Robert Montgomery: Bill Bishop the Unlikely Liberal
(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/assets/thumbs/image.3178.feature.jpg)
An unlikely political alliance has formed in the race for Mayor of Jacksonville. A coalition of self-described “Bohemians”, moderate Democrats, Republicans, and members of the LGBTQ Community, have thrown their support behind two term City Councilman Bill Bishop. The coalition is an expression of dissatisfaction with the legacy of Alvin Brown -- not altogether too unreasonable given his record. The interesting part is the fact that they would find their answer to a disappointing incumbent in a candidate who identifies with the Tea Party. … Check out our House Progressive Editorialists take on Bishop after the jump!
Read More: http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2015-mar-robert-montgomery-bill-bishop-the-unlikely-liberal
There are many of us out here that will never vote for a republican.Why? It was the republican ideas rules regulation and action that caused one our countrys worst financial desasters. If any will still hold onto the title republican that mean you still subscribe to those same idea rules and regulations. Why would i vote for anyone who ideas and actions have mostly always led to a downfall for most and full pockets for a few...so. no. Im gay and a bohemian and very liberal and i would not vote for a republican for nothing in the world...when bishop trows away his title of republican.
Since I made the mistake of looking too close at Jacksonville politics, sort of like seeing that crime scene photo you mistakenly look at and now will carry with you always, I understand why council members can't seem to accomplish as much as all would like. The problems start from far higher up and trickle down to the local level. Unless you are willing to make deals, sometimes sell your soul to that proverbial devil, you can't get anything done. The Corrine Brown network, the Big Money networks, all work together to feed themselves at the average Jacksonville resident's expense and particularly the less fortunate among us. A sad truth here is that to raise up the less fortunate would cost these power people many of the millions they have to play with today. There is no incentive to change that status quo for those at the top.
There is not one single council member that you can't look at and say they did not accomplish enough for their district. Not a single one. Unless they happen to be in the right and very favored district, and there are a few, accomplishing anything at all is all but miraculous. Even the best of the best are struggling to accomplish anything positive. Don't believe that? Go ask them.
Here's what I know as fact. Alvin Brown is part of that status quo. He has done nothing that did not further the Corrine Brown network's cause. As a city, we should be tired of doing business as usual and be ready for a positive change. We will never get that with Brown.
Lenny Curry will bring some amount of change to things. But those changes won't be his. Look to the money network behind him and see that, at least under the surface, the status quo will be supported and re-enforced by whomever is truly pulling his strings.
Most do not even realize there are four candidates. Perhaps that's a shame, I don't know. But that fact alone makes this a three person race. I can't even think of her name and I just read it a few minutes ago.
That leaves Bill Bishop. Perfect? Of course not. Better than Brown and Curry? I hope so. And that becomes our bottom line. Hope. We can only move forward as a city if we somehow facilitate change in how the business of politics is done here. This past year, HUD announced to the world, and I know it was the world as it made international news, that Jacksonville as a city lacked the capacity to handle the millions of federal funding it gets. The majority of the people who were in charge of that funding have been here before Brown and many will stay after he is gone. Because they are part of the Corrine Brown network or the Big Money Network, they just move from job to job and administration to administration and the status quo survives. Our only hope at a better Jacksonville is to chance that a new administration truly will finally bring in new people.
Bill Bishop is the odd man out right now. He is, I believe, our best hope at real change.
I also believe that in today's world where news and opinions fly through this internet world almost instantaneously, permanently attaching labels to people like Democrat or Republican is nonsense. Look to the person. Make your decision and then have hope. Sometimes it's all we can do.
Anyone who dismisses a candidate based on the letter associated with their name is foolish.
Quote from: carpnter on March 14, 2015, 10:49:01 AM
Anyone who dismisses a candidate based on the letter associated with their name is foolish.
I was just about to say the same thing. How close minded and blinded would an adult of voting age have to be to refuse to listen to a candidate and only vote strict party line? Without dismissing or insulting the above poster, I find it arrogant, ill informed & detrimental to the free & open election system we have in USA., It's a shame and disappointment in the kind of ""voters" we have participating.
I am not opposed to Bishop in any real sense. I don't see him as the "messiah" from the cronyistic system of politics we have in Jacksonville. Would I vote for him? Probably not, nor any other candidate in the race. That said however, I find it interesting, as always, what we as people are willing to overlook as humans when we believe we have a connection to something, or someone, as opposed to when we don't(ie - discriminatory stances, issues of condoning sexual harassment on some level, etc)...
Quote from: Rob68 on March 14, 2015, 07:12:48 AM
There are many of us out here that will never vote for a republican.Why? It was the republican ideas rules regulation and action that caused one our countrys worst financial desasters. If any will still hold onto the title republican that mean you still subscribe to those same idea rules and regulations. Why would i vote for anyone who ideas and actions have mostly always led to a downfall for most and full pockets for a few...so. no. Im gay and a bohemian and very liberal and i would not vote for a republican for nothing in the world...when bishop trows away his title of republican.
I
Sadly misinformed.
Quote from: theduvalprogressive on March 14, 2015, 02:17:19 PM
I am not opposed to Bishop in any real sense. I don't see him as the "messiah" from the cronyistic system of politics we have in Jacksonville. Would I vote for him? Probably not, nor any other candidate in the race. That said however, I find it interesting, as always, what we as people are willing to overlook as humans when we believe we have a connection to something, or someone, as opposed to when we don't(ie - discriminatory stances, issues of condoning sexual harassment on some level, etc)...
There's no such thing as a messiah in politics. Come on. We either overlook the discrepancies, or we don't vote. Does anyone with a decent brain even agree 100% with the candidates? Of course not.
We vote our interests, whichever candidate we believe represents them the most.
Wow. 2 good examples already in this thread of the sadness of the Jacksonville voter.
edjax... I believe low voter turnout has a lot to do with the fact that the candidates really aren't very inspirational. I liked Bill Bishop much better after the debate, but I really wasn't sold. Why is that? Mainly the one reason is because he has been in City Hall since 2007, and much of the changes he talked about going after, he could have engineered on some level. I initially thought about voting for Brown again, but his performance in the debate ruined that completely.
Quote from: theduvalprogressive on March 15, 2015, 10:55:32 AM
edjax... I believe low voter turnout has a lot to do with the fact that the candidates really aren't very inspirational. I liked Bill Bishop much better after the debate, but I really wasn't sold. Why is that? Mainly the one reason is because he has been in City Hall since 2007, and much of the changes he talked about going after, he could have engineered on some level. I initially thought about voting for Brown again, but his performance in the debate ruined that completely.
I understand you "really wasn't sold' on Bill Bishop after the debates, by why would you NOT vote for anyone on the ballot? Write in? Or not vote at all? Interesting you speak of low turn out is a problem, why would you join this? Sincerely am confused. Thanks for any answers.
Quote from: Rob68 on March 14, 2015, 07:12:48 AM
There are many of us out here that will never vote for a republican.Why? It was the republican ideas rules regulation and action that caused one our countrys worst financial desasters. If any will still hold onto the title republican that mean you still subscribe to those same idea rules and regulations. Why would i vote for anyone who ideas and actions have mostly always led to a downfall for most and full pockets for a few...so. no. Im gay and a bohemian and very liberal and i would not vote for a republican for nothing in the world...when bishop trows away his title of republican.
So will you vote for the gay hating nut job Kim Daniels over Anna Brosche just because Anna has a (R) behind her name?
Quote from: edjax on March 15, 2015, 12:47:52 PM
So will you vote for the gay hating nut job Kim Daniels over Anna Brosche just because Anna has a (R) behind her name?
That's the best question of the day. Ideologically, there's not much that separates "Democrat" Kim Daniels from "Democrat" Alvin Brown and "Republican" Don Redman. They're all religious fundamentalists who are socially conservative. Party labels are absolutely meaningless in our city elections because we don't have a party primary. Kim Daniels nor Alvin Brown could ever win a Democratic primary; when Alvin ran in a Democratic primary once he was trounced.
And if you get the paper, check out Page 2 of today's Metro section. A preview: https://www.facebook.com/jimmy.midyette/posts/10155345684910230?pnref=story
I didn't take the comment that someone who wouldn't vote for a republican to mean they support every democrat.
Quote from: JeffreyS on March 15, 2015, 03:47:21 PM
I didn't take the comment that someone who wouldn't vote for a republican to mean they support every democrat.
And nobody said they do. The question to him is he supporting this democrat just because the opponent is a R.
Quote from: Jimmy on March 15, 2015, 01:13:53 PM
Quote from: edjax on March 15, 2015, 12:47:52 PM
So will you vote for the gay hating nut job Kim Daniels over Anna Brosche just because Anna has a (R) behind her name?
That's the best question of the day. Ideologically, there's not much that separates "Democrat" Kim Daniels from "Democrat" Alvin Brown and "Republican" Don Redman. They're all religious fundamentalists who are socially conservative. Party labels are absolutely meaningless in our city elections because we don't have a party primary. Kim Daniels nor Alvin Brown could ever win a Democratic primary; when Alvin ran in a Democratic primary once he was trounced.
And if you get the paper, check out Page 2 of today's Metro section. A preview: https://www.facebook.com/jimmy.midyette/posts/10155345684910230?pnref=story
Jimmy, I will tell you I was blown away after seeing that ad in the TU today. I'm keeping it as kind of a "this happened in 2015" sort of oddity. I still have little words to express how I felt. Angry? Sad? Hopeless? Humored? Disbelief? I can't place the feelings but I just know it is disgusting and wished the TU would have refused to run it.
Quote from: edjax on March 15, 2015, 04:01:08 PM
Quote from: JeffreyS on March 15, 2015, 03:47:21 PM
I didn't take the comment that someone who wouldn't vote for a republican to mean they support every democrat.
And nobody said they do. The question to him is he supporting this democrat just because the opponent is a R.
Sounds like a "have you stopped beating your wife ?" question to me. He mentioned he was gay so I doubt he will be supporting Kimberly Daniels even if he is not supporting the Republican candidate.
Quote from: JeffreyS on March 15, 2015, 08:12:44 PM
Quote from: edjax on March 15, 2015, 04:01:08 PM
Quote from: JeffreyS on March 15, 2015, 03:47:21 PM
I didn't take the comment that someone who wouldn't vote for a republican to mean they support every democrat.
And nobody said they do. The question to him is he supporting this democrat just because the opponent is a R.
Sounds like a "have you stopped beating your wife ?" question to me. He mentioned he was gay so I doubt he will be supporting Kimberly Daniels even if he is not supporting the Republican candidate.
Well we don't really know that do we Jeffrey. If someone refuses to vote for anyone just because of an R after their name (espcially in a local rac) they are probably capable of a lot of voting traits that would be considered odd for whatever reasons.
Quote from: Jax native on March 15, 2015, 11:00:37 AM
Quote from: theduvalprogressive on March 15, 2015, 10:55:32 AM
edjax... I believe low voter turnout has a lot to do with the fact that the candidates really aren't very inspirational. I liked Bill Bishop much better after the debate, but I really wasn't sold. Why is that? Mainly the one reason is because he has been in City Hall since 2007, and much of the changes he talked about going after, he could have engineered on some level. I initially thought about voting for Brown again, but his performance in the debate ruined that completely.
I understand you "really wasn't sold' on Bill Bishop after the debates, by why would you NOT vote for anyone on the ballot? Write in? Or not vote at all? Interesting you speak of low turn out is a problem, why would you join this? Sincerely am confused. Thanks for any answers.
I don't believe the unitary process offer a write in as an option.
Bill Bishop is an intelligent, pragmatist, not an ideologue. That puts him head and shoulders above the other candidates. There are actually a few members of the City Council that would make a good mayor, but Bishop is the one that is running.
Quote from: Dog Walker on March 16, 2015, 04:07:24 PM
Bill Bishop is an intelligent, pragmatist, not an ideologue. That puts him head and shoulders above the other candidates. There are actually a few members of the City Council that would make a good mayor, but Bishop is the one that is running.
+1 No one supporting Bishop sees him as a political savior, they simply see him as the most qualified and competent candidate on the ballot. Nothing more, nothing less.
Does anybody know anything about Curry's business? His campaign seems careful not to describe it. Some sort of staffing service?
Still shaking my head in disbelief when Toni Crawford said 'Curry has more (government) experience than John Delancy.... Curry hasn't a toe nail worth of experience to be considered the same as John Delaney when he first ran for Mayor.
Quote from: stephendare on March 16, 2015, 04:38:07 PM
Marilyn Young over at the Daily Record did her usual thorough job in vetting Curry.
https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=543092
Seeking initial support
Among Curry's first confidants was insurance executive Tom Petway, who can not only bring in a lot of money for a candidate but a lot of credibility, as well.
Curry said Petway had always been a supporter and the two had worked together on political issues before. Petway was supportive of his potential candidacy from the start of a series of discussions, Curry said. (Petway is in China and was unavailable to be interviewed for this story.)
Another early discussion came with Toni Crawford, a stalwart in the Republican Party, who had been Duval County chair for four years.
Crawford said Curry brought the idea up at a lunch where they were meeting about something else.
She said she was caught off guard when Curry asked her thoughts on him being a candidate for mayor. She had seen Curry grow and mature over the years. But her reaction wasn't an immediate yes.
"I said, 'Let me think about it,'" Crawford recalled.
She talked with other people and thought about who else might be out there as a viable candidate. Crawford then offered her support to Curry.
"Pretty much since then, I haven't changed my thoughts about it," she said.
She bats away the criticism that Curry doesn't have government experience, pointing out how closely party chairs work with governing bodies. In fact, she says, Curry has more government experience at this point in the campaign than John Delaney did when he ran for a first term.
Most of her advice to Curry was about the mechanics of running a campaign: get a strong finance chairman, a good campaign manager and a "very strong grassroots advocate."
Crawford said she also told Curry to stay focused on the issues. "This does not need to be a slam Alvin campaign," she said. " ... All that does is cause dissension in the community. We don't need that."
Serious discussions with heavy hitters
There's no question that a serious candidate for mayor feels he or she must talk with Delaney, now the president at the University of North Florida.
Curry said Delaney reiterated advice he had given him previously — the importance of turning things off and being present in the lives of his children. Sometimes that's as simple as just being in the same room with them when they're watching a movie.
He said the former mayor also stressed the importance of being serious about the issues and not just being a campaigner. Talk to people who have been there, learn about the independent authorities, brush up on interlocal agreements, know the sources of revenue.
Since then, Curry said he has spent hours being educated by former senior level employees in previous administrations.
Curry's meetings with Rummell obviously brought an avid supporter, but that came after a series of conversations. After their first meeting, Curry recalled that much like his father did in his retail business, he was trying to close the deal for Rummell's support.
When he asked Rummell if he would support him, the answer wasn't yes. It was, Curry said, "Something to the effect that, 'This was a positive meeting.'"
After a series of meetings, Rummell decided Curry was the candidate he would support in 2015. In an interview in late April, Rummell said he thinks Curry will "lead by example and I think he will be brave."
He said he wants to help Curry's campaign in whatever capacity he's needed. "I have no need for any official role or title or anything," he said.
"If I can help, I'm a resource that's there," Rummell added.
Another resource for Curry is Gary Chartrand, a Jacksonville philanthropist and education advocate who has known Curry for years and was happy to hear his plans to run for mayor.
He liked that Curry had been a businessman first before becoming a candidate. "I have sort of this pet peeve for lifetime politicians," he said.
To prepare for the campaign, Curry is stepping away from ICX Group, the firm he built with Todd Froats, a former colleague at PricewaterhouseCoopers.
Not to be picky, but this article is from June 2014. I actually thought you were referring to a recent article the way you threw it in here. Confused?
Quote from: theduvalprogressive on March 14, 2015, 02:17:19 PM
I am not opposed to Bishop in any real sense. I don't see him as the "messiah" from the cronyistic system of politics we have in Jacksonville. Would I vote for him? Probably not, nor any other candidate in the race. That said however, I find it interesting, as always, what we as people are willing to overlook as humans when we believe we have a connection to something, or someone, as opposed to when we don't(ie - discriminatory stances, issues of condoning sexual harassment on some level, etc)...
Sincerely Robert, I'm not trying to continue down on the dead horse but since you are a brilliant writer, I'm asking a question.
Can you explain to me in simpler terms ( because I truly don't understand the logic) of your decision NOT to vote for "anyone on the ballot" after you wrote such an insightful article on the local Mayor race. Pretend like I'm the just turned 18 year old who finally old enough to register to vote for first time. Curious to know the thought process. Thanks so much in advance.
Thank you for your compliment. My disagreements with all three candidates are all because they are so similar on the issues I am not in favor of.
I am not an advocate of the river dredging. The costs could hand the city a rather huge financial commitment of $400 million unless we can find a corporate benefactor to incur some of those costs. The benefits in return for that payout in local employment is, at best, sketchy. There have been estimates of up to 2300 jobs over 30 years -- a figure that cannot be quantified by any real numbers. Even the 47 feet that they're shooting for isn't even near what competing ports are at, so this can only mean that there will be another expensive dredging in the future. None of this tells me this is worth harming the river's eco-system -- even if we can bugger Putnam County into breeching the Rodman Dam -- and perhaps should look into competing for other maritime trade that we can realistically accommodate.
Pension Reform: I do not support any of the agreements I've seen come out of City Hall. I am not against unions but I do not see a possible $2 billion dollar commitment to a two-tiered system as an answer. I don't see where we can afford it without draconian tax schemes and a less than stellar local economy. Also on principle I am opposed to John Keane getting three pensions prepaid into the system totaling a little over $6 million dollars. This is theft in my view and grounds for his removal from the discussion. I believe there needs to be an audit and those results be made transparent to the public.
Also I believe fair attention needs to be paid to all communities in terms of improved service. I believe City Hall over the next ten years is going to have to take an active hand in addressing issues of income inequality, poverty, and unemployment on a real level on a neighborhood by neighborhood basis. None of the explanations, in terms of policy, I've heard from the candidates are apt prescriptions to meet these need. In short, I believe we have to do more than regentrify the urban core to properly address these issues.
None of the candidates mirror my views on these issues, so I don't see a need to support them with my vote although, to be honest, Bill Bishop has a slight edge if I were to be inclined to.
I would include that Stephen published some great material from local thinkers on both subjects -- one being Dr Jaffee from UNF on the Mile Point Project. I'll post those on this thread if you like.
Thank you sincerely for addressing my questions. i'm not just sucking up to you but you are a brilliant thinker & writer whom i truly enjoy reading. These concerns remind me of the 1990's. During that time, Jacksonville had a strong "Peace & Justice Coalition" w/ a strong FL coalition. (It was also when I first met MyVyme Betsch) In 96 when Ralph Nader ran for president the split between people voting for Nader and Clinton was huge and brought on many disagreements within the community. The people voting for Dems were upset that Nader was taking votes.....and each year nader ran for president, this all came up again and again. I was in the camp as loving the idea Nader being the President of USA, but didn't feel realistically he would ever be. So, with probably about 50/50 split among us, I voted for the Dems candidate at election.
My point being; one of these 3 people will be elected Mayor of Jacksonville, FL. Boycotting an election for personal ideas, I completely understand, but still in the camp, I want my vote to count.
I'm against dredging the river and I wouldn't be surprised if my views on local issues are identical to yours. But, someone will be elected. Someone. If your thoughts are closer to Bishop, why would you not vote for him beside your personal belief won't allow you to. I am old but still hopeful. I believe we need to vote to make a difference even if I don't see it in my generation.
I do appreciate you sharing your personal thoughts very much!
I am not entirely averse to Bill Bishop but I'm just not sold.
That's about where I am TDP
Jeffery I'll be honest; I come from a family of Northeastern Liberal Republicans(a dead breed nowadays). My Grandfather worked for Nelson Rockefeller as an assistant and later on three campaigns along with Jacob Javitts and many others. I worked as an intern for Arlen Specter while in college still hoping that after Reagan there was a possibility that the GOP would move to the center. Once the Conservatives took over I realized there was no hope. I still, out of sentimentality, keep my registry as a Republican although most of the time I vote for Greens and Libertarians. So I can respect what you say about the FDP. There is nothing to respect about them on any level.
Quote from: Rob68 on March 14, 2015, 07:12:48 AM
There are many of us out here that will never vote for a republican.Why? It was the republican ideas rules regulation and action that caused one our countrys worst financial desasters. If any will still hold onto the title republican that mean you still subscribe to those same idea rules and regulations. Why would i vote for anyone who ideas and actions have mostly always led to a downfall for most and full pockets for a few...so. no. Im gay and a bohemian and very liberal and i would not vote for a republican for nothing in the world...when bishop trows away his title of republican.
I know this thread is not about national issues but I couldn't let this go unchecked.
Every president in the last 30 years including Bill Clinton is the reason that the economy is shit and the American Middle Class is now the Chinese Middle Class.
Glass Steagal was passed in 1932 by Herbert Hoover, a Republican president.
DEFINITION OF 'GLASS-STEAGALL ACT'
An act the U.S. Congress passed in 1933 as the Banking Act, which prohibited commercial banks from participating in the investment banking business. The Glass-Steagall Act was sponsored by Senator Carter Glass, a former Treasury secretary, and Senator Henry Steagall, a member of the House of Representatives and chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee. The Act was passed as an emergency measure to counter the failure of almost 5,000 banks during the Great Depression. The Glass-Steagall lost its potency in subsequent decades and was finally repealed in 1999.
Bill Clinton a Democrat was president in 1999 when Glass Steagall was replaced. The repeal of Glass Steagall is credited with the financial crisis but its more than that.
"In fact, the financial crisis might not have happened at all but for the 1999 repeal of the Glass-Steagall law that separated commercial and investment banking for seven decades. If there is any hope of avoiding another meltdown, it's critical to understand why Glass-Steagall repeal helped to cause the crisis. Without a return to something like Glass-Steagall, another greater catastrophe is just a matter of time."
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2012/08/27/repeal-of-glass-steagall-caused-the-financial-crisis
Bill Clinton was also responsible for NAFTA, which is credited with putting the final nail in the coffin of American manufacturing.
Its very hard to just completely blame Republicans for the financial crisis and I have never ever voted for a Republican but your argument is flawed based on the two items I posted above.
I will be voting for Bill Bishop because I believe he is being sincere when discussing the issues, I can't say the same for the other two party affiliated candidates. He is also willing to talk about increasing taxes (which is necessary) and he does not come out anti gay or pivot when the questions are asked.
Quote from: JC on March 22, 2015, 09:02:29 AM
Glass Steagal was passed in 1932 by Herbert Hoover, a Republican president.
No, it wasn't. It was signed law by President Roosevelt on June 16, 1933.
Quote from: JC on March 22, 2015, 09:02:29 AM
Bill Clinton a Democrat was president in 1999 when Glass Steagall was replaced. The repeal of Glass Steagall is credited with the financial crisis but its more than that.
True enough, but it should be noted that the law the repealed Glass-Steagall, the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act is named after three
Republican legislators .
Quote from: JC on March 22, 2015, 09:02:29 AM
Bill Clinton was also responsible for NAFTA, which is credited with putting the final nail in the coffin of American manufacturing.
NAFTA had nothing to do with American manufacturing moving to China, which was the main cause of death of manufacturing in this country. And to give Clinton all the credit/blame for NAFTA also isn't accurate. The agreement was ceremonially signed in Ottawa, Mexico City and Washington on December 17, 1992 by
Bush I. Yes, the actual treaty was signed by Clinton, after being voted on in the House by
132 Republicans and 102 Democrats, and the Senate by
34 Republicans and 27 Democrats.
Quote from: JC on March 22, 2015, 09:02:29 AM
... your argument is flawed based on the two items I posted above.
Flawed argument countered with flawed facts?
QuoteA separate 1932 law also known as the Glass–Steagall Act is described in the article Glass–Steagall Act of 1932./Quote
Who was president from march 1929 to march 1923?
And yes, you are correct NAFTA is the north american free trade act and I should have parsed the two issies which have occurred in the last three decades but the point of my argument stands which is that regardless of party affiliation any and every president can fuck up the economy, as demonstrated by Bill Clinton.
Quote from: JC on March 24, 2015, 07:41:01 AM
every president can fuck up the economy, as demonstrated by Bill Clinton.
Average economic growth of 4.0% per year, compared to average growth of 2.8% during the previous years. The economy grew for 116 consecutive months, the most in history.
Creation of more than 22.5 million jobs—the most jobs ever created under a single administration, and more than were created in the previous 12 years. Of the total new jobs, 20.7 million, or 92%, were in the private sector.
Economic gains spurred an increase in family incomes for all Americans. Since 1993, real median family income increased by $6,338, from $42,612 in 1993 to $48,950 in 1999 (in 1999 dollars).
Overall unemployment dropped to the lowest level in more than 30 years, down from 6.9% in 1993 to just 4.0% in January 2001. The unemployment rate was below 5% for 40 consecutive months. Unemployment for African Americans fell from 14.2% in 1992 to 7.3% in 2000, the lowest rate on record. Unemployment for Hispanics fell from 11.8% in October 1992 to 5.0% in 2000, also the lowest rate on record.
Inflation dropped to its lowest rate since the Kennedy Administration, averaging 2.5%, and fell from 4.7% during the previous administration.
The homeownership rate reached 67.7% near the end of the Clinton administration, the highest rate on record.
The poverty rate also declined from 15.1% in 1993 to 11.8% in 1999, the largest six-year drop in poverty in nearly 30 years. This left 7 million fewer people in poverty than there were in 1993.
The surplus in fiscal year 2000 was $237 billion—the third consecutive surplus and the largest surplus ever.
If only more presidents would fuck up the economy like that.
Quote from: finehoe on March 24, 2015, 08:39:11 AM
Quote from: JC on March 24, 2015, 07:41:01 AM
every president can fuck up the economy, as demonstrated by Bill Clinton.
Average economic growth of 4.0% per year, compared to average growth of 2.8% during the previous years. The economy grew for 116 consecutive months, the most in history.
Creation of more than 22.5 million jobs—the most jobs ever created under a single administration, and more than were created in the previous 12 years. Of the total new jobs, 20.7 million, or 92%, were in the private sector.
Economic gains spurred an increase in family incomes for all Americans. Since 1993, real median family income increased by $6,338, from $42,612 in 1993 to $48,950 in 1999 (in 1999 dollars).
Overall unemployment dropped to the lowest level in more than 30 years, down from 6.9% in 1993 to just 4.0% in January 2001. The unemployment rate was below 5% for 40 consecutive months. Unemployment for African Americans fell from 14.2% in 1992 to 7.3% in 2000, the lowest rate on record. Unemployment for Hispanics fell from 11.8% in October 1992 to 5.0% in 2000, also the lowest rate on record.
Inflation dropped to its lowest rate since the Kennedy Administration, averaging 2.5%, and fell from 4.7% during the previous administration.
The homeownership rate reached 67.7% near the end of the Clinton administration, the highest rate on record.
The poverty rate also declined from 15.1% in 1993 to 11.8% in 1999, the largest six-year drop in poverty in nearly 30 years. This left 7 million fewer people in poverty than there were in 1993.
The surplus in fiscal year 2000 was $237 billion—the third consecutive surplus and the largest surplus ever.
If only more presidents would fuck up the economy like that.
Are you kidding me right now?
Do you truly believe that the long term impact of policies adopted under the Clinton Administration are not attributable to him?
I am not going to cut and paste shit back and forth with you. The fact of the matter is that the income gap has increased tremendously since the 1980s, wages have been stagnant since the 1970s and the US has hemorrhaged manufacturing jobs since the late 1990s. Clinton's policies had everything to do with that.
Whatever Bill Bishop was selling on March 24, all of Jacksonville was not buying it.
Quote from: mtraininjax on March 24, 2015, 11:25:24 PM
Whatever Bill Bishop was selling on March 24, all of Jacksonville was not buying it.
Actually about 17 % believed in Bill Bishop. But it looks like you are hell bent on pounding him in every single thread tonight, so I'll let you be. All the negative comments are surely the way to get people on board with your ideas. Right?
Quote from: mtraininjax on March 24, 2015, 11:25:24 PM
Whatever Bill Bishop was selling on March 24, all of Jacksonville was not buying it.
I think that many people did not have a chance to hear about or from Bill Bishop. The first time I heard him speak was on NPR and the other two times I saw him was during the debate. By that point I had already seen a TON of negative ads from Curry. I think that if more people were informed about him and his ideas he would have done better.
I also think that if he would have made stuff up and promised more spending without explaining how it was going to be paid for he would have done better.
Maybe this is me being arrogant but I feel like people who voted for Curry were uninformed or were tricked in some way because his arrogance, negativity and empty promoses seemed obvious to me. Where as Bill Bishop seemed to have a very honest approach and was willing to keep politically unpopular items on the table such as raising taxes to pay for the pension.
Quote from: JC on March 24, 2015, 10:10:21 PM
Quote from: finehoe on March 24, 2015, 08:39:11 AM
Quote from: JC on March 24, 2015, 07:41:01 AM
every president can fuck up the economy, as demonstrated by Bill Clinton.
Average economic growth of 4.0% per year, compared to average growth of 2.8% during the previous years. The economy grew for 116 consecutive months, the most in history.
Creation of more than 22.5 million jobs—the most jobs ever created under a single administration, and more than were created in the previous 12 years. Of the total new jobs, 20.7 million, or 92%, were in the private sector.
Economic gains spurred an increase in family incomes for all Americans. Since 1993, real median family income increased by $6,338, from $42,612 in 1993 to $48,950 in 1999 (in 1999 dollars).
Overall unemployment dropped to the lowest level in more than 30 years, down from 6.9% in 1993 to just 4.0% in January 2001. The unemployment rate was below 5% for 40 consecutive months. Unemployment for African Americans fell from 14.2% in 1992 to 7.3% in 2000, the lowest rate on record. Unemployment for Hispanics fell from 11.8% in October 1992 to 5.0% in 2000, also the lowest rate on record.
Inflation dropped to its lowest rate since the Kennedy Administration, averaging 2.5%, and fell from 4.7% during the previous administration.
The homeownership rate reached 67.7% near the end of the Clinton administration, the highest rate on record.
The poverty rate also declined from 15.1% in 1993 to 11.8% in 1999, the largest six-year drop in poverty in nearly 30 years. This left 7 million fewer people in poverty than there were in 1993.
The surplus in fiscal year 2000 was $237 billion—the third consecutive surplus and the largest surplus ever.
If only more presidents would fuck up the economy like that.
The fact of the matter is that the income gap has increased tremendously since the 1980s, wages have been stagnant since the 1970s and the US has hemorrhaged manufacturing jobs since the late 1990s. Clinton's Trickle down economic policies had everything to do with that.
Fixed it for you.
Finehoe, I'm sure you are aware facts don't matter to the right, but thanks for posting the truth for those that actually believe there are two sides to every argument.
Quote from: JC on March 24, 2015, 10:10:21 PM
The fact of the matter is that the income gap has increased tremendously since the 1980s, wages have been stagnant since the 1970s.... Clinton's policies had everything to do with that.
So your saying his policies had everything to do with issues that began long before he was ever in office. Okay.
Quote from: finehoe on March 25, 2015, 09:20:15 AM
Quote from: JC on March 24, 2015, 10:10:21 PM
The fact of the matter is that the income gap has increased tremendously since the 1980s, wages have been stagnant since the 1970s.... Clinton's policies had everything to do with that.
So your saying his policies had everything to do with issues that began long before he was ever in office. Okay.
No, what I am saying is what I have been saying all along. Regardless of who has been in office since the 70's we have been going in the wrong direction, the evidence of that is very clear. You can offer your lopsided opinion of Clinton's economic policy all you want, I really don't care because the truth is obvious to anyone who spends 10 minutes googling about the increased income gap, stagnant wages and the slow death of the American middle class.
Quote from: JC on March 25, 2015, 12:09:21 PM
I really don't care
Apparently you do. No one mentioned Clinton's policies until you brought it up. Yes, it's undeniable that since the early 70s there has been an increased income gap, stagnant wages and the dissipation of the American middle class. However, the facts show that these trends
slowed during the Clinton administration, so to single him out as a major cause of these phenomenon is not only historically inaccurate, it shows willful ignorance.
And here we go, full circle. I mentioned Clinton because NAFTA is part of the problem and so was the repeal of Glass Steagall. I used these two issues to drive the point home because the poster I was responding to said he would not vote for a Republican based on their economic policies. Democrats who are beholden to corporate interests are not immune to hurting the American people, just like Republicans.
Your posts and shit attitude toward me scream troll and I am done feeding you.