Bill Clinton is awesome

[TheSilencer1313]

What the hell are you talking about, and how are the Republicans offering a better alternative?
Do you mean the debt, incurred to reverse the Republican global economic catastrophe inherited in 2009?

I would speculate that neither the Republican nor Democratic parties offer a better alternative, and both parties offer the same failing policies, with different spouting rhetoric.
Considering baby boomers are all on their way to retiring, and aren't worrying about the younger generation when it comes to their political alignments, it's very telling to how they continue to vote.

 

[TheSilencer1313]

nice.

I don't know enough about Paul Ryan, can you provide a link to back up the bolded part? Clearly, you aren't talking about the entire republican party, so I'm curious about this Paul Ryan tax-the-rich contingency, and I'm curious about how they couldn't build a united front with the Ron Paul crowd.

Gracias.

I can only find articles consisting of Paul Ryan wanting taxs cuts for the rich, not the other way around.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...ealthy-even-bigger-tax-cuts-than-romney-does/

On the other hand, I don't believe in playing class warfare.... and neither does the Ron Paul crowd.
The Ron Paul crowd wants zero wage tax, and an end to the IRS.

 

[franklin]

nice.

I don't know enough about Paul Ryan, can you provide a link to back up the bolded part? Clearly, you aren't talking about the entire republican party, so I'm curious about this Paul Ryan tax-the-rich contingency, and I'm curious about how they couldn't build a united front with the Ron Paul crowd.

Gracias.

Paul Ryan:

I believe there is a bipartisan path forward on Social Security – one that requires all parties first to acknowledge the fiscal realities of this critical program. The President’s Fiscal Commission made a positive first step by advancing solutions to ensure the solvency of Social Security.

The Commission suggested a more progressive benefit structure, with benefits for higher income workers growing more slowly than those of workers with lower incomes who are more vulnerable to economic shocks in retirement. It also recommended reforms that take accounts of increases in longevity, to arrest the demographic problems that are undermining Social Security’s finances.

In addition, there is bipartisan consensus that Social Security reform should provide more help to those who fall below the poverty line after retirement as part of any reform that make the program solvent. As part of a plan to strengthen the safety of that nation’s most vulnerable citizens, lower-income seniors should receive more targeted assistance than those who have had ample opportunity to save for retirement.

Democrats: No. We want ours & don't give two ****s if we make the program insolvent for the most vulnerable citizens down the road. Bill Clinton is awesome on to Red Lobster for lunch again!!1


https://paulryan.house.gov/issues/issue/?IssueID=12227

 

[northeast]

Franklin leaves everything Clinton said out of the analysis, and seems to be putting a whole lot of weight on one tiny point of dubious validity.
and what's wrong with all you can eat shrimp? Red Lobster hires lots of young people to serve us our feasts.

 

[candrew]

I actually came here to create this thread. His speech was chock full of complete and utter bull ****,

https://factcheck.org/2012/09/our-clinton-nightmare/

[Republicans will find plenty of Clinton’s scorching opinions objectionable. But with few exceptions, we found his stats checked out.

This is about as good a review as you can possibly get from factcheck.org.

 

[Deleted member 365]

The right loves to make fun of Clinton. In reality, they'd give their right nut to have anyone in the party half as charismatic or as effective (as President) as he was.

Personally, I would have preferred 4 terms of Clinton (and give him all the interns he wanted) than suffer through the 8 long and dreadful years we had with Bush...

I would give Obama/Romney the white house for life if they could bring us to the level of prosperity we had in the 90s......

 

[Gyp Rosetti]

The right loves to make fun of Clinton. In reality, they'd give their right nut to have anyone in the party half as charismatic or as effective (as President) as he was.

Personally, I would have preferred 4 terms of Clinton (and give him all the interns he wanted) than suffer through the 8 long and dreadful years we had with Bush...

I would give Obama/Romney the white house for life if they could bring us to the level of prosperity we had in the 90s......

How effective was Clinton? He's the one who got us into a lot of our mess with his brilliant work with the Glass-Steagall.

 

[Gyp Rosetti]

To take it a step further, you suck Clinton off for his presidency during the "level of prosperity we had in the 90's" but evidently have no problem with Obama as our economy tumbles and tumbles into oblivion.

You can't have it both ways. Thriller.

 

[Deleted member 365]

How effective was Clinton? He's the one who got us into a lot of our mess with his brilliant work with the Glass-Steagall.

He signed it, big mistake. But who pushed for the repeal? Also, if you feel it was wrong to have in a sense, "deregulated" that part of our economy, why then do you support Romney/Paul and their deregulate philosophy? You can't have it both ways. You can't admit that the repeal of the Glass-Seagall Act was a mistake while embracing and getting all hot and flustered at the idea of Romney/Paul perpetuating that very same "deregulation, free market" ideology which you just barely admitted to be disastrous.

While the economy sucked under Bush I, did it suck under Clinton?

Under Clinton, we saw economy prosperity the likes that we can only dream of today.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Bill_Clinton

The Clinton years were unquestionably a time of progress, especially on the economy [...] Clinton's 1992 slogan, 'Putting people first,' and his stress on 'the economy, stupid,' pitched an optimistic if still gritty populism at a middle class that had suffered under Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. [...] By the end of the Clinton presidency, the numbers were uniformly impressive. Besides the record-high surpluses and the record-low poverty rates, the economy could boast the longest economic expansion in history; the lowest unemployment since the early 1970s; and the lowest poverty rates for single mothers, black Americans, and the aged.

Give me Clinton over Obama or Romney. I don't care who he sleeps with. Under Clinton, the country wasn't a craphole like it is today.

 

[Deleted member 365]

To take it a step further, you suck Clinton off for his presidency during the "level of prosperity we had in the 90's" but evidently have no problem with Obama as our economy tumbles and tumbles into oblivion.

You can't have it both ways. Thriller.

You may want to read posts 56 and 53. Saying that I have "no problem" with Obama as our economy tanks is a lil bit of a stretch. Especially given how I've stated numerous times that I'd take Clinton over Obama and Romney. Or with me calling the country a crap hole. Apparently you missed that.

The thing is, while Obama might suck... Romney/Paul are more suck.

 

[Gyp Rosetti]

He signed it, big mistake. But who pushed for the repeal?

While the economy sucked under Bush I, did it suck under Clinton?

Under Clinton, we saw economy prosperity the likes that we can only dream of today.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Bill_Clinton



Give me Clinton over Obama or Romney. I don't care who he sleeps with. Under Clinton, the country wasn't a craphole like it is today.

So you acknowledge he ****ed up with the Glass-Steagall. Now what exactly did he do to bring us to such unparalleled wealth? I'm curious. Because I wonder if it may have just been coincidence and that his presidency just happened to coincide with our crazy boom of internet, telecom, tech, bio-tech, and so on.

 

[Gyp Rosetti]

You may want to read posts 56 and 53. Saying that I have "no problem" with Obama as our economy tanks is a lil bit of a stretch. Especially given how I've stated numerous times that I'd take Clinton over Obama and Romney. Apparently you missed that.

I didn't read every single post in the thread but in this particular instance, Clinton today has nothing to do with my point. You sit on your perch and praise Clinton as if he was our financial savior in the 90's but, and I'm spitballing here, favor Obama over Romney despite Obama's mediocre (that's putting it nicely) job with our economy.