Total Posts:9|Showing Posts:1-9
Jump to topic:

Can We Have Bill Clinton Back

GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2013 1:23:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Life in the 90's under Bill Clinton was pretty good. We had the tech boom, budget surplus, balanced budget, negotiation between Clinton and Gingrich, and not much outrage at the government.

Bill Clinton's biggest scandal was sex in the White House which I consider a non-event that had zero impact on my life.

Obama's biggest scandal is the IRS targeting, Benghazi, Fast & Furious, destruction of healthcare system, NSA domestic spying, persecution of journalists, etc.

Yeah, Bill Clinton created the housing bubble that caused the subprime mortgage crisis, failed to get Bin Laden, some questionable foreign occupations, and a dozen things that made Alex Jones shout and pop some blood vessels over.

Clinton had some of the highest presidential approval ratings of all time, the United States was respected around the world, he was competent, and he managed not to destroy us from the inside out.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2013 1:41:15 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
This administration is so bad, it's hard to be even outraged, it's just downright embarrassing and shameful to watch. It's disappointing that we could have had a successful first black President like Alan West, Tim Scott, Ben Carson, etc.

It's not easy seeing Barack Obama having to be the sacrificial lamb of Progressivism. I'd rather Hillary or Al Gore take all the political heat of the past 5 years.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2013 10:18:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/7/2013 1:23:13 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Life in the 90's under Bill Clinton was pretty good.

Though only casually because of Clinton. It was the post-Reagan party. Mouth-hugs not included.

We had the tech boom, budget surplus, balanced budget,

Not because of Clinton.

negotiation between Clinton and Gingrich, and not much outrage at the government.

If by "negotiation" you mean political extortion, blackmail and a government shutdown then yeah.

Bill Clinton's biggest scandal was sex in the White House which I consider a non-event that had zero impact on my life.

But the MORAL FABRIC of the country was at stake! rofl... (I'm with you on that point, Geo.)

Obama's biggest scandal is the IRS targeting, Benghazi, Fast & Furious, destruction of healthcare system, NSA domestic spying, persecution of journalists, etc.

Fast and Furious (as well as Eric Holder's ongoing employment) is probably the worst of them all...

Yeah, Bill Clinton created the housing bubble that caused the subprime mortgage crisis, failed to get Bin Laden, some questionable foreign occupations, and a dozen things that made Alex Jones shout and pop some blood vessels over.

It wasn't that he "failed" to get Bin Laden... it was that Clinton was handed Bin Laden on a silver platter and he said no.

Clinton had some of the highest presidential approval ratings of all time,

So did Bush.

the United States was respected around the world,

So were we when we invaded Iraq...

he was competent, and he managed not to destroy us from the inside out.

Obama is competent too, he just has different priorities than Clinton did.
Tsar of DDO
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2013 5:28:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/7/2013 10:18:53 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/7/2013 1:23:13 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Life in the 90's under Bill Clinton was pretty good.

Though only casually because of Clinton. It was the post-Reagan party. Mouth-hugs not included.

We had the tech boom, budget surplus, balanced budget,

Not because of Clinton.

True but he could have ruined it.

negotiation between Clinton and Gingrich, and not much outrage at the government.

If by "negotiation" you mean political extortion, blackmail and a government shutdown then yeah.

He negotiated during the shutdown whereas Obama repeatedly said I will not negotiate.

Bill Clinton's biggest scandal was sex in the White House which I consider a non-event that had zero impact on my life.

But the MORAL FABRIC of the country was at stake! rofl... (I'm with you on that point, Geo.)

Obama's biggest scandal is the IRS targeting, Benghazi, Fast & Furious, destruction of healthcare system, NSA domestic spying, persecution of journalists, etc.

Fast and Furious (as well as Eric Holder's ongoing employment) is probably the worst of them all...

Yeah, Bill Clinton created the housing bubble that caused the subprime mortgage crisis, failed to get Bin Laden, some questionable foreign occupations, and a dozen things that made Alex Jones shout and pop some blood vessels over.

It wasn't that he "failed" to get Bin Laden... it was that Clinton was handed Bin Laden on a silver platter and he said no.

Exactly.

Clinton had some of the highest presidential approval ratings of all time,

So did Bush.

I think the stat suggested that Clinton had the highest 8th year approval rating whereas Bush had a disastrous approved rating in his final years.

the United States was respected around the world,

So were we when we invaded Iraq...

What.

he was competent, and he managed not to destroy us from the inside out.

Obama is competent too, he just has different priorities than Clinton did.

Obama is a much better salesman than Romney and McCain but he is failing at implementing his designed-to-fail agenda.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
HPWKA
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2013 6:30:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Life was good for white people under Clinton.

The 90's for the other 90% of the world was marked by US attacks in the Middle-East, Africa, and Latin America, either directly or through countries we armed and supported.

Blacks and Latinos faced significant discrimination, both in terms of the "drug-war", police brutality, and disenfranchisement.

Clinton isn't any different from the rest of the garbage in DC.
Feelings are the fleeting fancy of fools.
The search for truth in a world of lies is the only thing that matters.
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2013 8:49:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/7/2013 1:23:13 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Life in the 90's under Bill Clinton was pretty good. We had the tech boom, budget surplus, balanced budget, negotiation between Clinton and Gingrich, and not much outrage at the government.

Bill Clinton's biggest scandal was sex in the White House which I consider a non-event that had zero impact on my life.

Obama's biggest scandal is the IRS targeting, Benghazi, Fast & Furious, destruction of healthcare system, NSA domestic spying, persecution of journalists, etc.

Yeah, Bill Clinton created the housing bubble that caused the subprime mortgage crisis, failed to get Bin Laden, some questionable foreign occupations, and a dozen things that made Alex Jones shout and pop some blood vessels over.

Clinton had some of the highest presidential approval ratings of all time, the United States was respected around the world, he was competent, and he managed not to destroy us from the inside out.

For once I at least partially agree with you.

I think if someone wanted to make a case against term limits Clinton is the guy to point out.
Thank you for voting!
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2013 9:22:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/7/2013 1:23:13 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Life in the 90's under Bill Clinton was pretty good. We had the tech boom, budget surplus, balanced budget, negotiation between Clinton and Gingrich, and not much outrage at the government.

Bill Clinton's biggest scandal was sex in the White House which I consider a non-event that had zero impact on my life.

Obama's biggest scandal is the IRS targeting, Benghazi, Fast & Furious, destruction of healthcare system, NSA domestic spying, persecution of journalists, etc.

Yeah, Bill Clinton created the housing bubble that caused the subprime mortgage crisis, failed to get Bin Laden, some questionable foreign occupations, and a dozen things that made Alex Jones shout and pop some blood vessels over.

Clinton had some of the highest presidential approval ratings of all time, the United States was respected around the world, he was competent, and he managed not to destroy us from the inside out.

Bill Clinton was IMHO an amazing populist and a terrible president.

- The tech boom had nothing to do with Bill Clinton or Al Gore.

- The budget surplus came from the military downsizing concomitant with Reagan/Bush I winning the Cold War.

- Clinton scandals were IMHO unwarranted and indirect attacks by a GOP establishment that had nothing better to do and was infuriated that they somehow lost the '92 election.

- Housing bubble wasn't created by a POTUS, unless you credit it to Reagan by breaking the back on inflation, thereby facilitating a 25 year credit boom.

- Clinton's approval ratings pale in comparison to IMHO his primary failing, a wrong-headed foreign policy that absolutely failed to co-opt and capitalize on a weakened Russia. Putin got elected because Russia was a basket case during the Clinton years, and to my knowledge Clinton did nothing to score points with the Russian people or to win influence from what is still the largest power broker in Eurasia.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2013 6:01:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/8/2013 6:30:15 PM, HPWKA wrote:
Life was good for white people under Clinton.

This is true.

The 90's for the other 90% of the world was marked by US attacks in the Middle-East, Africa, and Latin America, either directly or through countries we armed and supported.

This is also true.

Blacks and Latinos faced significant discrimination, both in terms of the "drug-war", police brutality, and disenfranchisement.

This is true.

Clinton isn't any different from the rest of the garbage in DC.

The way America was in the 1990's isn't so much a result of Clinton so much as Clinton is a result of the way Americans were in the 1990s. That said, the 1990s were a great time for the middle class... and the upper class... but the seeds of postindustrialism were starting to take root in the American economy in a way that they had never before. Service industry jobs (which paid nothing) were en masse starting to take over manufacturing, unions were breaking apart (although largely because unions priced US blue collar labor out of the market) and there was a noticeable economic shift as a result of that.

On the social side of things women in the 1990s also continued to face substantial workplace discrimination, and let's not forget that it was under the Clinton administration that Don't Ask Don't Tell was put into effect... such that if you were both gay and in the military without regard to how well you served your country, you could -and would- be dishonorably discharged if you came out. That said, I'm glad I was only a kid in the 1990s. I didn't see or have to deal with any of the nonsense that was going on then.

I don't think Clinton was, on balance, a bad president... but I don't think he was all that wonderful either. Economically, he was far too conservative. Socially, he was far too conservative. Diplomatically, he was far too cowardly.
Tsar of DDO
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2013 10:01:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/7/2013 1:23:13 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
destruction of healthcare system

While I'm no fan of Obama and agree with several of your other criticisms of him, every single time I hear this from an American I can't help but chuckle and roll my eyes. You guys really can't deal with difference of opinion on how to approach problems, can you? Any changes you don't like are 'destruction' and anything other than complete capitulation with corporate interests are 'socialism'.

Obama has not 'destroyed' the healthcare system. He has changed it. Has the transition been smooth? No. Could it have been implemented better? Yes. Would the answers for those questions be any different for any change made by any president? No.

Here's an idea; if you are concerned about your quality of care going down or your costs going up, shop around. Unless you think HMOs are operating on such a slender profit margin that they can't possibly absorb some losses, it seems reasonable that market forces will mean they'll compete against each other in precisely such a way. After all, there is now a potentially larger market to compete for.

I think that mixed-market healthcare is potentially the best model there is, either for healthcare or for mixed markets. Things could always be implemented better, but the way the rightwing in the US has thrown an almighty infantile tantrum over changes to healthcare is embarrassing to watch and does nothing for your case but diminish its credibility. You know what happens to the part of the population with healthcare when a large minority have drastically inferior care or none? Historically speaking and, as far as I'm aware, without exception, they start getting ill too. And guess what that raises the cost of, further exacerbating the divide and therefore the rising costs problem itself?