Were it not for Bill Clinton, our deficit would really have been a disaster

but, of course, they did not care about the deficit when Reagan and the Bushes were in office. As a matter of fact someone during the Reagan administration said that "the voters did not care about the deficit." And I think that this is how the term the "Teflon President" was coined. The media, yes, would report about the deficit and no one cared.

Then came Clinton who inherited a deficit largest than all previous years combined, left with a surplus and all they cared was... his sex life!

And now, all of a sudden they, and the "man in the street" worry about a deficit?

They would not, of course, if these expenses were helping them personally.

It was all the GOP congress' doing. :eyes:

Except that, of course, had a Republican president presided over that expansion, he would have taken the credit.

A major difference, of course: while only the rich benefit from an economic expansion under a Republican administration - the "trickle down" voodoo - people of all income levels benefited during the Clinton years.

and that it was all created through accounting trickery.

Seriously.

And seriously delusional

Let's see in the 80's: GOP President + Dem Congress = Huge deficits.

In the 90's: Dem President + GOP Congress = Surplus.

In the 2000's: GOP President + GOP Congress = Huge deficits.

on the economy, eh?

can you explain?

Robert Parry...who, btw, graciously allows DU unlimited use of his articles.

http://consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

Hey Democrats, Truth Matters

>>>>>>
Democrats, being Democrats, always want to put governance, such as enacting legislation and building coalitions, ahead of oversight, which often involves confrontation and hard feelings. Democrats have a difficult time understanding why facts about past events matter when there are problems in the present and challenges in the future.

Given that proclivity, we are re-posting a story from last May that examined why President Bill Clinton and the last Democratic congressional majority (in 1993-94) shied away from a fight over key historical scandals from the Reagan-Bush-I years -- and the high price the Democrats paid for that decision:

My book, Secrecy & Privilege, opens with a scene in spring 1994 when a guest at a White House social event asks Bill Clinton why his administration didn’t pursue unresolved scandals from the Reagan-Bush era, such as the Iraqgate secret support for Saddam Hussein’s government and clandestine arms shipments to Iran.

Clinton responds to the questions from the guest, documentary filmmaker Stuart Sender, by saying, in effect, that those historical questions had to take a back seat to Clinton’s domestic agenda and his desire for greater bipartisanship with the Republicans.

Clinton “didn’t feel that it was a good idea to pursue these investigations because he was going to have to work with these people,” Sender told me in an interview. “He was going to try to work with these guys, compromise, build working relationships.”

Clinton’s relatively low regard for the value of truth and accountability is relevant again today because other centrist Democrats are urging their party to give George W. Bush’s administration a similar pass if the Democrats win one or both houses of Congress.

Reporting about a booklet issued by the Progressive Policy Institute, a think tank of the Democratic Leadership Council, the Washington Post wrote, “these centrist Democrats … warned against calls to launch investigations into past administration decisions if Democrats gain control of the House or Senate in the November elections.”

These Democrats also called on the party to reject its “non-interventionist left” wing, which opposed the Iraq War and which wants Bush held accountable for the deceptions that surrounded it.

“Many of us are disturbed by the calls for investigations or even impeachment as the defining vision for our party for what we would do if we get back into office,” said pollster Jeremy Rosner, calling such an approach backward-looking.

Yet, before Democrats endorse the DLC’s don’t-look-back advice, they might want to examine the consequences of Clinton’s decision in 1993-94 to help the Republicans sweep the Reagan-Bush scandals under the rug. Most of what Clinton hoped for – bipartisanship and support for his domestic policies – never materialized.
>>>>>>





Bottom line: If Clinton had sided with open government and accountability in the early months of his term he would have had a much more successful presidency that actually included universal healthcare.

..is like relying on Faux news to be fair and balanced in their assessment of Obama. Thanks.
quickesst

You just can't handle the long list of things Bill Clinton accomplished, can you?

That explains a lot.

Any thread with that name in the title is like Pavlov ringing a bell.

I haven't checked yet, but I bet there is nary a peep about President Obama's continuation of Bush2's secrecy policies from our resident champion of open government.

Jimmy Carter not pursuing Nixon's secret policies.

can't handle the truth, can you....especially since Kerry and his investigators have been revisiting some of those matters and are, once again, tracking AQ Khan and the money trail.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5876524

Remind me again, how does this invalidate the budget surplus and make Clinton a bad, bad man?

Bush on BCCI matters, including the matters involving AQ Khan, then have the guts to say so.

If you are certain that whitewashing the funding of global terrorism by the BCCI cast of characters in the 90s didn't lead to the return of BushInc and to 9-11 then give a reason for your certainty using facts.

That your reaction to Switzerland threatening a senate investigator is to mock Kerry as he renews his efforts to track Khan and the money trail....well....that speaks volumes about who YOU are.

Some of them lost their CITY. Go ahead and accuse them all of being BCCI millionaires. Have the guts to do it to their faces - I double dog dare ya.

Clinton was not the only Democratic President to make the mistake of being magnanimous in victory - Carter was, and OBAMA IS DOING IT NOW. I don't see you frothing at the mouth about him. Only shit that happened 17 years ago.

For the purpose of blaming Clinton for what Bush2 did, and giving Bush2 a free pass. No amount of personal attacks and red herrings will obscure that, although I'm sure you will try.

Your HERO Bill sided with GHWBush on IranContra and BCCI, too. So do YOU whenever you stand against Kerry.

You want to pretend that you think Bush was so bad at the same time you ELEVATE Clintons who sided with Bush on the biggest issues in the 2002 and 2004 elections.

Full. Of. It. Aintcha?

Once again, you try to make this about me, because you know that if you took your obsession to its true target, the Secret Service would riddle you with bullets.

It's funny how people who idolize politicians always assume everybody else does, too. Guess what? I don't. Not that I expect you to believe me, because any opinion that is not like yours proves I'm in on the conspiracy, isn't that right?

Please, make some more shit up about me. It's Friday, I'm bored, and watching you make a complete ass out of yourself is quite entertaining. :popcorn:

one more time...

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

a weird way to take away the actual accomplishments of the clinton presidency
i have never been and most likely will never be a fan of clinton
he is too flawed as a man to give much credibility to as a president
( DISCLAIMER this is only my opinion and is not intended to express the beliefs of anyone other than myself)
but no matter how you slice it he was at least a good manager as president

to get greater things done.

Why is it so difficult for some to see that?

Why is it difficult to imagine that a thorough exposure of GHWBush and his thugs on IranContra, S&L, and BCCI matters in 1993 would have led to a thoroughly crushed GOP as early as 1994?

If Clinton had sided with open government and YOUR right to accountability at a crucial point in this nation's history then ALL of us here would be holding him up as the best president ever with SIGNIFICANT and many accomplishments that would have a truly lasting effect on this nation for at least a century. We'd have never even heard about or cared about the drunken son of a disgraced former president.

But....he didn't, did he?

what to do with activities that when exposed would destroy the republic?
i imagine some of what would have come out may well have shaken the country apart

Truth and reconciliation hearings have proven successful in other regions....and back then the majority of newsmedia was NOT as hostile to facts and progressive solutions.

Clinton should have been smart enough and could have been brave enough to make the right call. He didn't. And those who think that decision wasn't important to the last twenty years of this nation's history are dead wrong.

involved back then would have diminished their chance to retain power across the board.


You might find this thread of interest since the events JUST happened.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5876524

Save me Blm!

Clinton's economic accomplishments during the internet-driven bubble years proved temporary as those advances were easily overturned within the first year of Bush2.

Clinton's decision to side with secrecy and privilege of Reagan and Bush led directly to Bush2 and THAT decision has had quite a LASTING effect on this nation and the world, hasn't it?


I think it is loony to not exercise your right to an honest and open government that is accountable to the people. Well, not loony as much as irresponsible.

:eyes:

at saving the economy and reducing the defiicit and the republicans were the reverse yet the public has this mindset that democrats are wasteful spenders....Bravo Repubs for spewing lies ad naseum until the public sings it in unison...

If the republicans repeat long enough that we are all "A"-rabs then no doubt everyone in America will proactively commit suicide out of fear of being a sleeper cell terroist.

...Bravo indeed!

I was not against an operation in Afghanistan that ended in the capturing of Bin Laden and the breaking down of Al Quaida in that area of the world. But that should have been finished ages ago.

Iraq, of course, we never should have gone into, especially not the way we did. But not even considering that, we should have started pulling out of there not long after Saddam was captured at the least. And if not then, maybe shortly after the first election they had.

My point is, for or against any given war we are in right now, the fact that these operations have been so prolonged is absolutely ridiculous. And all these assholes that are griping about the deficit, for the most part, were just as instrumental of either approving or supporting the very unnecessary war effort spending that has ran it up in the first place. And, might I add, unlike Obama's spending, without any real hope of "return on investment" to society and the American people.

:sarcasm: