cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Highlighted

Bill Clinton

Can't deny that he is the best in a generation at delivering a policy speech.

 

There is some validity in his relevance to speaking on current economic issues, but only some. He did preside over a balanced budget that included a modest revenue enhancement, did preside over consistent economic growth, low unemployment etc.

 

But of course a significant part of the end term balanced budget was a huge flush of revenue from capital gains (at higher tax rates than current) gushing off of a wildly out of control stock market mania and, being Slick Willie, he managed to get out of Dodge before it popped.

 

He also, along with his equally evil alterego Newt and the congressional republicans, repealed Glass Steagall and did other revolutionary financial deregulation.  On his last day in office he sighned the Commodity Futures Modernization Act which set off the mega-trillion dollar derivatives game and made something like the ''08 crash inevitable. Then he quickly made the rounds of all the players who most benefitted from that and collected his $125K speakers fees. 

 

For those who think that absolves Bush, or Obama for that matter, don't think so. Bush's handlers looked soberly at the landscape that was left to them and decided to try to inflate a mortgage finance bubble for at least long enough to keep in office and destroy all the institutions that supported the opposition and thus keep themselves in power even after there was no economy to preside over.

 

Unfortuately the game ran out before Bush got done and he got used as the fall guy instead as his handlers needed to dump their losses onto the taxpayers. Such are the disparate fates of the two deeply flawed boomer presidents.

 

And finally, Obama decided that airing up the tires of the wrecked vehicle and claiming that he'd fixed it was actually preferable to undergoing even greater short term pain associated with taking on the moneychangers (like Bush, maybe Clinton, doubt that he even understood it all very well, just did wha his insider "best and brightest" told him to do.)

 

Does Romney understand all of this or does he have people around him who do?  It is possible that he does to some degree and is just playing to the low IQ GOP base but how the heck would you ever know?

8 Replies
Highlighted
Honored Advisor

Re: Bill Clinton

Actually being a successful president is 90% luck. Clinton inherited a manageable national debt and a economy that just had the sniffles from #41. Clinton had a tech boom when we all got cell phones and p.c.'s. #43 inherited the tech bubble bust and 9/11, if 9/11 never happened #43 would've been a "genius ". Obama has managed to make things worse, due to his aloofness and subsequent lack of leadership, Reagan went right to the. People, bypassing Congress to get grassroot support, also Reagan satisfied the public's thirst for blood. By merely blowing up gadafi's tent rather than start a $1 trillion war over the deal.
Highlighted

Re: Bill Clinton

I'm trying to avoid the identity politics and personality stuff.

 

Another thing about Clinton and the context of his times. The other day somebody said to me that the problem is that we used to have the communists to keep us honest. Some truth in that.

 

Clinton and what **bleep** Lugar used to refer to as his "infinite flexibility" was the perfect guy for the end of history, world is flat world. And of course Reagan and Thatcher had already unleashed Wall Street and the City of London in service of the cold war so the camel's nose was already well into the tent.

Highlighted

PS

The only way anyone could possibly argue that 43 would have been a successful president in different circumstances is to argue that he would have surrounded himself with different people in other circumstances.

Highlighted
Senior Contributor

Re: Bill Clinton

Excellent poast. 

 

 

The two best things that ever happened to President Bill Clinton(no, Monica isn't one of them) is Newt Gingrich and the internet bubble.  Gingrich is far and away #1 though. 

Highlighted
Senior Contributor

Re: Bill Clinton

Other than his inability to control or even care about reckless spending and the results that come with that, I don't that Obama has really made anything worse.  I just don't see where he's made things a whole lot better.  The same crooks are still running wall street and still getting away scott free...employment is very similar...W saddled us with an expensive health plan that paid off the insurance companies...so has Obama...

 

 

Theres a good reason why noone can honestly answer the question 'are you better off now than you were four years ago'...because things are mostly the same. 

Highlighted
Senior Contributor

Re: Bill Clinton

There is something maternally republican about you guys.  In the one breath you have the economic figures etc, of Clinton's admin. hovering over his head like he was a saint. Just let him have a tiny bit of credit but never let the world know you might be seen to capitulating to democratic economic policies.  Then you continue to rail against him and blame the economic bubble for his success.  If he had wasted the money handed to him by the bubble it would have been an act tantamount to treason and you all would have bellowed from the rooftops.   Now he is just plain lucky it happened in his time.  Never mine the unemployment decrease, naah just plain lucky.   Talk about hypocrits.

 

But what you have all forgotten is the mess Bush left Obama.  I know you all think it should have been rectified in 4 small years because you do not know how an economy works.  We will see how good the godbotherer Mormon is when he inherits the same or worse as Obama did.   Don't leave this forum because if that happens, it will get ugly for you guys.

Highlighted
Senior Contributor

Re: Bill Clinton

What a ridiculous reply.  It seems the harder he works at reforming the economy, the luckier he gets.  Obama's leadership was destined to limp along with the inherited handicap left by the biggest dullard of a presidency known in the US. And if his perceived aloofness is reason to vote against him, you certainly have got a grasp of what makes an country tick.

 

Reagan was a has been before he ever was anything.  So Bush started the 1 trilllion war because he didn't have the qualities of Reagan? It is a shame Bush couldn't act as he could have taken up in the cowboy movies where reagan left off.

Highlighted
Senior Contributor

Re: Bill Clinton

It is odd you should refer to the war expenditure and the stimulus package as wreckless spending.  Nothing could be further from the truth. It is easily to lay blame on Obama for that but none of you want to imagine the consequences of him doing nothing.  His strategy for proping up the motor industry was correct as it saved thousand and thousands of jobs.  Even the money lent to big dollars done the trick it was designed to do and mostly has been paid back.

 

The rhetorical question of whether you are better off is a fallacy.  That is not how an administration should be judged but when the repigs run out of constructive criticism they usually resort to name calling and kindergarten stuff. It is also a clever catch cry in the election process but in the end only the foolish will vote along those lines because they don't have the long term interest of the country at heart and that is something you all need to consider.