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.
As a conservative/libertarian I had no problems with the Clinton years. A prosperous, booming economy; No wars; he implemented the defense of marriage act and don't ask, don't tell. And considering that the last two idiots in the White House (George W, Obama) have been a total disaster, its not surprising that people have a nostalgia for Billy boy.
Actually, cutting tax rates to improve the economy and create jobs by allowing hard working to people keep more of their own money so that it can be used efficiently and not wasted by the government, was done by John F. Kennedy.
It was also a policy of Calvin Coolidge and George W. Bush.
All three of those presidents, and Reagan, oversaw strong economies.
The only reason you and other liberals hate supply side economics is because (a) it works, and (b) it involves limited government involvement.
Is short, it promotes liberty and prosperity.
Liberals prefer tyranny and economic dependence on government by the people.
Tax cuts do not create jobs. New high demand products and services create jobs.
When poor and middle class Americans get tax cuts they go out and spend the money. And this spending at restaurants, stores, house renovation, vacations, getting internet service, ex.ex. stimulates the entire economy.
But when rich people get tax cuts, they put the money in the bank (like Warren Buffet says he does), or they build a new factory in Asia with the tax cut money.
Did you just conveniently forget that a recession began in 2000 and that Bill Clinton was president at that time?
George W. Bush went right to work to get the economy working again, and he brought us out of the Clinton recession.
Oh I see . So when a Democratic President is in power and the Congress is Republican than it's his fault for a ****ty economy. However, when a Republican President is in power but the Congress is Democratic it's their fault ? You actually expect people to take you serious with views like that? You are wrong on the timing as well. The recession didn't begin in the U.S. until March of 2001, not 2000 . Maybe you need to bone up on your facts some more before you try to play here .
You mean the Democrat recession which morphed into the Obama recession.
We had unprecedented economic growth for 6 years while Bush was president, until the Democrats took control of Congress in 2007.
Those Democrats legislated us straight down the toilet.
The 2008 recession was 100% the fault of the Democrat controlled Congress that ignored President Bush's warning that the housing bubble which the Democrats created by aggressively enforcing the Community Reinvestment Act was going to burst, and that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were going to fail
Bush did everything that he could to stave off the disaster, and was rebuffed each time by Congress, who had the power to act, but did not.
The Congress at the time was controlled by the Democrats, and the Democrats led us into recession, made it worse with the Dodd-Frank bill, and the failed Obama "stimulus".
We are still trying to recover from the Democrat/Obama recession and none of your made up "history" will change the fact that the Democrats in Congress were responsible for the economic crisis.
Actually he didn't, the Average GDP growth during Bill Clinton's tenure was higher than George Bushes by about a percentage point. The only year of unprecedented growth recently was in 1984 under Ronald Reagan. Prior to that the best years of growth were under Roosevelt and Truman with smatterings of good years under later Presidents. The myth that George Bush sat under unprecedented growth is just that, a myth. You could easily look up these facts yourself if you'd like, or I can link them here .
The following is just post-WWII, since these are my responses, and I'm limiting them to what I have a feel for.
If you mean the ability to remain personally popular no matter what, then Clinton and Reagan are head and shoulders above anyone else, by far. Kennedy might have been in the running for this too, had he lived long enough for his personal misdeeds to become public.
Smartest? Kennedy, Clinton, Carter, Obama.
Most personally decent? Bush Sr., Truman, Obama, Carter, Eisenhower. Reagan misses out in this category because he does not seem to have been a very good father to his children. Nixon misses because of his amazing two-facedness. Bush Jr misses because he has an arrogant mean streak. (On the other hand, I *like* his painting of his toes - shows a wry sense of humor about himself I wish we'd seen more often.)
Accomplish an agenda? Eisenhower, Reagan, Clinton, Bush Jr.
In a side note, I agree that Tom Paine is one of the greatest Americans most Americans ignore.
22 million new jobs in 8 years, and I LOVE Free Trade, as I like competition, and think we have what it takes to remain one of the 2 largest GDP's on the planet. No small task with just 4% of the world's population.
Quote:
Originally Posted by michiganmoon
In all honesty, we have had pretty poor presidents the past 25 years. Perhaps Bill Clinton is the best of the worst? There are only 4 presidents the past 25 years.
Yes Bill Clinton's presidency had the booming growth of the internet and the Baby Boomers in their peak spending years, both of which helped spur the economy. However, both of these would have happened no matter who was in office.
Let's look at Clinton's actions and record with the economy.
1) 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 for the next president that started 6 weeks into GWB's term.
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.
Bill Clinton's presidency contributed to today's economic woes.
Still foolishly ignoring that Clinton caused massive economic problems - even per Obama who blamed the primary cause of the current mess on the bipartisan deregulation that Clinton urged Democrats to vote for and was proud to sign into law.
Democrats demonize Clinton economic policies, while praising Clinton on the economy.
Actually he didn't, the Average GDP growth during Bill Clinton's tenure was higher than George Bushes by about a percentage point. The only year of unprecedented growth recently was in 1984 under Ronald Reagan. Prior to that the best years of growth were under Roosevelt and Truman with smatterings of good years under later Presidents. The myth that George Bush sat under unprecedented growth is just that, a myth. You could easily look up these facts yourself if you'd like, or I can link them here .
Not who you were talking to, but you are wrong.
The longest streak of growth was in fact under GWB. I am NOT saying he was good for the economy, etc... Clinton had some growth (thank you internet and baby boomers in peak spending years), but he did things that were detrimental to the economy.
I am saying, that factually, we had 52 straight months of growth under GWB, which is the longest on record for any president.
Last edited by michiganmoon; 06-15-2014 at 06:03 PM..
Who did he rape while in the Oval Office and how come formal charges were never pressed against him?
In other words, you're just using a buzzword to get your point across. Bill may be a lot of things, but rapist is not one of them.
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.
. So when a Democratic President is in power and the Congress is Republican than it's his fault for a ****ty economy. However, when a Republican President is in power but the Congress is Democratic it's their fault 
.
