Lets go back to the Clinton Economy! Which is what?

@andy77e (5165)
United States
September 7, 2012 6:55pm CST
Every once in a while, I see an idiotic statement that just has to be responded too. It's just so dumb, you have to point it out. If Obama supports the Economy Clinton had, then I support Obama! This is foolish. What kind of economy Clinton had, and what kind of economy Clinton supported, are two very different things. Clinton was not able to get the economy he wanted. Example.... The Clinton Stimulus package was shot down, and never passed. The Clinton Health Care Reform was shot down, and never passed. The Clinton tax cut he promised, and tax hike he threatened, never passed. He was able to pass some rather small tax increases, but nothing very large. More than this, Clinton had two policies that were passed, that were both Republican Free-Market Capitalist policies. One he didn't support, Welfare Reform, which he veto'd twice before Republicans pushed through the Welfare to Work requirement. This pushed more people off of being wealth consumers that are no benefit to society, into wealth producers that are a benefit to society. A reform that he promised to "fix" later. One he did support, but everyone else didn't, NAFTA. A free-market capitalist style policy that benefited both Mexico and the US economies. So to recap, Clinton among a list of policy rejections, only passed one policy that he support, and it's the exact policy most on the left are against. Obama on the other hand, has done the exact opposite of what Clinton accomplished, which is exactly what Clinton wanted. He passed the Stimulus, and sank the country trillions in debt. He passed Health Reform, which drove use trillions of dollars into future liabilities, and is driving up health care costs as we speak. He removed the work requirement from welfare, which will allow people to cease to produce wealth to build the economy, and instead just consume wealth to destroy the economy. He has threatened to move against China's international trade, which would in effect remove free-trade, harming the US more than it would China. And he has by virtue of the fact he increased the deficit to a record $1.6 Trillion, imposed a future tax that the citizens must repay. In short, everything Obama has done, and the economy we are now with, is in fact the very kind of Economy Bill Clinton tried for back in the 90s. This is it guys! This is the Clinton economy! This is exactly the economy we would have had, if the Republicans had not prevented Bill Clinton from screwing everything up. In fact, the balance budget goal, was only sought for after Republicans won Congress in 1994. Prior to 1994, not a single Clinton budget proposal even suggested a balanced budget. It was the Republicans who constantly cut spending, over and over, that allowed for the balanced budget. So even the budget wasn't what Clinton wanted. It's what Clinton got because the Republicans kept cutting his spending proposals.
3 people like this
5 responses
@rodney850 (2145)
• United States
8 Sep 12
Andy, Well said! The sad part of this all is unless we can change the majority in the senate and keep the majority in the house the liberals win either way. If Romney defeats obama but congress stays the same or we lose the house, ALL of the obama atrocities stay in place and our healthcare system goes from second to none to arguably the worst in the world. People have to understand that the control for the most part in is congress, not the whitehouse. Why do you think that congress will not pass a line item veto? Because they would lose their greatest power and that would be pork. Most of the time the president, no matter who he is, is forced to sign bills laden with waste but to get what HE wants passed he must concede these other items. This is something America must put a stop to and force our ELECTED officials to stop spending OUR money wastefully. Democrat, republican or independant, nothing will ever change until we change the problem and it lies in congress, nowhere else.
2 people like this
@laglen (19782)
• United States
9 Sep 12
In my opinion, the President has the media and the American people. When doing a line item veto to cut pork, do it in front of America. Let the congress critters explain to the public why they insist on millions to save a mouse.
@bestboy19 (5482)
• United States
8 Sep 12
All those bows Clinton has taken for his years in office should go to Newt Gingrich for his Contract With America and to the American voters who ousted the Democrats from the House after four decades as the majority party. One thing I will say about Clinton, unlike Obama, he had the good sense to realize it was in his best interest to work with his opposition rather than against them. I'm afraid Obama believes his own press, that he can do no wrong.
1 person likes this
@laglen (19782)
• United States
9 Sep 12
Bottom line, the President is the face, but Congress is the brains (I use the term lightly). We have to change the Senate to get anything done. The bills wasting away on the Senate floor is reprehensible. They should NOT get a paycheck. They are not doing their job.
@andy77e (5165)
• United States
9 Sep 12
Agreed, but they shouldn't be paid at all. The worst thing we can possibly have in government is career politicians who have no invested interest in the economy. They won't care if they policies they push wipe out half the country, because they are paid from tax money in the nations capital. Did you ever wonder how all the government people in the Kremlin, or in China's Communist party, or in India or Cuba.... how is it that they doomed their respective countries into an impoverished 3rd world status... and it never occurred to them the damage they were doing? How did all of them not see the vast destruction they were doing? Can we simply assume all of them were evil greedy people who wanted their home countries ruined? That's not logical. There's another answer. It's because they were secure in their own illusion of wealth. They lived in the safety of their government jobs, insulated from the destruction around them. And not just the government jobs, but the city the government is based in. The city of Moscow benefited greatly from the Kremlin, just as Beijing, Havana, and Caracas have all benefited from Chairman Mao, Castro, and Chavez. And the same is true today in the US. Which US State has the highest amount of Federal Government spending per person? New York? Massachusetts? California? No, the state which got the most money per person, isn't even a state. The District of Columbia... Washington DC gets more money than any other state in the Union. When most of the country is in an economic slump, DC doesn't even notice anymore. The career politicians are building their illusion of wealth around them, even as we speak. This is why it's so very important, to not have career politicians. Being in government is not supposed to be a job, it's supposed to be civil service. We're supposed to have business people in government. People who own and operate their own businesses. That way they don't need to be 'paid' to work for government. And also, if bad policy is passed, and their business suffers, they can say "hey my business is suffering from this bad policy. And if my business is suffering, others are too. We need to change this bad policy." But instead we want career politicians who screw up the entire country, and never notice the damage they are doing.
2 people like this
@laglen (19782)
• United States
10 Sep 12
great points Andy. I think a lottery for political office would be a great idea. Everybody serve one term.
@peavey (16587)
• United States
8 Sep 12
Very well said. Clinton would have done exactly what Obama has done except that his Congress wouldn't let him get away with it. At the changing of the guard this November, we have to remember to change the congress, too. One thing about Clinton, though: He never blamed the good economy on Bush, although he could have.
@andy77e (5165)
• United States
8 Sep 12
This is so brilliant, I'm a little ticked I never thought of it. Clinton had MORE reason to blame Bush Sr for the economy, than Obama had to blame Bush Jr for the economy! Think about it. Even NAFTA signed by Clinton in 1992, was only after Bush Sr had been working on it for 4 years! Negotiations for NAFTA started in 1988! So literally until the 1996 Welfare reform, every aspect of economic policy was still Bush Sr policy. Alternatively, very little of economic policy of our economy of today was the policy of Bush Jr. Nearly everything is Obama policy. Funny how that works huh?
1 person likes this
@peavey (16587)
• United States
8 Sep 12
Yes, it is.
@GardenGerty (99194)
• United States
8 Sep 12
You have just pointed out the difference between a catchy slogan and reality. Thank you very much for your clarity on these issues. People will pick up a slogan or phrase and run with it, without knowing what they are talking about.