Do you think Bill Clinton was the last great President the USA had? (employment, legal)

[Dude111]

Bill did a good job

[michiganmoon]

No, Bill Clinton was not a great president.

1) Pushing for China into the WTO and attacking those that opposed it. Granting permanent most favored nation status to China for trade. The result has been increased trade deficit and increased outsourcing. Clinton viciously attacked anyone who claimed what did happen would happen. Even some liberals are now recognizing this damage.

2) The GOP congress and Clinton deregulated by repealing Glass-Stegall. Clinton was "proud" to sign this bill into law, had vocalized years before that he would support the action, and encouraged Democrats to vote for it. Obama has blamed this for the current mess we are in.

3) Enacting NAFTA with bipartisan support. Many people feel as if this hurt the economy and made many Mexican farmers unemployed, some of which moved here.

4) The Housing Bubble started in 1998. Policies in the 1990s allowed this to happen. Bush can be blamed for allowing it to grow bigger and not cleaning it up (it still isn't cleaned up), but it was born in the Clinton presidency.

5) The NASDAQ Dot Com Bubble burst right before he left office. This index still hasn't recovered to its high. The government encouraged this bubble under Clinton's leadership.

6) The Bush Sr. recession ended before he took office and he left a recession that started 6 weeks into GWB's term. Industrial investment was dropping hard when Clinton left office.

7) There was no surplus that was passed to the next president, this myth was a rosy projection that assumed absurdly large growth, no NASDAQ bubble, and no housing bubble.

8) Every Fiscal Year under Clinton saw a rise in the national debt, the "surplus" was from spending several government program money now. Although many of the growth in debts were relatively small. Every budget that Clinton proposed was by fact over budget and not passed during the Gingrich years.


Bill Clinton's presidency contributed to today's economic woes.

[Bamford]

I seem to remember Americans been embarrassed by Bill's Sexual Antics and that cringe worthy 'I did not have sexual relations with that woman', which turned out to be a bit untruthful.

[nmnita]

Originally Posted by residinghere2007

Not to take up for old slick willy, but do you really think that JFK didn't sexually harass women or even FDR for that manner or the majority of the presidents prior to Clinton when it was common for powerful men to sexually harass women?

The only difference between them and Clinton was that the media became more "shock" oriented about the personal lives of politicians, especially the president, after the whole Watergate thing.

In regards to the actual performance of his presidency, Clinton was much better than the current president, GW Bush, Bush Sr., and even Reagan IMO. He was better than them all back to Eisenhower in that he oversaw such an era of prosperity in our country economically and we were at peace, the cold war was over, etc.

Way too many people focus on the women when Clinton is not unique in this, you just don't know a lot about the others like you do Clinton. I would rather have him as president right now than Obama, who is for all accounts a very committed husband and father and FWIW I'm black and would rather have Clinton lol.

I wish Hillary was actually one of those ladies who lets their husband walk all over her (but I have a feeling she doesn't she seems to be about her own business) as I would vote for her just to have Bill back after all the mess that has occurred since Bill left office. We wouldn't have all these stalemates right now most especially with Bill at the helm and more would be getting done.

you do bring up some good points: yes, many Pres. have harassed women, but I think, from the reports we have, Clinton went a step further. I am guessing the women JFK were involved with were totally consenting. Of course, the fact of 24/7 plus people being more open today does make this an interesting debate and one we will never know for certain. Now, as for Hillary, I would have respected her more had she walked out on him. I can't imagine any woman staying with a man that cheats over and over.

[nmnita]

Originally Posted by stoutboy

Lol. Reagan marks the exact moment our nation began circling the drain.

BS. He was respected around the world and he brought back to our country after 20 years of decline. Were you even an adult when he was President? It is hard for me to imagine anyone with their head out of the sand thinking Reagan was the start of our country's downfall, if we want to call it that. Ask the people of California what he did for the state?

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by katygirl68

I know the GOP wanted NAFTA and the China Act. My point was that Clinton, a Democratic president when these acts were passed and the topic of the OP, not only signed those deals into law, he actively fought for them. He had the power to stop those agreements from becoming law, and he didn't do that. Instead, his administration did what they could to get those trade deals.

What if Clinton was right?

Originally Posted by katygirl68

If the true intent of the trade deal was to raise Mexico up and make North America more competitive with the new European Union, then it would have been better to have those guarantees. Of course, the China deal was just a bad deal all around, except for the Chinese government and corporations.

Look, I understand that sometimes Economics is counter-intuitive, but you should be thrilled to death with those trade agreements.

You have permanently lost 11+ Million jobs.

Is that not enough?

Would you rather be 20+ Million jobs permanently lost right now? Because with those trade agreements, things would be far worse than you could ever imagine.

Originally Posted by residinghere2007

I think the last great president was Eisenhower.

Eisenhower sucked.

All he did was murder heads-of-State, over-throw governments, and then pulled a Castro and nationalized all of the disability insurance programs run by the States into OADI, which is about to go bankrupt, not to mention that OADI is worse than any State disability program in existence in terms of flexibility and benefits.

And on top of that, he botched Cuba.

Originally Posted by 14Bricks

Totally disagree. Clinton had a much better economy, the unemployment rate was below 5%, which is considered full employment.

Uh, Clinton redefined the definition of "unemployed" and that is the only reason you had 5% unemployment.

Originally Posted by 14Bricks

We weren't in a continual state of war.

Oh, yes you were. You were running the No-Fly Zone in Iraq, Clinton illegally engaged in secret wars in Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Afghansitan and the Balkans. I won't even get into the Iran-Kosovo Scandal where Clinton was illegally buying weapons from Iran to give to al-Zawahiri of al-Qaida to smuggle from Albania to Bosnia and Kosovo-Metohija.

Originally Posted by 14Bricks

I get tired of the revisonist history when it comes to Kennedy. The guy wasn't President long enough to be considered "great". And the things he did do while in office weren't all that great. 1. Bothcing the Bay of Pigs, 2. Almost starting WW3/nuclear war with the soviets, 3. Getting us involved in Vietnam. And oh yeah, people always bring up Clintons sex scandals, go look up JFK sexcapades along with the rest of his scum bag family.

Okay.

But, you forgot Berlin....I'm talking about The Wall, not the "I'm a jelly-filled donut" speech.

JFK botched that, too.

Originally Posted by Osito

Yeah but what would Bill Clinton have done after 9/11?

Probably bust a nut in the Offal Office with an intern.

Originally Posted by nmnita

Aedubbuer; it is a lot more than a simple blow job in the office; it is sexual harassment (did you forget about Paula Jones) just to mention one instance. We are not even talking about a guy who has sex kittens like JFK, we are talking serious allegations.

Okay.

Good point. Blow Job Bill used his power and position to intimated and coerce, whereas JFK did not.

Commenting....

Mircea

[stoutboy]

If you're going to whinge about the trade agreements, then be intellectually honest about. This is something supporters of the GOP consistently fail to do. Corporate America, through its lobbying and political donation activities (it donates to the GOP over the Dems at about 3-1), was the major impetus behind the trade deals. Corporate America has, of course, benefited enormously from those trade deals, largely at the expense of the US working and middle classes.

The GOP overwhelmingly supported those deals in the House and Senate, and is the primary reason those trade bills passed. The Democrats on the House vigorously opposed both, and there was enough opposition to make the vote veto-proof had enough GOP reps joined them.

Most GOP voters I know rue NAFTA and 'jobs going to China', yet inexplicably fail to hold their party to account for its role, which was primary.

Originally Posted by katygirl68

I know the GOP wanted NAFTA and the China Act. My point was that Clinton, a Democratic president when these acts were passed and the topic of the OP, not only signed those deals into law, he actively fought for them. He had the power to stop those agreements from becoming law, and he didn't do that. Instead, his administration did what they could to get those trade deals.

I never said Ross Perot was representative of the GOP, so I have no clue what you're talking about. I only mentioned Perot in the context of Clinton's Vice President debating Perot on the very topic of NAFTA. Perot correctly said that without forcing the other countries to pay equitable wages to workers as American companies, there would be a giant sucking sound of jobs going to other countries. As a billionaire businessman himself, Perot actually knew whereof he spoke.

If the true intent of the trade deal was to raise Mexico up and make North America more competitive with the new European Union, then it would have been better to have those guarantees. Of course, the China deal was just a bad deal all around, except for the Chinese government and corporations. Now we get cheaper prices on goods, but the goods aren't good (better for them and businesses as a consumer economy must continue to buy new gadgets). I remember all the politicians and think tanks saying we were moving from a manufacturing economy to the brains behind the economy, all the while forgetting that not everyone in America is able to work in high tech or finance or the housing market (and look how that turned out?). There is an increase in immigrants to take the leftover jobs available to those people. If you don't think that's true, try getting a job on a construction crew, window washing, landscaping service, garbage collection, etc. in a border state if you're a non-Spanish speaking white or black. Now they've outsourced manufacturing, call centers, etc., and there's even a push to increase visas for foreigners to take the "brainy" jobs we were supposed to get from all those free trade agreements.

[DauntlessDan]

Do you think Bill Clinton was the last great President the USA had?

He was the last great president the liberals and progressives had.

[2e1m5a]

I used to think so but he was just as much a war-mongerer and corporate shill as the rest of the Puppet Presidents since JFK.

[whogo]

Originally Posted by Mircea

Look, I understand that sometimes Economics is counter-intuitive, but you should be thrilled to death with those trade agreements.

You have permanently lost 11+ Million jobs.

Is that not enough?

Would you rather be 20+ Million jobs permanently lost right now? Because with those trade agreements, things would be far worse than you could ever imagine.

They have never read Ricardo.

Clinton was a mediocre President who looks pretty darn good compared to the last couple Presidents. A lot of the good "Clinton" did should be attributed to Gingrich and the House.