The Clinton Legacy

[whataboutbob]

I think Bill Clinton was an excellent president for this country...and I am pretty sure Hillary Clinton will be just as good when she is president.

Bill was a good President, who definitely benefited from the tech/telecom/biotech boom of the 90's... but as time went on, the two became more and more corrupt, unethical and self centered. I wouldn't trust either of them to run this country at this point.

 

[whataboutbob]

The Clinton Legacy:

The greatest period of economic growth during peacetime in U.S. history.

The 2nd greatest period of economic growth during anytime in U.S. history.

Over 20 million new jobs.

The poverty rate hitting its lowest level in U.S. history.

Greater median income growth than any other time since before 1980.

Budget surpluses.

In terms of economic performance, the only president to outperform Clinton was LBJ.

And before you credit congress with all that, it was the same congress when he left office that was in there when he was in office yet economic performance was not nearly as good. What changed was the president.

After living through what we have since Clinton left office, I guarantee you if he could run again he would win in a landslide. After all, he left office with the highest approval ratings of any president since FDR.

Anyone that lived and worked in the USA during the Clinton years that hates Bill Clinton would bitch if they were hung with a new rope.

1) The Nasdaq tanked over 50% in Clinton's final year in office... so no, it wasn't a change in President. It was the fact that the biotech/tech/telecom boom that Clinton benefited from in the 90's blew up in 2000.

2) The 'budget' surpluses were just that... budgeted numbers. Not actual surpluses. There were no actual surpluses. The national debt has risen every year since Ike.

3) The economic boom was already under way prior to Clinton taking office. Kind of hard to give him credit for it. Though he does get credit for not derailing it.

 

[whataboutbob]

He was a fine president, Thoreau...better than any Republican president since Dwight Eisenhower.

He was the best after Ike and Reagan. He did not have to face any harsh situations as others faced. He also benefited from the economic conditions in place prior to his arrival. Reagan was forced to make hard choices. Clinton never faced any tough calls economically.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Bill was a good President, who definitely benefited from the tech/telecom/biotech boom of the 90's... but as time went on, the two became more and more corrupt, unethical and self centered. I wouldn't trust either of them to run this country at this point.

Then you should not vote for Hillary Clinton.

I intend to vote for her. I expect she will be our next president...and further expect that she will do a great job of being president.

 

[Frank Apisa]

He was the best after Ike and Reagan. He did not have to face any harsh situations as others faced. He also benefited from the economic conditions in place prior to his arrival. Reagan was forced to make hard choices. Clinton never faced any tough calls economically.

I'll stick with the best after Ike. Ronald Reagan, in my opinion, is one of the most over-rated presidents in our history. He was a very likable guy. I voted for him. But he is probably in the bottom quarter as far as I am concerned.

 

[Erod]

And interestingly the industry he is credited with spawning, public relations, has sanitized the saying you are referring to.

It is now claimed he never said it, based on statements from those who knew him who actually just said that "there's a sucker born every minute" didn't mean in circus folk vernacular what "sucker" came to mean later.

The term sucker, like rube and yokel, were terms used by those who raked up the elephant poop for customers amazed by elephants.

So his contemporaries never actually said he never said it.

But that's what is claimed now if you look the quote up.

Which is food for thought.

That's interesting. But if you extrapolate that story, it doesn't really change the meaning of today much at all.

 

[Hmmmm]

So your going to give Bill Clinton credit for the dot.com boom? Because that is where all the economic growth came from. Not his policies. This is the fallacy that Bill lovers hide behind. He just lucked into the largest boom in the history of the world as internet commerce exploded.

The Clinton Legacy:

The greatest period of economic growth during peacetime in U.S. history.

The 2nd greatest period of economic growth during anytime in U.S. history.

Over 20 million new jobs.

The poverty rate hitting its lowest level in U.S. history.

Greater median income growth than any other time since before 1980.

Budget surpluses.

In terms of economic performance, the only president to outperform Clinton was LBJ.

And before you credit congress with all that, it was the same congress when he left office that was in there when he was in office yet economic performance was not nearly as good. What changed was the president.

After living through what we have since Clinton left office, I guarantee you if he could run again he would win in a landslide. After all, he left office with the highest approval ratings of any president since FDR.

Anyone that lived and worked in the USA during the Clinton years that hates Bill Clinton would bitch if they were hung with a new rope.

 

[Erod]

The Republican equivalent would be Reagan.

No. It would be Trump.

 

[PerfectStorm]

Whatever Bill Clinton did or did not do along those lines is whatever he did or did not do.

Brilliant.

 

[Erod]

So your going to give Bill Clinton credit for the dot.com boom? Because that is where all the economic growth came from. Not his policies. This is the fallacy that Bill lovers hide behind. He just lucked into the largest boom in the history of the world as internet commerce exploded.

The smartest thing Clinton did was understand when he was beat. He went along with the Republican Congress.

He's not really a Democrat like Hillary. Bill believes in whatever gets Bill elected. He would have run as a Republican if that was the easiest path.

I heard him speak once in a room of only about 50 people, all major business people (I was there as a board member of the hosting association). You would have thought you were listening to William F. Buckley Jr. Bill knows his audience, and he's smart enough to play whatever part is needed at the time.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Brilliant.

Thank you.

 

[Erod]

I'd have to agree with this over Fank's take on the Clintons.

IMHO they are the most most corrupt and power hungry, unethical, conflict of interest blind on purpose and dangerous, frankly, people who have ever been at the seat of power. Both of them are peddling their power and influence to foreign powers, just have to look at their foundation's (slush fund) receipts and the context that surrounds them.

I cannot possible think of a situation that would find me voting for Hillary, with the possible exception of being on a jury and voting guilty.

"House of Cards" is a Clinton documentary.

 

[What if...?]

That's interesting. But if you extrapolate that story, it doesn't really change the meaning of today much at all.

Now its much more about fraud. That a sucker can be conned.

That's another facet. Barnum had fake mermaids, and felt it OK as long as the "sucker" felt like he'd seen a real mermaid. That he felt he received fair value.

What he really meant is there's someone who'll buy what we're selling born every minute.

Not that there was.someone we can scam money out of born every minute. Which is more what "sucker" means now.

I just find it funny that the industry he's considered a founder of found it necessary to massage HIS image.

 

[Anagram]

Moderator's Warning:

Thread moved out of B/N

 

[iguanaman]

The Republican equivalent would be Reagan.

In some ways that is true but Reagan cut taxes on the upper brackets ran record deficits. Clinton raised them and ran record SURPLUSES. But carrying on the policies of Republicans was a mistake, especially Phil Gramm's banking deregulation. But to be fair, Clinton did run on a promise of compromise and that is what he did. Then you had the (formerly)much admired Greenspan banging the drum about how wonderful the deregulated banking world would be too.

 

[Μολὼν λαβέ]

Brilliant.

It depends on what the definition of "is" is.

 

[eohrnberger]

"House of Cards" is a Clinton documentary.

LOL. Yeah, pretty much it would seem.

So all the more surprising that some would vote Hill and Bill back into office.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

So your going to give Bill Clinton credit for the dot.com boom? Because that is where all the economic growth came from. Not his policies. This is the fallacy that Bill lovers hide behind. He just lucked into the largest boom in the history of the world as internet commerce exploded.

The Dot com boom and bust accounted for 2 million out of 22 million jobs created during the Clinton years. Thats why I went with the 20 million number rather than 22 million. Since I wanted to go with the net creation after the dot com bust.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

1) The Nasdaq tanked over 50% in Clinton's final year in office... so no, it wasn't a change in President. It was the fact that the biotech/tech/telecom boom that Clinton benefited from in the 90's blew up in 2000.

2) The 'budget' surpluses were just that... budgeted numbers. Not actual surpluses. There were no actual surpluses. The national debt has risen every year since Ike.

3) The economic boom was already under way prior to Clinton taking office. Kind of hard to give him credit for it. Though he does get credit for not derailing it.

Even after the dot com bust, Clinton still had 20 million net new jobs. We were coming out of a recession when Clinton took office, the boom did not start until around 1995, and anyway you slice it, the budget situation was far better in the Clinton years than it was in the decades before or since.

Clinton is a perfect example of what happens in this country under a moderate. The extremes of both sides hate moderates despite the fact that the economy has always done well under them (Clinton and Eisenhower for example).

 

[ALiberalModerate]

What baffles me is how African Americans so strongly supports them when their policies on trade, incarceration, and banking hurt that community more than any other.

Why Hillary Clinton Doesn’t Deserve the Black Vote | The Nation
Black Americans' love for Bill Clinton is built on a fallacy.

It is because African Americans saw their poverty rates drop to the lowest levels in U.S. history and their median incomes rise at a greater rate than they ever had before. Literally millions of African Americans moved into the middle class during the Clinton years. That is why they support them so strongly.

 

[David_N]

Even after the dot com bust, Clinton still had 20 million net new jobs. We were coming out of a recession when Clinton took office, the boom did not start until around 1995, and anyway you slice it, the budget situation was far better in the Clinton years than it was in the decades before or since.

Clinton is a perfect example of what happens in this country under a moderate. The extremes of both sides hate moderates despite the fact that the economy has always done well under them (Clinton and Eisenhower for example).

I don't understand why people praise the Clinton surplus.. It was horrible for the private sector.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

I don't understand why people praise the Clinton surplus.. It was horrible for the private sector.

Why do you say that? The private sector boomed in the 90s.

 

[NoLeftNoRight]

I would agree they are both intelligent. But they are also two of the most unethical, self centered, self serving people on this planet. They do not care about you or me. They care about their own personal power and influence. That is it.

It could well be that those supporting the Clintons are those who have been supported (paid off) by the Clintons in some way in return for political or financial "favors"
While we can't prove it (yet) and they will vehemently deny it, given the facts it seems most plausible.

The only other viable alternative is absolute ignorance.

 

[David_N]

Why do you say that? The private sector boomed in the 90s.

I've messaged you, the Clinton boom was driven by an unsustainable increase in private sector debt.

 

[NoLeftNoRight]

I think most have it wrong.

Bickering over good and bad presidents is a side show.

I think our political leaders are now SUBJECTS to the will of BIG MONEY.
The ruling class is the extreme wealthy class and NOT so called elected officials.

That's why nearly every elected official seems to follow the same course and that course seems to always go against the mainstream of the will of the people.

In every sense of the terms, it would take a billionaire to buck the billionaire "establishment". But why would one?