerates Obama’s assertion that we faced a “decade of spiraling deficits” here).

Now let’s consider Mr. Obama’s record: an unemployment rate of 9.5 percent, with 131,000 jobs lost in July, during our so-called Recovery Summer (Vice President Biden promised us up to 500,000 new jobs a month back in April). The overall unemployment rate, incorporating people who want jobs but did not look during July, is now 16.5 percent.
Clinton claimed Obama saved the auto industry, another lie:

The auto industry restructuring worked. It saved more than a million jobs, not just at GM, Chrysler and their dealerships, but in auto parts manufacturing all over the country
Except a number of Chrysler plants are now in Mexico and over 61% of Chrysler is owned by an Italian company. The auto bailout is widely considered a failure.

GM is once again flirting with bankruptcy despite massive government purchases propping up its sales figures. GM stock is rock-bottom. Losses continue to be revised in the wrong direction. According to the Detroit News, “the Treasury Department says in a new report the government expects to lose more than $25 billion on the $85 billion auto bailout. That’s 15 percent higher than its previous forecast.”
He also lied about domestic energy:

President Obama's "all of the above" energy plan is helping too – the boom in oil and gas production combined with greater energy efficiency has driven oil imports to a near 20 year low and natural gas production to an all time high. Renewable energy production has also doubled.
The fact? Oil production increased ONLY on private and state-owned land. Federally-controlled land? Stagnant. That oil imports are low is due to these private and state-run producers, in spite of Obama, not because of him, a refrain you will hear repeated with regard to Democrat policies.

Democrats talk of alternative energy but are content to ship those jobs overseas, along with our stimulus money. Instead of enslaving us to Persian Gulf oil, they'll enslave us to China's rare earth metals.

On Obamacare, Clinton claimed:

More than 3 million young people between 19 and 25 are insured for the first time because their parents can now carry them on family policies. Millions of seniors are receiving preventive care including breast cancer screenings and tests for heart problems.
In his closing remarks, Clinton threw out a few new phrases which have become hallmarks of modern progressive, socialist-Democrats [my emphasis]:

If you want a country of shared opportunities and shared responsibilities – a "we're all in it together" society, you should vote for Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

And lets not forget about this.

Who repealed the Glass-Steagall Act? - YouTube

[Joecooool]

Originally Posted by VITE1

Fact-Checking Bill Clinton


And lets not forget about this.

Who repealed the Glass-Steagall Act? - YouTube

Brebart isn't a "fact checker", its a partisian hack site. None of what you posted would be considered facts, so much as conservative opinion.

Show some main stream media stories that points out where he - to use your term - "lied".

[VITE1]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

Brebart isn't a "fact checker", its a partisian hack site. None of what you posted would be considered facts, so much as conservative opinion.

Show some main stream media stories that points out where he - to use your term - "lied".

- a $16 trillion-dollar debt
- 740k women driven from the workforce
- more Americans than ever on government assistance
- shrinking workforce
- devaluing the dollar

Got it.
We are not 16 Trillion in Debt.
More Americans are not on government assistance.
More people have not opted out of the workforce. Yep Pure Bullshit
And the USD is doing fine. I can tell that in all my trips overseas. the USD is doing great.

I understand none of them are true in the alternate universe you want us to be in. In this universe they are facts.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...8d13_blog.html

Fact checking Bill Clinton’s speech and other Democrats at the convention in Charlotte
Posted by Glenn Kessler at 06:02 AM ET, 09/06/2012 TheWashingtonPost
Text Size Print E-mail Reprints Share: More > Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Reddit StumbleUpon Digg Delicious top: -5px;">Google +1

(LARRY DOWNING/REUTERS)
“We are not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact checkers.”

— Former president Bill Clinton, quoting Romney campaign pollster Neil Newhouse

Whew. In a previous life, The Fact Checker covered the Clinton White House and always marveled at Bill Clinton’s speechifying, his apparent command of policy and his sometimes slippery use of the facts. We are going to offer an initial take on some of his claims — and those of other Democrats — and then may come back to others in the coming days. Everyone needs to get some sleep.


“He [Obama] has offered a reasonable plan of $4 trillion in debt reduction over a decade. For every $2.5 trillion in spending cuts, he raises a dollar in new revenues, 2.5 to 1. And he has tight controls on future spending. That’s the kind of balanced approach proposed by the Simpson-Bowles commission, a bipartisan commission. … It passes the arithmetic test.”
— Former president Bill Clinton

“President Obama’s plan uses the bipartisan commission’s balanced approach. It reduces the deficit by more than $4 trillion.”
— Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.)

The repeated claim that Obama’s budget reduces the deficit by $4 trillion is simply not accurate.

By the administration’s math, you have nearly $3.8 trillion in spending cuts, compared to $1.5 trillion in tax increases (letting the Bush tax cuts expire for high-income Americans). Presto, $1 of tax increases for every $2.50 of spending cuts.

But virtually no serious budget analyst agreed with this accounting. The $4 trillion figure, for instance, includes counting some $1 trillion in cuts reached a year ago in budget negotiations with Congress. So no matter who is the president, the savings are already in the bank.

Moreover, the administration is also counting $848 billion in phantom savings from winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, even though the administration had long made clear those wars would end.

In other words, by projecting war spending far in the future, the administration is able to claim credit for saving money it never intended to spend. (Imagine taking credit for saving money on buying a new car every year, even though you intended to keep your car for 10 years.)

Rather than good arithmetic, independent budget analysts called the maneuver “a major budget gimmick.”

The administration also counts $800 billion in savings in debt payments (from lower deficits) as a “spending cut,” which is a dubious claim. We didn’t realize that debt payments were now considered a government program.

There are a number of other games being played, so fake money is being used to pay for real spending projects. In effect, most of Obama’s claimed deficit reduction comes from his proposed tax increases.

Meanwhile, both Clinton and Van Hollen claim Obama’s budget has the “balanced approach” of the Simpson-Bowles deficit commission proposal. But the Simpson-Bowles plan is actually quite different, calling for tough spending cuts and substantial tax reforms — not the faux proposals contained in the president’s budget.


Watch the speech with an interactive transcript, analysis, reactions and Tweets.


“We could have done better, but last year the Republicans blocked the president’s job plan, costing the economy more than a million new jobs. So here’s another job score. President Obama: plus 4.5 million. Congressional Republicans: zero.”
— Clinton

Obama’s jobs plan was more of a rhetorical device, aimed at Republicans, rather than a real plan. He even used the same $1 trillion in previously-agreed savings with Republicans, mentioned above, that was supposed to be in his budget in order to pay for this plan. The jobs plan also would be paid for with the imaginary money from winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. (The administration argued that the budget had never passed, so the money could be used again.)

Get the picture? Clinton praises Obama both for his sound budget math and for his jobs plan, even though the money to fund the budget and the jobs plan is used twice. That certainly doesn't pass the Arkansas 2+2=4 test.

We have noted the problems with Obama’s claim that 4.5 million private sector jobs have been created. (It is a cherry-picked figure.) As for whether 1 million jobs would be created through Obama’s jobs plan, that is merely a fuzzy and optimistic projection. Bloomberg News surveyed 34 economists and found that the median estimate was that the plan would add or keep 275,000 workers on payrolls.


“During this period, more than 500,000 manufacturing jobs have been created under President Obama. That’s the first time manufacturing jobs have increased since the 1990s.”
— Clinton

Clinton is referring to the period since February 2010, the administration’s preferred date for counting employment figures. If you count from the beginning of Obama’s term, Bureau of Labor Statistics data show that manufacturing jobs have declined by more than 500,000. Manufacturing jobs have been on a long steep decline since the middle of Clinton’s term, with some 2 million jobs lost during the recession that started at the end of George W. Bush’s term.


“More than 3 million young people between 19 and 25 are insured for the first time because their parents’ policies can cover them.”
— Clinton

Interestingly, Clinton frames this more accurately than President Obama. The Department of Health and Human Services in June reported that more than 3 million young adults would not have health insurance without the health-care law.

Obama prefers to cite a private survey, published by the Commonwealth Fund, that showed that 6.6 million young adults “stayed on or joined their parents’ health plans” in 2011. Not all of those people were uninsured; some simply joined their parents’ plans for other reasons.


“For the last two years, after going up at three times the rate of inflation for a decade, for the last two years, health care costs have been under 4 percent in both years for the first time in 50 years.”
— Clinton

Clinton tried to attribute this decline in health costs to the health-care law, but much of it has not yet been implemented. Most economists say the slowdown is more likely because of the lousy economy.

“It’s tempting to think that provider initiatives are truly denting costs, but it’s hard for changes in provider behavior to influence costs before they occur,” said a recent article in Modern Healthcare magazine. “Instead, the drop in healthcare cost growth is primarily attributable to the Great Recession’s impact on employment, private health insurance, government revenues and budgets.”

Indeed, government actuaries in June published an article in Health Affairs predicting health-care costs would begin to spike as the health-care law was implemented. “For 2011 through 2021, national health spending is projected to grow at an average rate of 5.7 percent annually, which would be 0.9 percentage point faster than the expected annual increase in the gross domestic product during this period,” the article said.


“Soon the insurance companies — not the government, the insurance companies — will have millions of new customers, many of them middle-class people with preexisting conditions who never could get insurance before.”
— Clinton
Actually, the original Congressional Budget Office estimate is that 16 million people would end up in private coverage and 16 million would end up on Medicaid. But the Medicaid number may shrink as a result of the Supreme Court ruling allowing states to opt out of the expansion of the program.


“The administration agreed to give [welfare] waivers to those governors and others only if they had a credible plan to increase employment by 20 percent, and they could keep the waivers only if they did increase employment.”
— Clinton

We have written previously how the Romney campaign is exaggerating the immediate effect of the change in welfare rules, while at the same time it appears clear the Obama administration issued this notice without much consultation with Republicans in Congress. Something fishy may be going on.

The subject is worthy of a longer fact check in the future, but it is worth noting that prominent critics of the shift have raised interesting questions about this supposed 20-percent requirement. Clinton used this figure as a defense of the administration’s move, but there may be less to this than meets the eye.

[RedLS1GTO]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

Brebart isn't a "fact checker", its a partisian hack site. None of what you posted would be considered facts, so much as conservative opinion.

Given the sources that you use for your "facts" this is just plain funny.

[Millenium Vette]

Originally Posted by Loco Vette

Despite it being a fundamental tactic of the Democrats, repetition of a lie does not make it the truth.

But often times it still gets the job done.

[mrvette]

Originally Posted by Millenium Vette

But often times it still gets the job done.

UNFartunately.......