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.
Clinton, obama, reagan it doesn't matter, they all puppets.
I agree with this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleet
Clinton was the only Pres. who lied under oath; therefore he is more corrupt than "the rest."
And this made me LOL!!! They all lie and I bet more than one has lied under oath!
And besides, lying about getting a BJ from someone who is not your spouse is usually what any man would do in order to to have to face the wrath of his significant other. Many presidents have been much more corrupt and way bigger liars than Clinton.
I also agree with the posters who spoke of his speaking eloquency. He was and still is one of the best public speakers I have ever seen. Maybe it is the Southern charm or something but he has a spark about him in that way and I did like him as president, but I like most presidents in one way or another.
I didn't like a lot about him to, which is also the same with most presidents.
True, both NAFTA and the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act were bipartisan. NAFTA passed with a super majority only after the GOP picked up more Senate seats in 1994 and became the majority. Whereas the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999 was passed by a veto-proof majority. As I previously posted, no President (Republican or Democrat) is stupid enough to veto a bill that passes Congress with a veto-proof majority. It would be just as stupid to blame a President for not vetoing a bill that passes with a veto-proof majority.
I can blame, and have blamed, Clinton for a great many things, but he most certainly is not responsible for the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act. For that, you will have to blame the vast majority of Congress, not the President.
But he's just as to blame as the rest of them scumbags in both congress and the white house and I'm sick of partisanship, both parties don't give a flying worth a damn about this country.
Compared to Carter and Obama, Clinton was the best of the three, despite being impeached. The 1990s economy was certainly an improvement over today's economy, but not nearly as good as the Clinton media led everyone to believe.
Presidents have no effect on the state of the economy, either way. At least not directly. Through their appointment, and the Senate's confirmation, of the Chairman of the FRS, a President may very indirectly effect the economy, but otherwise they have no power to effect the economy. Congress, on the other hand, is a completely different story. Congress can make or break an economy almost overnight.
If you recall, the 1992 economy was rebounding after the 1989-1991 recession. It was not great, but it was improving. Then in 1993 the Democrat controlled Congress enacted the largest tax increase in US history. That put the economy into a screeching halt through the rest of the 1990s until it was suspended in May 2001 by a GOP controlled Congress.
What the GOP does not want you to know is that while they were in control of both houses of Congress they could have suspended or repealed that 1993 tax increase at anytime. All they needed was a veto-proof majority, which would not be difficult to obtain. However, they decided to keep that massive tax increase and apply it against the budget deficit. Which is how they were able to balance the budget within three years instead of the decade that Clinton said it would take.
Meanwhile, the economy continued to move along sluggishly. Never getting more than 5% growth in the GDP, but also never dropping below 2% growth in the GDP. It was certainly not the "booming" economy the Clinton media was portraying.
Clinton showed nothing but contempt and disrespect for the office he held. In that respect, both Obama and Bush are/were better. Bush had the advantage of a GOP controlled House for his first six years, and a GOP controlled Senate for four years. Whereas Clinton only had a Democrat controlled Congress for his first two years. That makes it difficult to make a fair comparison.
I will say this much, as Speaker of the House, Tom Foley was far more rational than Nancy Pelosi. I did not agree with Foley's agenda, but at least he was not bat**** crazy like Pelosi, who could not even be bothered to pass a single budget while she was Speaker.
Foley at least understood that it is the constitutional responsibility of the House to originate all budgets. Pelosi merely laughed whenever the US Constitution was mentioned.
You can thank the republicans for letting clinton balance the budget.
and both parties have screwed up this country since 1913 (except for JFK).
hmm was Clinton a good president..well I think so-as in terms of economy we were thriving-however, he was sneaky and didn't take Osama when he had the chance..but everyone is a Monday morning quarterback I voted for him and I'm not sure what it is but I like the guy-
You can thank the republicans for letting clinton balance the budget.
and both parties have screwed up this country since 1913 (except for JFK).
Presidents do not balance budgets, Congress does. You really should pick up a copy of the US Constitution and read it some time. You clearly have no clue how your own government functions.
He was a decent President, although he is a dispicable man.
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.
