Clinton/Gore cooked the books

JohnnyYuma · #1 02-15-2003, 04:02 AM

I stole this from another thread on this website ...
To talk about the current US economy , you need to use this as a starting point ...

Clinton/Gore Cooked the Books

Robert Novak's column last week proved, using the Commerce Department's revised numbers, that the economic books of the country were cooked in 1999 and 2000. Clinton-Gore lied about how much profit the government took in by almost one third so they could help Gore hold the White House. The Washington Times reports that Clinton-Gore claimed the economic growth rate on Election Day 2000 was 4.4%, but revised (read: truthful) numbers show it to have been less than 2.7% - and it fell to an abysmal 1.1% during the fourth quarter – when the Democrats were screaming at Bush for talking about an economic slowdown.

A 1.1% growth rate around Election Day 2000 is key, because in the first three-quarters of 1992 it averaged 3.6%and rose to 5.4% during the fourth quarter that year. You'll remember how the Clinton-Gore team bashed the Bush 41 economic record without us reminding you. The revisions to the supposedly record levels of corporate profits for 2000 are even more shocking. We now know pre-tax profits for non-financial domestic industries peaked in 1997.

Now, there's no paper trail proving that Clinton-Gore guided this deception, but no one at the Commerce Department would do this on their own - and we think we know who might have. While Donna Brazile was in fact Gore's campaign chair of the failed Algore 2000 campaign, the "honorary chairman" was Bill "Bugsy" Daley, Clinton-Gore's Commerce Secretary! There's a reason you put a vote-stealing, win-at-any-cost man without scruples at the head of a cabinet department. So Gore had to know what was going on.

These numbers will keep being revised to subtract Enron, WorldCom, Tyco, Adelphia, Global Crossing, etc., because those companies inflated profits in the last two years of Clinton-Gore. Now, if you tell the IRS you underestimate your income by 30%, and therefore you underpaid your taxes by 30%, you can't get away with saying, "Whoops." We shouldn't let Clinton-Gore off the hook so easily either. They lied and overstated all their economic numbers. There was no Clinton boom, and whether they knew about the inflated numbers then or not, they know now, so it's time to stop perpetuating the lie.

NRA FOREVER · #2 02-15-2003, 08:43 AM

And why arent they in jail for fraud?

These skumbags have done worse than this and gotten away with it,Why?

CatKozTX · #3 02-15-2003, 10:20 AM

Two words - organized crime. [img]graemlins/blank.gif[/img]

JohnnyYuma · #4 02-15-2003, 04:10 PM

Enron did not pay their taxes , but the money to pay the taxes with was put into a seperate fund and called a "profit center"

They got away with this under Clinton , the most effective President to those that do not have to live with the waste it left behind ...

Bush-boy is the one that refused to allow Enron
and others to continue "cooking their books" ...

Clinton is just a dag gone liar .....
with or w/o pants up

dP

NRA FOREVER · #5 02-15-2003, 06:26 PM

We now have an honest Man in the Whitehouse but the fact remains that the hillbilly whitetrash(bill Clinton)should be put in jail for his crimes.

kristin · #6 02-18-2003, 01:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by dPrasse:
I stole this from another thread on this website ...
To talk about the current US economy , you need to use this as a starting point ...

Clinton/Gore Cooked the Books

Robert Novak's column last week proved, using the Commerce Department's revised numbers, that the economic books of the country were cooked in 1999 and 2000. Clinton-Gore lied about how much profit the government took in by almost one third so they could help Gore hold the White House. The Washington Times reports that Clinton-Gore claimed the economic growth rate on Election Day 2000 was 4.4%, but revised (read: truthful) numbers show it to have been less than 2.7% - and it fell to an abysmal 1.1% during the fourth quarter – when the Democrats were screaming at Bush for talking about an economic slowdown.

A 1.1% growth rate around Election Day 2000 is key, because in the first three-quarters of 1992 it averaged 3.6%and rose to 5.4% during the fourth quarter that year. You'll remember how the Clinton-Gore team bashed the Bush 41 economic record without us reminding you. The revisions to the supposedly record levels of corporate profits for 2000 are even more shocking. We now know pre-tax profits for non-financial domestic industries peaked in 1997.

Now, there's no paper trail proving that Clinton-Gore guided this deception, but no one at the Commerce Department would do this on their own - and we think we know who might have. While Donna Brazile was in fact Gore's campaign chair of the failed Algore 2000 campaign, the "honorary chairman" was Bill "Bugsy" Daley, Clinton-Gore's Commerce Secretary! There's a reason you put a vote-stealing, win-at-any-cost man without scruples at the head of a cabinet department. So Gore had to know what was going on.

These numbers will keep being revised to subtract Enron, WorldCom, Tyco, Adelphia, Global Crossing, etc., because those companies inflated profits in the last two years of Clinton-Gore. Now, if you tell the IRS you underestimate your income by 30%, and therefore you underpaid your taxes by 30%, you can't get away with saying, "Whoops." We shouldn't let Clinton-Gore off the hook so easily either. They lied and overstated all their economic numbers. There was no Clinton boom, and whether they knew about the inflated numbers then or not, they know now, so it's time to stop perpetuating the lie.

Why am I NOT surprised at this? Didn't even have to read the whole thing to know which direction it was going in.

Guardian Angel · #7 02-18-2003, 08:57 AM

Why, why, why are we not hammering on this every opportunity we get??? "Bush ruined our economy. We can't afford another four years of this. Tax breaks for the wealthiest one percent. Blah, blah, blah, etc., etc., etc." Everytime some reporter sticks a microphone in front of a Clintonista's face, it vomits out the same spiel! It's time for them to stop lying and sit down. They had their chance. They kicked the can down the road (as Charles Krauthammer has said) for the sake of Clinton's "legacy" and now it's time for someone else to pick up the pieces and try to make it right. [img]graemlins/soapbox.gif[/img]

JohnnyYuma · #8 02-18-2003, 01:37 PM

OK , combine the numbers from the news article with what my letter to the editor said :
"The first areas of Democratic "concerns" are taxes and the economy . In 1992 , candidate Clinton claimed that the economy's 3.7% annual growth rate was the "worst in 50 years " , and that it could be improved . Today he claims the
economy is going along at a good 2.4 % growth rate . While I agree Bush's tax increase slowed the economy , Clintons LARGER tax increase slowed the economy even more .
I am no rocket scientist , but I believe that Clintons current 2.4 % rate is slower than Bush's 3.7%

Today , the average 2 person income family pays 4x more for taxes than it does for medical care . Clintons own labor bureau figures show the average hourly pay compensation WAS growing at a rate of 5.6% annually before '92 . Currently the compensation rate is a negative .4% .
The Democrats are "worried" that the Republicans will reverse the economy if they win .
I would surely hope so , don't you ?"

you can see that the brakes were on full during Clintons whole second term ...
in '96 Clintons own numbers were 2.4 % and in 2000
it was 2.7% , falling to 1.1% on election day ...
yikes , the economy was just coasting for 4 years!!!

dP
[img]graemlins/soapbox.gif[/img]

NRA FOREVER · #9 02-18-2003, 08:50 PM

We should hammer this more,not only that there should be full boar seante investigations and charges brought up against the clinton`s and there phony accounting tricks.

Edith Piaf · #10 02-25-2003, 08:47 PM

it is funny, liberals amaze me, in 80s we heard this in france all about american investor, mike milken and junk bonds sans funds, but that was his choice no one was force to investir in them. clinton had creative accounting avec enron etc, scandals of many and slow growth and overvalued SICAVs (mutual funds) and over valued retirement funds and over valued stock making economy in 1990s look better till it bursts. the only thing holding the 90s economy together were the policies of reagan in 80s of low inflation (defier curve phillips) and brought inflation and unemployment down and increase productivite. that is why today interest rates are low for americaines. that is reagan. clinton did nothing good for economie. he even hurt elderlies because to pay off deficit clinton took monies from elderly people's medical funds your gouvernment gives.