Clinton's Accomplishments???

[berreal]

Let me just cut through the Osama spin I see going around from the right wing lunatics on this board!

Bill Clinton gave Osama the required attention. He understood back then that Osama was just a hand full of ill equipped loonies in slippers with ill intentions. Subsequently ....he went after Ben Ladin ....true he failed. But he didn't try to stop the world to catch the mystic super-natural GOD ...bush made Osama bin Laden out to be. And bush inflate and hype this guy purly for political purposes.

In fact its a tried and true trend for bush .....he hyped the mighty pish-posh Iraqi army, he hyped Zarqawi so much that people thought the war was going to end when he was killed. And here is again hyping Ahmadinejad to be this world super power out to nuke us ...when Ahmadinejad doesn't even control the army in Iran ...let alone the Iranian guard!

But make no mistake ....the right wing lunatics always need a bogey man ...and bush will serve it up!

Osama doesn't walk through walls!! Its god dam pitiful hearing the leader of worlds mightiest army refering to thugs like Zarqawi as if he's some equal!!

My God we got war ships, the most high tech air force ... submarines sitting off the cost ...and Zarqawi is some sort of worthy adversory??? Zarqawi dressed ...in Nike shoes ....pppuuullleezzee!!
And the same dam thing applies to Bin laden!!

OK ..Bill Clinton didn't get him ... prior to 9/11!!

But after 9/11 ...I would bet any other president ..democrat or republican (including Bill) would have gone out and took care of business ...and by now Bin Laden would be history!!

Instead ...$400B later ...almost 4,000 more Americans killled and the man responsible for the act is still giving the American people monthly state of the unions!!

So to that end what else much bush do ...but try to tell the sheep that Bin Laden ...is evil ...wwwoooo ..he got mystic super-natural powers ...he can walk through walls ...thats why he's hard to catch!!

 

[vyo476]

You know, berreal, you're starting to almost make sense.

I think I need to go back to the doctor's now.

 

[ArmChair General]

It's ArmChair's world. We just live in it.

know what I'm sayin'?

 

[Bunz]

You know, berreal, you're starting to almost make sense.

I think I need to go back to the doctor's now.

Ditto, I dont wear glasses, docs always told me I had good vision. Better get them checked. Keep it up Berreal.
Edited to expand on bird flu. I live in the area the federal government said that bird flu was just waiting to infiltrate, those nasty immigrant birds that are just waiting to kill us tomorrow. That was two years ago. The last year, not a peep. Why, because it is all scare tactics and hype. I find it funny that the feds put the DHS in charge of the fight against it, instead of the CDC. The feds in 2006 were screaming at the top of thier lungs that sandpipers and seagulls hate us for our freedoms and want to kill our children. In the meantime, our state and local officials said basically....look folks. Be careful, but do what you have always done. So where did bird flu go? Is it hangin out with OBL?

 

[Popeye]

Edited to expand on bird flu. I live in the area the federal government said that bird flu was just waiting to infiltrate, those nasty immigrant birds that are just waiting to kill us tomorrow. That was two years ago. The last year, not a peep. Why, because it is all scare tactics and hype. I find it funny that the feds put the DHS in charge of the fight against it, instead of the CDC. The feds in 2006 were screaming at the top of thier lungs that sandpipers and seagulls hate us for our freedoms and want to kill our children. In the meantime, our state and local officials said basically....look folks. Be careful, but do what you have always done. So where did bird flu go? Is it hangin out with OBL?

That's interesting, I've got a few laying hens that range freely on our property. The way the goverment was talking several years ago, the wild birds would have infected my hens by now, and then who knows? As far as I know there hasn't been a case in North America, or am I wrong about that? I do see where Alaska is supposed to be the most likely point of entry.

 

[Bunz]

That's interesting, I've got a few laying hens that range freely on our property. The way the goverment was talking several years ago, the wild birds would have infected my hens by now, and then who knows? As far as I know there hasn't been a case in North America, or am I wrong about that? I do see where Alaska is supposed to be the most likely point of entry.

Without getting to far off topic. It was complete scare tactics. Michael Chertoff Sec DHS, on TV giving briefings about H5N1 and how it will likely hit Alaska in 2006 and could easily spread to the rest of the world blah blah blah. Well a few things I will point out, if bird flu were to pop up in Alaska, it would be on the west coast, where I live. Which is very remote, there are no roads connected towns. One much fly from place to place. The notion that a perfectly healthy bird would get infected by domestic birds in Asia and then be able to make the several thousand mile migration, and then come in contact with a human in the process is a shot in the dark of the bad news lottery. We have very few domesticated birds in Alaska in general and they are scarce in the western region. There is one lady in my town who has 6 chickens and 4 geese. Thats it in a region the size of Georgia. We hunt widely for ducks and geese and other game birds. But we(we meaning nobody) never have bothered with messing with birds that were already dead. We only bother with the ones we shot. Regardless, it was borderline hilarious watching the news out of Anchorage that brings in the Bush Administration scare monger. Then to have the local Alaskan officials kinda snickering and telling everyone just to use extra caution and "Dont buy the hype" literally, a state biologist said that publicly.

 

[palerider]

These questions and baseless conclusions of yours have been answered and refuted again, and again and again.

No they haven't popeye. You and topgun have repeatedly posted opinion pieces that state that clinton did this and clinton did that, but to date, you have not said what he did to accomplish any of the accomplishments you have accredited him with other than the 93 budget plan which failed to achieve its stated goals.

His accomplishments, with sources, have been listed again, and again and again.

I don't need to be told what the economy was like during clinton's terms. And that wasn't the question being asked. The question that I have been asking which has yet to be answered is WHAT DID HE DO?

You are in such denial of Bill Clinton's accomplishments that you have even gone so far as to call a man such as Alan Greenspan a liar.

I am still waiting for you to say what he did to "accomplish" the things you give him credit for. Simply repeating the list ad nauseum and providing quote after quote of people who say he did it is pointless unless you, or anyone else, can say what it was that he did. Answering "the 93 budget" is pointless if you are trying to give him credit because the 93 budget failed to achieve its stated goals. If the 93 budget is your only answer, then you are saying that the economy flourished beause clinton's plan failed.

Greenspan has lied. I pointed out his lies and to date, neither you, nor any of your clintonite buds has refuted the point. If a man is caught in lies, then he is a liar.

That you would have to go to such questionable lengths to try and deny his accomplishments, says something about the strength and success of Bill Clinton's presidency.

I have not denied his accomplishments. I have asked what he did. the fact that neither you nor any other liberal is able to answer such a simple question other than to continue to point to a budget plan that failed to achieve its state goals throws the entire "accomplishments" claim into question.

When Bill Clinton was President, the country exuded optimism, now under George Bush it exudes pessimism. History will rate Bill Clinton as one of our finest, accept it.

That doesn't answer the question. WHAT DID HE DO TO ACCOMPLISH THE THINGS YOU GIVE HIM CREDIT FOR ACCOMPLISHING?

By the way, have you looked at the market, or the economy lately? Are you in the market? Anyone who is exuding pessimism is an idiot.

 

[palerider]

thats pretty much what he does in every thread. but its cool. me and P-Rider we homys.

I asked a question. 500 pounds of BS that doesn't answer the question, doesn't constitute an answer. I will continue to ask, until they provide an answer or simply run away from the question.

It is interesting that you provided the actual answer and isn't it interesting that none of the clintonites commented on it? Kudos for your honesty.

 

[top gun]

President Clinton, Vice President Gore, and Congressional Democrats Win a Landmark Budget
December 15, 2000

All year, President Clinton, Vice President Gore, and congressional Democrats have fought for a fiscally responsible budget that maintains America's prosperity by paying down the debt while making key investments in education, health care, and other priorities for America. Today, President Clinton and Congress completed their work on the budget, agreeing on a budget for education, health, and labor programs and the New Markets initiative.

IN ADDITION TO THE PRESIDENT’S PROGRESS ON EDUCATION AND HEALTH, THIS YEAR’S BUDGET INCLUDES HIS OTHER VITAL PRIORITIES FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE:

Protecting Fiscal Discipline and Paying Down the Debt. The budget is a victory for President Clinton’s stand for fiscal discipline. Between 1981 and 1992, the debt quadrupled. When President Clinton and Vice President Gore took office, the budget deficit was $290 billion and it was projected to be $455 billion by 2000. As a result of the tough and sometimes unpopular choices made by President Clinton, we have seen eight consecutive years of fiscal improvement for the first time in America’s history, bringing last year’s budget to a unified surplus of $237 billion, the largest ever. With this surplus, we have been able to reverse this trend of exploding debt by paying down the debt for three years in a row.

– Protecting Fiscal Discipline. The Republicans proposed fiscally irresponsible tax cuts that would have jeopardized this record of fiscal discipline. In August, President Clinton vetoed Republican tax cuts that were part of their 10-year tax plan that would drain nearly $2 trillion from the surplus, drive us back into deficits, and make it impossible to eliminate our debt by 2012.

– Paying Down the Debt. Because record deficits have become record surpluses, we were able to cut our debt by $223 billion last year, the largest one-year debt reduction in U.S. history. The debt at the end of FY 2000 was $2.4 trillion lower than it was projected to be in the last forecast before the President's program was put in place. We can pay off our debt by 2012, making America debt-free for the first time since Andrew Jackson was President in 1835.

– Benefiting from Debt Reduction. Already, debt reduction has meant about $2,000 a year in lower interest payments for home mortgages, about $200 a year in lower car payments, and about $200 a year for lower student loan payments. Continuing to pay down the debt will keep interest rates about a point lower over the next decade, saving American families over $300 billion in home mortgages alone.

 

[top gun]

ROGER ALTMAN

Clintonism made the Democratic Party stand for rising jobs, rising income, fiscal discipline, enlightened trade, the Earned Income Tax Credit, and welfare reform, among other policies.

When we contrast those achievements with what the Republicans stand for today, we see completely different results. By pursuing policies that are inhospitable to maximum economic performance, the Bush administration has achieved weak results by almost every economic measure. The central issue in this election is whether we stay on the Bush track, which is radical and wrong, or return to the basic centrist economic principles that led to the prosperity of the 1990s.

We all know that government does not directly create jobs, income or wealth; the private sector is the engine of growth and prosperity. But government can promulgate policies that are conducive to successful economic performance. During most of the 1990s our government did that. It contributed to the remarkable prosperity that affected all income categories of Americans, including our poorest citizens.

Six basic principles underlie the Clinton economic success story. I don't really think of them as Democratic principles or Republican principles, but as commonsense centrist principles. They are: sound budgeting; a tax policy that concentrates on middle-income and working American families; a health care policy that finally insures most Americans and lowers health cost inflation; true education reform and the funding that goes with it; an enlightened trade policy; and stable American relations in the world community. Those six principles are quite simple and fundamental. But the Bush administration has departed from every single one of them. Let's review the record:

Growth. Measured from November 2001, the beginning of the current recovery (as defined by the National Bureau of Economic Research), our economy is experiencing the slowest recovery growth in 70 years.

Fiscal policy. The Bush administration inherited an approximately $5.5 trillion 10-year cumulative surplus (according to Goldman Sachs). It has produced approximately the same sized 10-year cumulative deficit in only 3 1/2 years. That's the worst record in proportionate terms since George Washington.

Spending. According to The Wall Street Journal, spending since President Bush took office has risen 8.2 percent on a compound annual rate basis. During the eight Clinton years the figure was 3.2 percent.

Exports. Bush is on his way to being the first president ever to see a decline in real exports. That's astonishing, in view of world population and trade growth.

Jobs. Since the beginning of the recovery, our economy is down about 5.6 million jobs compared with what a normal recovery would have produced.

Standard of living. This is the most important index -- real family income. It has declined about $1,500 per average American family since Bush took office, because average American families are paying, on average, $1,000 more for energy; $3,500 more for health care; and $1,200 (35 percent) more for college.

Contrast that with the Clinton record. On growth, over the eight years of the Clinton administration, the economy grew 3.6 percent. Bush to date: 2.7 percent.

On the budget: Clinton produced the first balanced budget in 40 years, followed by actual surpluses and the first serious pay-down of the national debt in living memory. On spending, as mentioned previously: an 8.2 percent increase under Bush versus 3.2 percent under Clinton. On jobs, the numbers are truly astounding: The Clinton administration oversaw the creation of 23.5 million jobs over eight years and saw a substantial number of net new jobs created every single year. On family incomes, an average $7,200 per family increase. And on stock prices, for example, we know that the Clinton years were far better on average than we've seen since Bush took office, even putting aside the bubble period.

The contrast between the Bush and Clinton policies, and the Bush and Clinton economic results, is stark. Again, it shows what a strong connection exists between the economic principles followed and the economic results.

Clinton's system of caps on nondefense discretionary spending. Any increases in this category of spending cannot exceed the rate of inflation. If they do, an automatic, across-the-board cut in the same category is implemented to bring the total back down to the inflation-based cap. Because we lived by these rules during the Clinton years, we saw federal spending rise only 3.2 percent. In the Bush years, it has already risen by almost three times that amount. Even if you exclude increased defense and homeland security costs, federal spending has risen about 2 1/2 times as much under Bush.

These are the basic policies that this country needs. They're not liberal policies; they're not tax-and-spend policies. They are classic centrist ones. Contrast these to the Bush approach, which is not at all conservative, but radical.

 

[top gun]

 

[Popeye]

Here’s the top five deficits of all time:

1. 2004 (George W. Bush) $413 billion
2. 2003 (George W. Bush) $378 billion
3. 2005 (George W. Bush) $318 billion
4. 2006 (George W. Bush) $296 billion
5. 1992 (George H. W. Bush) $290 billion

When President Bush came into office, he inherited a surplus of $284 Billion.

 

[vyo476]

Popeye, Top_Gun, maybe you should try showing how a president directly affects the economy.

 

[berreal]

Popeye, Top_Gun, maybe you should try showing how a president directly affects the economy.

Why ...because the amazing coincidence runs counter to comrade bush record?

If your going to claim the economy ran itself despite Bill Clinton ...then tell us why it did'nt do so for bush with the same results they presented.

If your going to claim it wasn't Bill Clinton ...but the republican congress .... then you ....you tell us why the republican congress failed to do the same for bush??

See ...every spin ...every wiggle you try to use to run away from the reality .... everytime you attempt to blaim Bill Clinton for everything bad ...and try to discredit him for his good accomplishment's .....will turn out to be futile!!

I hope Popye and Top_Gun ignore this request ...as far as I'm concerned ...like a QB on a football team ....the sitting president takes responsibility for what occurs on his/her watch!! The evidence provided so far is sufficient.

Now ...you tell us why Bill Clinton's sexual escapades does greater harm to the American people and the economy ...than bush's cherry-picking and lies to get us into an un-necessary war?

 

[palerider]

Here’s the top five deficits of all time:

1. 2004 (George W. Bush) $413 billion
2. 2003 (George W. Bush) $378 billion
3. 2005 (George W. Bush) $318 billion
4. 2006 (George W. Bush) $296 billion
5. 1992 (George H. W. Bush) $290 billion

When President Bush came into office, he inherited a surplus of $284 Billion.

You really aren't very bright are you. Prior to bush being elected, the top 8 deficits of all time belonged to bill clinton and prior to his election, the top deficits of all time belonged to ghw bush and prior to that they belonged to regan and prior and prior and prior. Since the 60's each and every year has set a new record for deficits.