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.
I voted for Clinton, but he was not necessarily a great president. He was a popular president - like Reagan. But popular presidents often get credit for things they don't actually do, and unpopular presidents get blamed for things that they actually can't control or even mitigate. I compare Clinton and Obama and with Clinton I see a guy who gets all the credit for an economy that was already well on its way to revving up before he even took office - I'll give him credit for not getting in everyone else's way. I think he was also better at forging relationships than Obama, and he generally a prudent decision maker. But he also gutted a lot of the New Deal protections that later resulted in economic catastrophe, and hardly anyone seems interested in talking about that. By contrast, Obama inherited a mess the likes of which hadn't been seen since January of 1933, and despite a nearly 5 percent decline in unemployment, a stock market index that has doubled, and a rebound of housing markets, and a return of American manufacturing, that just doesn't seem to be good enough for anyone, which is not to say Obama doesn't have his faults - clearly he does. I guess my point is that Clinton's overrated.
THe last great president in my mind would be Eisenhower.
I voted for Clinton, but he was not necessarily a great president. He was a popular president - like Reagan. But popular presidents often get credit for things they don't actually do, and unpopular presidents get blamed for things that they actually can't control or even mitigate. I compare Clinton and Obama and with Clinton I see a guy who gets all the credit for an economy that was already well on its way to revving up before he even took office - I'll give him credit for not getting in everyone else's way. I think he was also better at forging relationships than Obama, and he generally a prudent decision maker. But he also gutted a lot of the New Deal protections that later resulted in economic catastrophe, and hardly anyone seems interested in talking about that. By contrast, Obama inherited a mess the likes of which hadn't been seen since January of 1933, and despite a nearly 5 percent decline in unemployment, a stock market index that has doubled, and a rebound of housing markets, and a return of American manufacturing, that just doesn't seem to be good enough for anyone, which is not to say Obama doesn't have his faults - clearly he does. I guess my point is that Clinton's overrated.
THe last great president in my mind would be Eisenhower.
As I've said before, intellectually Clinton has no peer among the current living presidents. He has by all accounts a brilliant mind. However, for me he can never qualify as great, because of his acquiescence in the repeal of Glass-Steagall, the singularly most disastrous and destructive government act since the Great Depression. Also, there is his role in the trade deals, which have devastated the American middle and working classes. Though as I've noted, the majority of the blame for that belongs to corporate America, Wall Street, and their water-boys, the GOP.
The whole Lewinsky impeachment farce has no bearing on whether or not he was great. It was a sham, a politically motivated witch hunt.
God no. Ronald Reagan was the last Great President we had...followed by Dwight Eisenhower.
Clinton rode the dot.com bubble through his presidency and left office just before it burst, got his d*ck sucked in the oval office, repealed the depression era law widely regarded as the law that could have prevented the housing crisis, and he ramped up the community reinvestment act.
I would hardly qualify that as great.
The Great Ronald Reagan ramped up defense spending in order to outspend the Russians, put it all on a credit card and tripled the deficit--then claimed he won the Cold War. Against all advice, he refused to increase security at the Lebanon US Marines barracks before a suicide bomber killed 300 marines in those barracks. Presided over the stock market crash of 1986. Had hostages in Iran held until after his election so he could win with the promise of missiles and arms. Then "sold" the arms to Iran in order to fund the illegal war in Nicaragua. He mainstreamed the state mental patients and created the burgeoning homeless problem. Decreased federal funding for college programs that helped lower income students. Equated marijuana use with cocaine and heroin so that many people are rotting in jails for weed due to the ridiculous sentences. Ignored AIDs until embarrassed into acknowledging the cause of the disease was not being gay. Oh yeah--he invaded Granada using photocopies of tourist maps, an officer had to call his base in NC from a pay phone to request air cover, and an American bomb was mistakenly dropped on a mental hospital--a basic mess of an invasion which was supposed to restore lost glory to the US after the Vietnamese defeat.
Clinton did a better job with the economy, created more jobs than Reagan and left a surplus for Bush. In regard to job creation--Reagan's came from defense spending and they disappeared after the Cold War. Clinton presided over the dotcom bubble, but that industry certainly went on to create many more jobs than killing the defense industry. Clinton ended the Bosnian war before it became a much larger war in Europe. Clinton was a workaholic micro-manager and knew everything going on in his admin, Reagan took naps and let those around him run things. Clinton went on to create his global initiative and help people all over the world. Reagan went back to his ranch and was paid two million dollars to make a couple speeches in Japan. Clinton left office with the highest end-of-office approval rating of any U.S. president since World War II. Clinton is a humanitarian. Reagan was an actor.
God no. Ronald Reagan was the last Great President we had...followed by Dwight Eisenhower.
Clinton rode the dot.com bubble through his presidency and left office just before it burst, got his d*ck sucked in the oval office, repealed the depression era law widely regarded as the law that could have prevented the housing crisis, and he ramped up the community reinvestment act.
I would hardly qualify that as great.
LOL. The internet was part of the setup to offshore everything. The commodity modernization act and many other actions taken were the groundwork to leverage and offshore. Once the next pres came in they then massively offshored and the govt investments funds made a killing.
Originally posted by CDusr:
That 2010-2012 is on top of the -33% from 2000 onward. Automation isn't really an issue. It also creates jobs. Tech is over counted so it skews the numbers. WorseThantheGreat Depression: WhattheExpertsAreMissing ...
This is by design. Govt et al rakes it in from offshoring.
All the market changes took place to fatten the investment funds for the gang. So-called Govt investment funds being the biggest player. Most of the laundry list most recently was under Clinton. Though we can't leave outSarbanes-Oxley Act under Bush or China permanent favored nation status. This list is just a highlight of the subject, it is not all inclusive.
-----------------------------
Big leaps in the recent bubble blowing.
Interesting when you look at human resources and changes in the 90's along with major changes in global markets, i.e. derivatives via Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act (Also known as Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999), Commodity Modernization Act,(2000)etc... First comes the "public" internet around 1995 then the market changes then from around 2000 to fairly recently -33% manufacturing outsourcing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDusr As I mentioned previously, the so-called govt may be shut down, but those govt investment funds are not. Where Washington Should Go for Money: Havens
quote:
The real money is in the havens, but none of the lawmakers or the politicians would ever dare mention that word for fear of alienating the few bucks that are left here in the USA.
The top 20 US companies listed in Fortune 50 have set aside some $743 billion in profits in accounts located in offshore tax havens. According to Nerdwallet Taxes that would bring in about$119 billion extra for the Treasury if the money were in the US in accounts.
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.
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.
