Clinton's Accomplishments???

[Bunz]

Today, there are people who make claims that clinton's years in office are a rational justification for more years of clinton in office.

I would agree, I am not a Hillary supporter. Both sides combine the issue. the GWB 2000 campaign launched the tactic of;
Remember my last name?
Didnt like the last guy?
Well vote for me, because Im not the last guy. I am the one before.

It worked quite well for the GOP.

I have asked repeatedly for someone to tell me what clinton did to create the economy as it existed during his years.

When it comes to politics, The President takes credit for a healthy economy, or criticism when it isnt. Both sides have used this for decades if not longer. Right, wrong or indifferent, this is reality. The economy is a team effort. Therefore, the leader of that team takes credit. The leader being the President. Remember the mantra from the Bush 04 campaign?
Focus on the economy.

 

[PoliticalGrrrl]

Bill Clinton was much more than "fair", he was our finest modern day president, statistics bear that out, despite what you may hear from certain envious, disgruntled members of this board.

http://www.perkel.com/politics/clinton/accomp.htm​

http://clinton5.nara.gov/WH/Accomplishments/additional.html

With all due respect, I don't need to "hear" anything from anyone. I voted for Clinton the first time and my opinion that he was "fair" is my own and not influenced by anyone else's opinion.


I also voted for Reagan but I'm not so blind to see that the man made errors.

Sorry, but no president thus far would garner anything better from me than a "fair" rating.

 

[PoliticalGrrrl]

It is, unfortunately, necessary to look back and make sure that history isn't rewritten too severly. Today, there are people who make claims that clinton's years in office are a rational justification for more years of clinton in office. Claims have been made about clinton's accomplishments as a basis for voting democrat in the upcoming election.

I have asked repeatedly for someone to tell me what clinton did to create the economy as it existed during his years. So far, no one has stepped up to answer the question. The best explanation so far is that the economy was good because clinton's 93 budget failed to achieve its stated goals. That hardly amounts to an accomplishment, however, and certainly doesn't justify putting another clinton in the white house. If you don't look back, then you are stuck with whatever historical revisions are handed to you.

Then to look back and examine our past, we need to attribute successes and failings of ALL our presidents past and not focus on ONE particular president repeatedly.

As I stated before, I know as well (and better than some, I suspect) as anyone that it's important to study our past and learn from those past failings AND successes. However to narrow that view would not be doing any of us any favors.

 

[top gun]

The real truth is that the neo-cons so hated Clinton because of his accomplishments and their trembling fear that there was about to be yet another Democratic family of great legacy... much like John F. Kennedy.

Clinton was a great uniter. He did a great overall job as President as noted by his 62% overall job approval rating the American people gave him when leaving office.

We can say President Clinton was terrible, just average, or anything we want but the true overall situation for 8 straight years was what it was... It was GREAT on so many fronts! (many of which have been posted by honest knowledgeable people on this board)

And we can say President Bush that has several times set all time new records for the lowest Presidential approval ratings of all time... 24% is just doing a bang up job when just like when he was in business about everything he touches has turned to junk (he traded away Sammy Sosa from the Rangers for Christ sake ). He's not the sharpest knife in the drawer... let's all just face it!

Bottom line... The Clinton's have always had the better interest of the majority of the nation at heart. And they will continue to due so no matter what.

 

[palerider]

Then to look back and examine our past, we need to attribute successes and failings of ALL our presidents past and not focus on ONE particular president repeatedly.

Feel free to start another thread about whichever president or president's you wish to talk about. This thread, however, is specifically about clinton.

 

[palerider]

The real truth is that the neo-cons so hated Clinton because of his accomplishments and their trembling fear that there was about to be yet another Democratic family of great legacy... much like John F. Kennedy.

I am still asking what clinton did to accomplish the things you give him credit for. I can't help but notice that you have not only not answered the question, but have taken to gibbering to yourself like a crazy in the alley.

By the way, if you ask me, or practically anyone else what kennedy did to handle the economy, there is a ready answer. That is because kennedy stated his goal, recommended legislation, predicted the outcome of said legislation and saw it to success. He actually can be given credit because his stated goals were accomplished.

By the way, today's democratic party would not have kennedy in it. Kennedy was a pro business, tax cutting, personal responsibility president. Exactly what todays democrats despise.

 

[top gun]

The real truth is that the neo-cons so hated Clinton because of his accomplishments and their trembling fear that there was about to be yet another Democratic family of great legacy... much like John F. Kennedy.

Clinton was a great uniter. He did a great overall job as President as noted by his 62% overall job approval rating the American people gave him when leaving office.

We can say President Clinton was terrible, just average, or anything we want but the true overall situation for 8 straight years was what it was... It was GREAT on so many fronts! (many of which have been posted by honest knowledgeable people on this board)

And we can say President Bush that has several times set all time new records for the lowest Presidential approval ratings of all time... 24% is just doing a bang up job when just like when he was in business about everything he touches has turned to junk (he traded away Sammy Sosa from the Rangers for Christ sake ). He's not the sharpest knife in the drawer... let's all just face it!

Bottom line... The Clinton's have always had the better interest of the majority of the nation at heart. Everyone that's been following any of these Clinton threads if they didn't know now knows very well the many accomplishment of President Bill Clinton. GREAT PRESIDENT!!! Looking forward to another!!!

 

[palerider]

I am still asking what clinton did to accomplish the things you give him credit for. I can't help but notice that you have not only not answered the question, but have taken to gibbering to yourself like a crazy in the alley.

By the way, if you ask me, or practically anyone else what kennedy did to handle the economy, there is a ready answer. That is because kennedy stated his goal, recommended legislation, predicted the outcome of said legislation and saw it to success. He actually can be given credit because his stated goals were accomplished.

By the way, today's democratic party would not have kennedy in it. Kennedy was a pro business, tax cutting, personal responsibility president. Exactly what todays democrats despise.

 

[9sublime]

Why are we the ones proving Clinton did a good job, when the facts and figures show that he did. It should be your job to disprove it.

 

[palerider]

Why are we the ones proving Clinton did a good job, when the facts and figures show that he did. It should be your job to disprove it.

I am not and have not ever said that he did a bad job. I am asking, and will continue to ask, what he did to "accomplish" the things that he is being given credit for. Is that too much to ask? If I could name anything he did beyond mostly staying out of the way of the economy, I would name it myself but I can't.

Anyone who approved of and supported the man should be able to step up and state specifically what it was that he did. If you ask that question of damned near any other modern era president, people from both sides can say what they did and what its effect was, for good or bad.

Clinton's case is unique in that a large number of people liked him very much, but when asked what he did, you get a blank stare and a litany of what he accomplished, but no one seems to be able to say how he accomplished it. The media has been hard at work building a legacy for the man, listing off all the good things that were going on during his term, but have been quite unable to link any of that good to clinton's ideas, or initiatives.

For most, I suppose a list of what he accomplished is good enough.

#1: "what did clinton do during his term?"

#2: "oh, he accomplished a, b, c, d, e, f, g h, and XYZ and left office with very high approval ratings."

#1: "wow, he must have been a good president.

I am not one, however, who is satisfied with such a shallow answer so the conversation takes this form.

Me: "what did clinton do during his term?"

#2: "oh, he accomplished a, b, c, d, e, f, g h, and XYZ and left office with very high approval ratings."

Me: "ok, how did he accomplish these things?

#2: "oh, he accomplished a, b, c, d, e, f, g h, and XYZ and left office with very high approval ratings."

Me: I'm not asking what he accomplished, I am asking how he accomplished.

#2: "oh, he accomplished a, b, c, d, e, f, g h, and XYZ and left office with very high approval ratings."

Me: "What exactly did he do to accomplish a, b, c etc?"

#2: "oh, he accomplished a, b, c, d, e, f, g h, and XYZ and left office with very high approval ratings."


You are bright enough 9sublime to recognize the pattern, why are you denying it and denying your inability to answer the question? I would suggest that a false legacy has been fabricated for the man and as is the case with most falsehoods, shallow thinkers buy it hook, line, and sinker and are eager to pass their "knowledge" on to whoever will listen. Ask a question that goes below the surface, however, and you get a "deer in the headlights" stare and the stock shallow answer ad nauseum. Precicely what is happening here. Convince me otherwize by stating in clear terms what clinton did and what its effect was on the economy or any of the other "accomplishments" he is being given credit for.

 

[Popeye]

You might notice by the graph, available on the links, that of the 5 biggest spending presidents, 3 are Republican. Bill Clinton is nowhere in sight, his presidency keeps looking better and better. I'm sure you have plenty of excuses for why Republican presidents are bigger spenders than Democrats, but the facts remain. Bill Clinton was downright frugal in comparison to George Bush, that alone, was good for the economy.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/20767.html​

http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0510-26.pdf

 

[Coyote]

What does any President do for the economy? The deficit went down under Clinton - and that was due to a deliberate policy. Maybe Clinton was also smart enough not to interfere with a good thing. I still trust Greenspan. He knows what he is talking about. And he's a conservative Republican.

 

[palerider]

What does any President do for the economy? The deficit went down under Clinton - and that was due to a deliberate policy. Maybe Clinton was also smart enough not to interfere with a good thing. I still trust Greenspan. He knows what he is talking about. And he's a conservative Republican.

What deliberate policy was that? And don't say the balanced budget because he was dragged kicking and screaming into that after he had already vetoed it two times and told us with a straight face that people would be starving in the streets if that amendment passed.

If, as you suggest that he was smart enough not to interfere with a good thing, then he was riding the results of actions taken by previous administrations.

Greenspand has shown himself to not be above a bit of revisionist history if it benefits his legacy. In other words, he has shown himself to be a liar.

 

[Coyote]

Clinton made it a policy to pay down the deficit - that was a legacy of prior administrations.

 

[Coyote]

What deliberate policy was that? And don't say the balanced budget because he was dragged kicking and screaming into that after he had already vetoed it two times and told us with a straight face that people would be starving in the streets if that amendment passed.

Maybe - as originally presented - it was a bad bill.

Here is an article on it:

SENATE OKS PLAN THAT CLINTON VOWED TO VETO GOP LEADERS ASK THE PRESIDENT TO PASS THE BILL, TO RETAIN DISASTER RELIEF FUNDS.

The Senate put the Republican-controlled Congress on a collision course with the White House over spending priorities Thursday, passing the first bill that President Clinton has vowed to veto: a measure that slashes $16.4 billion from funds already appropriated.

But because the bill also contains more than $6 billion in disaster-assistance relief for California, Oklahoma and other states, Republican leaders urged the president to back down from his threat even as they conceded that they lacked the votes for an override.

Noting that the so-called rescission bill would cut the budget deficit by more than $9 billion, House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., said it would be ``a great disservice to this country'' and ``a major, major mistake'' for the president to veto this ``first step toward a balanced budget.''

Appearing at a rare, joint Capitol Hill news conference, Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole, R-Kan., added: ``I would strongly urge the president to sign it.''

But their pleas fell on deaf ears at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue.

Just minutes before the Senate passed the measure, Clinton told reporters in the White House Rose Garden that he would veto the bill ``if it passes in this form.''

The president's chief objection to the measure is that it cuts too deeply into programs on education, housing, airport improvement, job training and the environment - but too little into wasteful ``pork'' construction projects.

``I am for making a down payment on the deficit reduction in this rescission bill,'' Clinton said. ``I certainly want to get the money out to Oklahoma City, to finish our obligations in the California earthquake, to deal with the floods in the South.''

The bill also contains $250 million for anti-terrorism efforts in the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing as well as $275 million in debt relief for Jordan, both expenditures also favored by Clinton.

The White House-Congress standoff underscores the difficulties ahead in reducing the deficit, a goal both parties embrace.