FAQFAQ   SearchSearch  MemberlistMemberlistRegisterRegister  ProfileProfile   Log in[ Log in ]  Flint Talk RSSFlint Talk RSS

»Home »Open Chat »Political Talk  »Flint Journal »Political Jokes »The Bob Leonard Show  

Flint Michigan online news magazine. We have lively web forums


FlintTalk.com Forum Index > Political Jokes

Topic: Are you a Hillary fan

  Author    Post Post new topic Reply to topic
twotap
F L I N T O I D

Hillary Fans

A teacher in Elmira, New York asked her 6th grade class how many of them were Hillary fans.
Not really knowing what a Hillary fan is, but wanting to be liked by the teacher, all the kids raised their hands except for Little Johnny.

The teacher asked Little Johnny why he has decided to be different...Again.

Little Johnny says, 'Because I'm not a Hillary fan.'

The teacher says, 'Why aren't you a Hillary fan?'

Johnny says, 'Because I'm a Republican.'

The teacher asks him why he's a Republican.

Little Johnny answered, 'Well, my mom's a Republican and my dad's A Republican, so I'm a Republican'

The teacher asks, 'If your mom was a moron and your dad was an idiot, what would that make you?'

With a big smile, Little Johnny replies,


'That would make me a Hillary fan '
Post Thu Mar 27, 2008 7:55 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail  Reply with quote  
squash
F L I N T O I D

Ha, I've spent many summers in Elmira NY. (My dad's hometown) Still get back there once or twice a year. Elmira itself is not much to speak of, but north of there is the Finger Lakes region. Beautiful country. Great wine. Elmira is also the hometown of Tommy Hilfiger. My uncle claims to have busted him once, but I think he's full of it. The study where Mark Twain wrote many of his books is located on the campus of Elmira College. There is a NASCAR race near there every summer for fans of the left turn circuit, and not far from there is Corning NY where they still make Corningware.

Oh and btw I love the way you crafted Hillary bashing and teacher bashing into the same lame joke.
Post Fri Mar 28, 2008 5:41 am 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
Ryan Eashoo
F L I N T O I D


How could you not love Hillary? Look at what kind of ecconomy the Clintons gave us in teh 90's!!! We need her in the white house to bring back those good ole days!

_________________
Flint Michigan Resident, Tax Payer, Flint Nutt - Local REALTOR - Activist. www.FlintTown.com
Post Fri Mar 28, 2008 12:27 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website  Reply with quote  
Dave Starr
F L I N T O I D

It's easy not to love her. With all the lies over the years, I can't believe a word she says.

_________________
I used to care, but I take a pill for that now.

Pushing buttons sure can be fun.

When a lion wants to go somewhere, he doesn’t worry about how many hyenas are in the way.

Paddle faster, I hear banjos.
Post Fri Mar 28, 2008 1:37 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website  Reply with quote  
twotap
F L I N T O I D


quote:
Oh and btw I love the way you crafted Hillary bashing and teacher bashing into the same lame joke.

Glad you liked it . Could have been worse I suppose the teacher could have asked "How many of you have parents that own GUNS" Shocked

Hey Ryan check out the facts .

Published on Tuesday, January 9, 2001
Distributed by Knight-Ridder/Tribune Media Services
Clinton's Economic Legacy
by Mark Weisbrot

America' 42nd President, William Jefferson Clinton, is likely to be remembered for the longest- running business cycle expansion in American history, which coincided with his two terms.
A fair assessment of his legacy should therefore begin by asking what, if anything, the President had to do with the economic growth of the last nine and a half years. The answer is: well, nothing really .

It is often maintained, by people who have not looked at the economics, that balancing the federal budget and moving it to surplus were responsible for the economic boom that followed.

But there is no foundation for this claim. The underlying theory is that these budget changes lead to lower long-term interest rates, because the government is borrowing less. The lower interest rates then stimulate more investment and therefore growth.

Even if one accepts the theory-- which is quite a stretch-- the facts don't fit the case. This was not an investment-led upswing. And the effects of the post- 1992 budget changes on interest rates are much too small to have had any noticeable positive impact on growth, according to any standard model used by economists.

How then to explain the boom? While any business cycle expansion has multiple causes, two stand out here. The first, and most important, was a change in policy at the Federal Reserve about five and a half years ago. The Fed, which had previously operated under the theory that six percent unemployment was the best that the economy could do without accelerating inflation, abandoned that view. Unemployment was allowed to fall to its current 4 percent, and growth continued beyond the point at which the Fed, in the past, would have pulled the plug.

The second was the stock market bubble: a 14 trillion increase in stock holdings over the last decade caused many upper income households to spend freely. This spending, even if it was based on paper increases in wealth that are now disappearing, provided a considerable stimulus to the economy-- much the same as we would get from a large increase in deficit spending by the federal government.

Mr. Clinton cannot claim credit for the stock market bubble, nor would he necessarily want to. Nor did he have anything to do with the Fed's policy shift, which was probably the most important positive change in economic policy in the last 20 years.

The economic policies for which the President can honestly claim responsibility-- e.g., NAFTA, the creation and expansion of the World Trade Organization-- served primarily to prevent the majority of Americans from sharing in the gains from economic growth. And then there was welfare reform, which threw millions of poor single mothers at the mercy of one of the lowest-wage labor markets in the industrialized world.

In short, Clinton's policies continued the upward redistribution of income and wealth, and punishment for the poor, that were the hallmarks of the Reagan era. It was not until 1999 that the median real wage reached its pre-1990 level, and it remains anchored today at about where it was 27 years ago.

Clinton's foreign economic policy was similar, although more devastating. His administration, together with its allies at the IMF and the World Bank, presided over the destruction of the Russian economy, helped to cause and worsen the Asian economic crisis, and squeezed billions in debt service from the poorest countries in Africa. Not to mention racking up a record, economically unsustainable trade deficit for the United States.

Clinton's legacy is by no means an academic question. If the economy fares badly over the next few years, the Clinton era will look quite good by comparison. The "New Democrat" strategy of abandoning core constituencies-- especially working Americans-- in favor of big business and the rich will be judged an economic and political success.

In reality it was neither: Clinton's fight for NAFTA cost his party the House in 1994, and the New Democrats' long-term strategy to win back the South could hardly have failed more miserably: Gore did not carry a single Southern state, not even his home state of Tennessee. So long as Democrats continue to offer the average American nothing to improve his or her economic situation, many voters-- and not only in the South-- will continue to vote against them on the basis of issues that are irrelevant to their economic well- being.


Last edited by twotap on Sat Mar 29, 2008 9:02 am; edited 1 time in total
Post Sat Mar 29, 2008 8:35 am 
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail  Reply with quote  
squash
F L I N T O I D

I own a gun. Does this mean I have to turn in my Lib Card?

Ernie Davis, 1961 Heisman Trophy winner, (Syracuse Univ.) also from Elmira NY.
Post Sat Mar 29, 2008 9:02 am 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
twotap
F L I N T O I D

As long as the other libs dont find out you will be OK. Concealed means just that. Laughing
Post Sat Mar 29, 2008 9:09 am 
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail  Reply with quote  
Ryan Eashoo
F L I N T O I D

It happened under his watch, and so its his legacy!

quote:
twotap schreef:

quote:
Oh and btw I love the way you crafted Hillary bashing and teacher bashing into the same lame joke.

Glad you liked it . Could have been worse I suppose the teacher could have asked "How many of you have parents that own GUNS" Shocked

Hey Ryan check out the facts .

Published on Tuesday, January 9, 2001
Distributed by Knight-Ridder/Tribune Media Services
Clinton's Economic Legacy
by Mark Weisbrot

America' 42nd President, William Jefferson Clinton, is likely to be remembered for the longest- running business cycle expansion in American history, which coincided with his two terms.
A fair assessment of his legacy should therefore begin by asking what, if anything, the President had to do with the economic growth of the last nine and a half years. The answer is: well, nothing really .

It is often maintained, by people who have not looked at the economics, that balancing the federal budget and moving it to surplus were responsible for the economic boom that followed.

But there is no foundation for this claim. The underlying theory is that these budget changes lead to lower long-term interest rates, because the government is borrowing less. The lower interest rates then stimulate more investment and therefore growth.

Even if one accepts the theory-- which is quite a stretch-- the facts don't fit the case. This was not an investment-led upswing. And the effects of the post- 1992 budget changes on interest rates are much too small to have had any noticeable positive impact on growth, according to any standard model used by economists.

How then to explain the boom? While any business cycle expansion has multiple causes, two stand out here. The first, and most important, was a change in policy at the Federal Reserve about five and a half years ago. The Fed, which had previously operated under the theory that six percent unemployment was the best that the economy could do without accelerating inflation, abandoned that view. Unemployment was allowed to fall to its current 4 percent, and growth continued beyond the point at which the Fed, in the past, would have pulled the plug.

The second was the stock market bubble: a 14 trillion increase in stock holdings over the last decade caused many upper income households to spend freely. This spending, even if it was based on paper increases in wealth that are now disappearing, provided a considerable stimulus to the economy-- much the same as we would get from a large increase in deficit spending by the federal government.

Mr. Clinton cannot claim credit for the stock market bubble, nor would he necessarily want to. Nor did he have anything to do with the Fed's policy shift, which was probably the most important positive change in economic policy in the last 20 years.

The economic policies for which the President can honestly claim responsibility-- e.g., NAFTA, the creation and expansion of the World Trade Organization-- served primarily to prevent the majority of Americans from sharing in the gains from economic growth. And then there was welfare reform, which threw millions of poor single mothers at the mercy of one of the lowest-wage labor markets in the industrialized world.

In short, Clinton's policies continued the upward redistribution of income and wealth, and punishment for the poor, that were the hallmarks of the Reagan era. It was not until 1999 that the median real wage reached its pre-1990 level, and it remains anchored today at about where it was 27 years ago.

Clinton's foreign economic policy was similar, although more devastating. His administration, together with its allies at the IMF and the World Bank, presided over the destruction of the Russian economy, helped to cause and worsen the Asian economic crisis, and squeezed billions in debt service from the poorest countries in Africa. Not to mention racking up a record, economically unsustainable trade deficit for the United States.

Clinton's legacy is by no means an academic question. If the economy fares badly over the next few years, the Clinton era will look quite good by comparison. The "New Democrat" strategy of abandoning core constituencies-- especially working Americans-- in favor of big business and the rich will be judged an economic and political success.

In reality it was neither: Clinton's fight for NAFTA cost his party the House in 1994, and the New Democrats' long-term strategy to win back the South could hardly have failed more miserably: Gore did not carry a single Southern state, not even his home state of Tennessee. So long as Democrats continue to offer the average American nothing to improve his or her economic situation, many voters-- and not only in the South-- will continue to vote against them on the basis of issues that are irrelevant to their economic well- being.

_________________
Flint Michigan Resident, Tax Payer, Flint Nutt - Local REALTOR - Activist. www.FlintTown.com
Post Sat Mar 29, 2008 11:07 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website  Reply with quote  
unlockiphonese
F L I N T O I D

yes i am she is social worker and think in the welfare of the public.
Post Fri Aug 12, 2016 4:55 am 
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website  Reply with quote  
  Display posts from previous:      
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  


Last Topic | Next Topic  >

Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

 

Flint Michigan online news magazine. We have lively web forums

Website Copyright © 2010 Flint Talk.com
Contact Webmaster - FlintTalk.com >