State Run Media Piers Morgan Accuses Hillary Clinton’s Critics Of Being “Misogynists”… Rave and share a "shut the F#ck up Piers"

I haven't seen Fox News in years, although I wouldn't mind if I could.
I do, however, have Google. Let's see what that comic book Google comes up with. Keep in mind that Google is an unbiased, non-political search engine and what they come up with is what's out there. You pick the result you like best, although they have many many pages on each topic and that should give you a flavor of what they are when taken as a whole.

1. stole the SS fund to look good,

http://www.google.com/search?...

2. had two bubbles...dot.com and housing.

http://www.google.com/search?...

3. Started Bush 2 Iraq War (Iraq Liberation Act calling for regime change).

http://www.google.com/search?...

4. Laid the foundation for todays economic malaise.

http://www.google.com/search?...

http://www.google.com/search?...

http://www.google.com/search?...

Democrats took funds when Republicans hated the troops and wouldn't fund them

HOWEVER

The big heist was under Reagan (unfortunately Republicans are forbidden to read the following as it tells the truth on their hero)

What do you do when you want to screw only the working people of your nation with the largest tax increase in history and hand those trillions of dollars to your wealthy campaign contributors, yet not have anybody realize you've done it? If you're Ronald Reagan, you call in Alan Greenspan.
Through the "golden years of the American middle class" - the 1940s through 1982 - the top income tax rate for the hyper-rich had been between 90 and 70 percent. Ronald Reagan wanted to cut that rate dramatically, to help out his political patrons. He did this with a massive tax cut in the summer of 1981.
The only problem was that when Reagan took his meat axe to our tax code, he produced mind-boggling budget deficits. Voodoo economics didn't work out as planned, and even after borrowing so much money that this year we'll pay over $100 billion just in interest on the money Reagan borrowed to make the economy look good in the 1980s, Reagan couldn't come up with the revenues he needed to run the government.
Coincidentally, the actuaries at the Social Security Administration were beginning to get worried about the Baby Boomer generation, who would begin retiring in big numbers in fifty years or so. They were a "rabbit going through the python" bulge that would require a few trillion more dollars than Social Security could easily collect during the same 20 year or so period of their retirement. We needed, the actuaries said, to tax more heavily those very persons who would eventually retire, so instead of using current workers' money to pay for the Boomer's Social Security payments in 2020, the Boomers themselves would have pre-paid for their own retirement.
Reagan got Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Alan Greenspan together to form a commission on Social Security reform, along with a few other politicians and economists, and they recommend a near-doubling of the Social Security tax on the then-working Boomers. That tax created - for the first time in history - a giant savings account that Social Security could use to pay for the Boomers' retirement.
This was a huge change. Prior to this, Social Security had always paid for today's retirees with income from today's workers (it still is today). The Boomers were the first generation that would pay Social Security taxes both to fund current retirees and save up enough money to pay for their own retirement. And, after the Boomers were all retired and the savings account - called the "Social Security Trust Fund" - was all spent, the rabbit would have finished its journey through the python and Social Security could go back to a "pay as you go" taxing system.
Thus, within the period of a few short years, Reagan dramatically dropped the income tax on America's most wealthy by more than half, and roughly doubled the Social Security tax on people earning $30,000 or less. It was, simultaneously, the largest income tax cut in America's history (almost entirely for the very wealthy), and the most massive tax increase in the history of the nation (which entirely hit working-class people).
But Reagan still had a problem. His tax cuts for the wealthy - even when moderated by subsequent tax increases - weren't generating enough money to invest properly in America's infrastructure, schools, police and fire departments, and military. The country was facing bankruptcy.
No problem, suggested Greenspan. Just borrow the Boomer's savings account - the money in the Social Security Trust Fund - and, because you're borrowing "government money" to fund "government expenditures," you don't have to list it as part of the deficit. Much of the deficit will magically seem to disappear, and nobody will know what you did for another 50 years when the Boomers begin to retire 2015.
Reagan jumped at the opportunity. As did George H. W. Bush. As did Bill Clinton (although Al Gore argued strongly that Social Security funds should not be raided, but, instead, put in a "lock box"). And so did George W. Bush.
The result is that all that money - trillions of dollars - that has been taxed out of working Boomers (the ceiling has risen from the tax being on your first $30,000 of income to the first $90,000 today) has been borrowed and spent. What are left behind are a special form of IOUs - an unique form of Treasury debt instruments similar (but not identical) to those the government issues to borrow money from China today to fund George W. Bush's most recent tax cuts for billionaires (George Junior is still also "borrowing" from the Social Security Trust Fund).
Former Bush Junior Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill recounts how Dick Cheney famously said, "Reagan proved deficits don't matter." Cheney was either ignorant or being disingenuous - it would be more accurate to say, "Reagan

Saddam's Iraqi Foes Heartened By Clinton
By Vernon Loeb
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, November 16, 1998; Page A17

President Clinton's first explicit call for a "new government" in Baghdad and his pledge to implement a new plan for arming opponents of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein heartened opposition leaders yesterday. But Clinton's comments appeared to signal more of a heightened political effort to destabilize the Iraqi regime over time than any immediate military strategy for overthrowing it.

Senior administration officials said Clinton's words were intended to signal an "intensification" of support for a broad array of Iraqi opposition groups and in that sense represented a change in policy.

A British diplomat closely monitoring the Iraq crisis called Clinton's expression of support for Iraqi opposition groups in an effort to help create a new regime in Baghdad "one policy change we've seen out of this weekend." The diplomat called the shift "a more forward-leaning American move to go beyond containment."

But Defense Secretary William S. Cohen made it clear that Clinton's vow of support for the Iraqi Liberation Act -- a congressional initiative that makes $97 million in military support available to the Iraqi opposition -- did not mean that such aid would be provided to opposition groups any time soon.

"He was not calling for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein," Cohen told reporters at the White House. "What he was saying is that we are prepared and will work with opposition forces or groups to try to bring about in some future time a more democratic type of regime."

Congressional supporters of the bill, led by Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.), envision U.S. military aid going to train and arm an opposition army that as early as next year would invade Iraq, capture lightly defended areas in the southern and western parts of the country, encourage mass defections from the Iraqi military and ultimately bring down the government.

Lott and other Senate Republicans have made it clear that they favor channeling most or all of the military aid through the Iraqi National Congress (INC), a coalition of opposition groups headed by Ahmed Chalabi. Chalabi, a Shiite Muslim from Baghdad educated at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has been a leading figure in efforts to generate support for a U.S.-backed insurgency to bring down the Iraqi regime.

But administration officials said yesterday that they do not place Chalabi and the INC at the center of their interest in developing opposition groups capable of bringing about a change of government. "We know Chalabi," one National Security Council official said. "We've worked very closely with him [in the past]. But our goal is to work with as broad a spectrum of opposition groups as possible."

The official added that the administration has "no current plans" to begin providing military assistance to opposition groups under the Iraq Liberation Act. "But we don't rule it out at some point in the future," he said

Francis J. Brooke, Chalabi's representative in Washington, said that regardless of the administration's views of Chalabi, Clinton's public expression of support for the Iraq Liberation Act would have a large impact.

Clinton foreshadowed yesterday's comments in a statement he made while signing the legislation on Oct. 31.

On both occasions, Clinton spoke of the Iraq Liberation Act as but one in a series of steps the administration is pursuing to support political opposition to Saddam Hussein's regime over the long term. The other initiatives include Radio Free Iraq broadcasts into the country, a recent $8 million appropriation supporting development of opposition groups, and a political truce brokered in September by Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright between the two largest Kurdish opposition groups in northern Iraq.

"There's been an intensifying relationship with the opposition over the past year, particularly now that we have gained some traction with the Kurds," one senior White House official said.

Clinton's call for a new government in Baghdad yesterday, the official said, represents an explicit change in emphasis that dates back to a speech Albright made in March 1997 about U.S. policy toward Saddam Hussein. The president's words, the official said, "draws on that, but it's now in a more active voice. I would not say there's no change in policy, but we're moving prudently."

Part of what makes Clinton's vow to "implement" the Iraq Liberation Act so ambiguous is the act itself, which authorizes the president to provide $97 million in training, weapons, supplies and other materiel to Iraqi opposition groups -- but does not require him to do so.

Previous administration efforts at mobilizing the Iraqi opposition using covert assistance from the CIA have been dismal failures. With CIA support, Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress, allied with two Kurdish militias, carried out paramilitary operations in northern Iraq. But the administration and the CIA ultimately abandoned Chalabi in favor of a group of ex-Iraqi military officers called the Iraqi National Accord who claimed that they could orchestrate a military coup to topple Saddam Hussein.

The Iraqi National Accord, however, proved to be deeply penetrated by Iraqi intelligence, which foiled its coup strategy in June 1996. Two months later, Saddam Hussein's forces rolled into northern Iraq and devastated opposition camps controlled by the Popular Union of Kurdistan and the Iraqi National Congress.


© Copyright 1998 The Washington Post Company

Back to the top

Paul Ryan: We would have fixed our fiscal mess under Bill Clinton
Posted by Sean Sullivan on January 27, 2013 at 11:54 am
Text Size
Print
Reprints
Share:
More »
The nation’s most pressing fiscal issues would likely have been solved if Bill Clinton were president, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said Sunday in a swipe at President Obama
“Look, if we had [a] Clinton presidency, if we had Erskine Bowles, chief of staff of the White House or president of the United States, I think we would have fixed this fiscal mess by now. That’s not the kind of presidency we’re dealing with right now,” Ryan said on NBC News’s “Meet The Press.”
Ryan also said he feels that Obama hasn’t signaled a desire to compromise. ”All of the statements and all of the comments lead me to believe that he’s thinking more of a political conquest than political compromise,” said Ryan.
The former Republican vice presidential nominee, who was spotted chatting with the former president and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at last week’s inauguration luncheon, said the three were “just kind of chumming it up.”
“We were talking about personal health,” Ryan said. “Both of us lost our dads when we were young and we were just talking. I got concussions when I was young and Hillary was talking about hers.”
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported in October 1998 that Ryan, then making his first run for Congress, called for Clinton’s resignation following the scandal surrounding the president’s relationship with Monica Lewinsky.