Trump's speech on Hillary Clinton's record
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-06-2016, 05:54 PM
RE: Trump's speech on Hillary Clinton's record
(24-06-2016 05:51 PM)BnW Wrote:  
(24-06-2016 05:48 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The economy under Bill Clinton was in terrific shape, whether there was a surplus or not. FAR FAR better than under Bush.

I agree with that. The economy absolutely was better under Clinton by about any objective measure. But, while I despised Bush, I think you need to be careful making statements like that without understanding the context. A president only has so much impact on the economy. The idea that in a given 4 year period you will see the results of a given policy is just not based on reality.

It's also not "reality" that Bill Clinton having a role in economic matters poses some horrid threat to the nation.

BTW, FactCheck.org does not agree with your opinion about the surplus.
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-bud...r-clinton/

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-06-2016, 06:10 PM
RE: Trump's speech on Hillary Clinton's record
(24-06-2016 05:54 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  It's also not "reality" that Bill Clinton having a role in economic matters poses some horrid threat to the nation.

I'm not sure I understand what your point is here. I never said anything about this. But, since you bring it up, Bill Clinton having a role in economic matters actually did pose a horrid threat to the nation.

President Bill Clinton signed the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act which was a major contributor to the financial crises that almost cratered the world wide economy. Without GLB, which repealed the Depression Era Glass Steagall Act, a number of things that went critically wrong in 2008 would not have been possible. In fairness, GLB was veto proof by the time it hit Clinton's desk. But, the reality is that GLB was completely consistent with Clinton's policies and it's something he actively pushed. So, in actuality, Bill Clinton having a role in economic matters actually did end up posing a horrid threat to the nation. But, the blame for that clusterfuck goes much, much deeper than Bill Clinton and W. certainly bears no shortage of responsibility.

As for that Factcheck link you posted, I think you should read it again more carefully. It doesn't contradict what I said. On the contrary, it makes clear that it required social security to eliminate the deficit. The deficit is an annual thing. My point was that the "surplus" was for future payments. The reason people are talking about the insolvency of the social security system is because we spent the money that was supposed to be allocated for future payments. Clinton fucked up by claiming it was a "surplus". That gave Bush all the license he needed to give it back in the form of tax breaks. But, it wasn't a surplus. It was a fund for future committed obligations. And, nothing in that link you posted contradicts my statement. If anything, it confirms it.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like BnW's post
24-06-2016, 09:21 PM
RE: Trump's speech on Hillary Clinton's record
(24-06-2016 05:51 PM)BnW Wrote:  
(24-06-2016 05:48 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The economy under Bill Clinton was in terrific shape, whether there was a surplus or not. FAR FAR better than under Bush.

I agree with that. The economy absolutely was better under Clinton by about any objective measure. But, while I despised Bush, I think you need to be careful making statements like that without understanding the context. A president only has so much impact on the economy. The idea that in a given 4 year period you will see the results of a given policy is just not based on reality.

I understand the context. The "context" here is that Vosur was horrified that Hillary might use he husband in economic affairs. The POINT is, the irrational fear of that has no basis.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-06-2016, 09:35 PM
RE: Trump's speech on Hillary Clinton's record
If Vosur said that, I honestly missed it. And, I wasn't piling on Vosur's arguments. I was just reacting to your comments on Clinton and then your follow up to me.

Regarding the concern of using Bill on economic affairs, I would doubt it. He's not an economist. I doubt he has much of anything to offer on the topic. I'd never even seen it suggested. I actually think having Bill as the First Man (or whatever the title would be) would be the sole benefit of a Hillary presidency. The idea of Bill Clinton roaming the White House with nothing official to do has the makings of the greatest reality TV show in history. I'd watch that. It would probably end up being X-Rated, though.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like BnW's post
24-06-2016, 09:41 PM
RE: Trump's speech on Hillary Clinton's record
(24-06-2016 09:35 PM)BnW Wrote:  If Vosur said that, I honestly missed it. And, I wasn't piling on Vosur's arguments. I was just reacting to your comments on Clinton and then your follow up to me.

Regarding the concern of using Bill on economic affairs, I would doubt it. He's not an economist. I doubt he has much of anything to offer on the topic. I'd never even seen it suggested. I actually think having Bill as the First Man (or whatever the title would be) would be the sole benefit of a Hillary presidency. The idea of Bill Clinton roaming the White House with nothing official to do has the makings of the greatest reality TV show in history. I'd watch that. It would probably end up being X-Rated, though.

He has a large foundation to keep him busy.
He has access to the best economists in the world.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-06-2016, 10:23 PM (This post was last modified: 24-06-2016 10:30 PM by Vosur.)
RE: Trump's speech on Hillary Clinton's record
(24-06-2016 03:59 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Actually if you knew anything about Economics, you might know that the economy under Bill Clinton was the best it's been in recent decades. The US actually had a SURPLUS.

But by all means, in your blind hatred for this woman, don't let any facts get in your way of ranting.

https://clinton5.nara.gov/WH/Accomplishm...rs-01.html
(24-06-2016 09:21 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I understand the context. The "context" here is that Vosur was horrified that Hillary might use he husband in economic affairs. The POINT is, the irrational fear of that has no basis.
I didn't say so much as a single word about the shape of the economy during Bill Clinton's presidency. What I did is refute your claim that Bernie's criticism of Bill Clinton is not relevant today using the fact that his wife wants him to play an important role in her administration as the basis of my argument. You fail spectacularly at reading comprehension - again.

(24-06-2016 04:02 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I never said ANYTHING of the sort about Romney or Trump. (Trump is no Republican).
Nice try. Liar.
Yeah, I didn't think you would do a simple five minute search of your own posts before calling me a liar. This was a chance for you to redeem yourself and you blew it. Sorry Bucky, but you remain an ignorant clown.

(07-11-2012 11:37 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  They also managed to avoid any real discussions of real issues. If you listen to Romney's speeches, they utterly lack substance. They are 100% "fluff". He said he would create jobs, but never said exactly how. It was all "happy talk", no facts. His job at Bain was DESTROYING jobs, not creating jobs. That's what they do in the "buy-out" business. His "5 point plan" was nonsence. He said he would "deal with China if and when they cheat". He had no option to do ANYTHING of the sort. China buys our (all) debt. If they stop, interest rates in the US would rise dramatically. Either he didn't get that, or was lying. It was a program of a snake-oil salesman, who flip-flopped on very major issue. If you watch analysis of his style and work at Bain, he never did anything unless it was a "slam-dunk" certainty, and even then he hesitated. He's not even a good judge of "risk". His fellow partners at Bain, do not think much of him. He made a bundle. He is NOT not exceptional leader, by any stretch. He's a "cliche spouting" PR guy.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-06-2016, 12:05 AM
RE: Trump's speech on Hillary Clinton's record
(24-06-2016 12:28 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  What about the huge influx of Islamic immigrants into Germany and other European countries -- largely a result of Bush's disastrous Mideast policies?

No, that is largely a result of Congress ratifying that decision. The law here requires Congressional ratification for any American military deplyoment lasting longer than 90 days. I doubt you guys would be suffering such an influx had Congress limited our deplyoment to 90 days by refusing to ratify any extension.

In other words, the Presidential election, while important, doesn't have the sway many non-Americans seem to think it does.

(24-06-2016 12:28 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  That is pretty much forced on them by us. We're not dictating their policy, but our policies have consequences, and those consequences are often unpleasant for other countries. Changing their own leaders won't help with this sort of thing.

Indeed, global actions do often have global ramifications -- Brexit is another great example of that.

However, as noted above, I think many foreigners overstate the power of the American Presidency in effecting change -- for better or for worse.

(24-06-2016 12:28 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  I agree about the Supreme Court thing -- which is, for me, the most important issue in this election, and the reason why I will do anything (including voting for Clinton) to keep Trump out of the White House -- but I think it's a bit more than a hobby for Vosur. The issues that concern him are critical -- and they're critical for him as well as us.

I should think that EU policy would be much more concerning, myself. After all, while the emigre crisis may have been brought on by decisions and votes taken ten years ago, the crisis is happening now.

Adding on to that, although Clinton has visions of a more outbound foreign policy than I like (I'm pretty close to being isolationist), Trump's stated foreign and economic policy stances (of provoking China with a show of force in the East China Sea, of considering reneging on our national debt) are to my mind much more dangerous for us Americans.

The issues that most concern him are, I think, better handled by EU regional policy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-06-2016, 12:14 AM
RE: Trump's speech on Hillary Clinton's record
(24-06-2016 02:28 PM)BnW Wrote:  
(24-06-2016 12:05 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  That's possible, but not a necessary result. It's not as if America dictates to the world their own policies.

Thanks to the wonders of globalization, the largest consumer economy on the planet actually kind of does dictate at least it's economic policies by default.

Look at the global financial carnage ensuing from the Brexit vote. I suspect that's nothing compared to the financial carnage if Trump is elected. The uncertainty will cause massive turmoil.

Granted that we have a large effect on the world's economy. But in the last twenty-four hours over a trillion dollars of wealth has gone bye-bye due to the Brexit vote.

Now, I was aware beforehand that there would be large economic repercussions if the "Leaves" carried the day -- as they have -- but I've got enough awareness of my own ignorance of macroec, and my own ignorance of British feelings on the ground, that I wouldn't deign to hector them as to how they ought to vote.

And as I pointed out earlier, in our system, the Federal Reserve Board carries much more responsibility for economic decisions here, and the FRB chairman is a position largely insulated from Presidential pressure thanks to a fourteen-year single-term appointment. Trump will not have the ability to influence those decisions, barring misfortune.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-06-2016, 12:17 AM
RE: Trump's speech on Hillary Clinton's record
(24-06-2016 05:51 PM)BnW Wrote:  A president only has so much impact on the economy.


And that is exactly why Vosur's hand-wringing over our election seems a bit overwrought, to me.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-06-2016, 12:50 AM
RE: Trump's speech on Hillary Clinton's record
(25-06-2016 12:05 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  No, that is largely a result of Congress ratifying that decision. The law here requires Congressional ratification for any American military deplyoment lasting longer than 90 days. I doubt you guys would be suffering such an influx had Congress limited our deplyoment to 90 days by refusing to ratify any extension.

In other words, the Presidential election, while important, doesn't have the sway many non-Americans seem to think it does.
This part of your post made me look up the control of Congress over US history and I noticed something interesting while reading the statistics: The Democrats have had a majority in both houses of Congress since the late 1930s with only very few exceptions. That is, until the husband of a certain Democratic presidential candidate came into office. In the 60 years that preceded Bill Clinton's presidency, the Republicans had a majority in both houses of Congress for a mere four years. In the eight years that Bill was president, the Republicans had a majority in both houses of Congress for six years. This makes me hopeful that Hillary at least won't have the backing from Congress to ratify any of her pointless wars and military interventions in the Middle East. Then again, if Congress is still controlled by the Republicans come 2017, they might impeach her for her illegal mishandling of highly classified information anyway.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: