U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-09-2018, 05:58 AM
 
772 posts, read 215,206 times
Reputation: 1217

Advertisements

Well, his Presidency is already “history”- nearly 30 years ago- and we’ve seen how the mainstream media remembers him.

He was a fine person and a very adept president on foreign policy matters.

As I told groups when I campaigned for him in 1992, the economic recovery had already started and renewed prosperity was just around the corner, as we saw in the mid- to late 1990s. Too bad he didn’t get credit for that and people didn’t think that he cared about domestic matters.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-09-2018, 08:58 AM
 
Location: Pennsylvania
5,437 posts, read 9,655,830 times
Reputation: 8677
Assuming Biden or Sanders don't become president, he was the last pre-boomer president, and the 92 election definitely painted him as out of touch with the bulk of America - the perception of his 'grocery scanner' moment didn't help. He had also been in office as president or VP for 12 years, Perot was a spoiler, and Clinton ran against these things very effectively. The sluggish economy was the final nail.

His main legacy will be overseeing the end of the Cold War. The liberation of Kuwait has been overshadowed by more recent events.

Plus, he was great on the Simpsons.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2018, 05:25 PM
 
Location: London
3,928 posts, read 3,393,491 times
Reputation: 1683
Quote:
Originally Posted by bale002 View Post
We all disappear into the historical ether. Even Marcus Aurelius said so.

Still, it's more the Bush family - finance, oil, real estate -, arguably the most powerful in US history to date, starting with Senator Prescott Bush, and there is a non-negligible probability that the current Texas Land Commissioner could one day be president of the United States, for an unprecedented three generations occupying that highest office.


If that were to happen, they would certainly stand out in the annals of US history for at least another century or two, maybe longer.
As presidents the Bushes will be forgotten.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-10-2018, 08:23 AM
 
4 posts, read 399 times
Reputation: 10
nice guy
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-10-2018, 10:11 AM
 
Location: Corona del Mar & Coronado, CA
1,627 posts, read 1,149,324 times
Reputation: 2066
Quote:
Originally Posted by LIFL View Post
He was the last president that really didn't do all that much. Perhaps that was a good thing, but he was definitely the last of a kind.
GHWB did a heck of a lot more than Clinton ever did. He created the RTC, passed the ADA, built a huge coalition to expel Iraq from Kuwait, presided over the fall of the Berlin Wall and aided the emerging democracies of Eastern Europe, the Clean Air Act, immigration reform, START I and signed NAR agreements with the Soviet breakaway states.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Astral_Weeks View Post
5. Raising taxes in 1990 which in concert with Bill Clinton's tax increase in 1993 helped give the U.S. its first balanced budget since LBJ;
It wasn't raising taxes that balanced the budget it was the roaring economy and structural changes to capital formation that started under Reagan, the slashing of the military budget (that just led to larger deficits later when it became necessary to re-arm) and a Republican House that restrained Clinton's spending desires.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LINative View Post
All this and when you have him on the ropes and you let him stay in power? Young Americans and other allies died and Kuwait was ravaged and yet you let their murderer stay in power - because you made some diplomatic deals with who --- the United Nations or the Saudis?!?
It was an entire coalition of Middle Eastern countries plus getting China and Russia to agree to sit on the sidelines. Any attempt to go beyond pushing Iraq out of Kuwait would have had grave consequences.

Quote:
Originally Posted by John-UK View Post
The British wanted to go to Baghdad. They understood the region having controlled Iraq.
Quote:
Originally Posted by John-UK View Post
As presidents the Bushes will be forgotten.
The UK CREATED the mess in the Middle East by the awful way they handled the break-up of the Ottoman Empire at the end of WWI. There was no rhyme or reason behind placing the borders for Iran, Iraq, Syria, Jordan and the Palestine area, where they did. It is why the Middle East has been in unrest ever since 1919.


Both Bushs will be well remembered.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-12-2018, 01:57 PM
 
Location: Round Rock, Texas
7,924 posts, read 7,940,669 times
Reputation: 6420
The so-called “surplus” (some fancy accounting charades, really) of the late 1990s was also due to the republican congress that cut the rate of spending, thereby preventing a larger deficit.
Of course Clinton tried to take credit for it, but he and his party fought against those republican spending rate cuts very loudly.
Prior to the republican takeover of Congress in January, 1995, the CBO had predicted rising deficits indefinitely.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2018, 03:23 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles
2,558 posts, read 1,393,390 times
Reputation: 2891
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimTheEnchanter View Post

Both Bushs will be well remembered.

The father for a steady hand in foreign policy during times of change and the son for an ill-advised adventure into Iraq financed on a credit card.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2018, 03:36 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles
2,558 posts, read 1,393,390 times
Reputation: 2891
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScoPro View Post
The so-called “surplus” (some fancy accounting charades, really) of the late 1990s was also due to the republican congress that cut the rate of spending, thereby preventing a larger deficit.
Of course Clinton tried to take credit for it, but he and his party fought against those republican spending rate cuts very loudly.
Prior to the republican takeover of Congress in January, 1995, the CBO had predicted rising deficits indefinitely.

Oh come on, the Republicans proposed to "spend" the 90's surplus on tax cuts. Clinton insisted on saving the surplus, vetoing their plan. Of course, the Republicans ultimately succeeded when Clinton left office and was replaced by Bush junior who financed two wars on tax cuts and a credit card.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2018, 03:44 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles
2,558 posts, read 1,393,390 times
Reputation: 2891
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimTheEnchanter View Post
It wasn't raising taxes that balanced the budget it was the roaring economy and structural changes to capital formation that started under Reagan, the slashing of the military budget (that just led to larger deficits later when it became necessary to re-arm) and a Republican House that restrained Clinton's spending desires.
.
Only a partisan hack would make such a claim. The truth is that a President has far less direct influence on the performance of the economy than many people realize.

Presidential economic records are highly dependent on the dumb luck of where the nation is in the economic cycle. And the White House has no control over the demographic and technological forces that influence the economy.

So while I give credit to both Bush senior and Bill Clinton for being fiscally responsible and raising taxes after Ronnie blew up the deficit in the 80's, the fact is the 90's economic boom was driven by changes in technology and the peak earning years of the baby boom. That economic boom, which nothing to do with anything any president did, combined with prudent fiscal policy is what caused the budget to finally get balanced.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2018, 04:40 PM
 
Location: Under Moon & Star
1,759 posts, read 636,487 times
Reputation: 9896
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScoPro View Post
The so-called “surplus” (some fancy accounting charades, really) of the late 1990s was also due to the republican congress that cut the rate of spending, thereby preventing a larger deficit.
Confused much? In one sentence you dismiss the budget surplus as bogus, then congratulate the GOP for the surplus. You should decide whether it's chicanery or Republican brilliance, as you sound rather ludicrous simultaneously claiming it's both.

Fact:
The budget deficit began dropping in 1993 due to the Democratic Congress getting President Bush to accept tax increases, increasing federal revenues - despite Republican claims that the opposite would happen, and that it would increase the economic downturn. (Clinton was President in 1993, but economic developments have a lagtime of a year or two) It was a long time getting to the surplus but that process began long before the GOP took Congress in 1995.



Fact:
Clinton and the Democrats then raised taxes again. The GOP again insisted that this would plague the economy, specifically that it would plunge it back into recession. Again, the GOP was wrong. As previously, the closing of the deficit had positive effects.

Fact:
It is not true that the GOP cut the rate of spending under President Clinton. As shown below, spending was fairly flat during the Clinton administration, though it did increase somewhat after the Republicans took Congress. There were cuts here and there but they were always offset by increases elsewhere.

https://www.mercatus.org/sites/defau...apita-vero.png

Fact:
The resolution of the government shutdown of 1996 - the one Gingrich later bragged that he decided to cause because he was unhappy about his seating arrangements on Air Force One while en route to Yitzak Rabin's funeral - resulted in tax increases. If you think that was the GOP, and not Clinton, winning, then you're as confused as you are about whether or not the surplus was fake or a GOP triumph.

Fact:
In 2001, the United States swapped out a Democratic President for a Republican one, while Congress stayed in GOP hands. The result? A return to deficits. That's all you need to know right there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top