How was Clinton a good president?

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Military spending in 1992 was 4.8% of GDP by 1999 it was down to 3%.

That 1.8% decline amounts to $176 billion dollars less per year.

Clinton spent even less than Jimmy Carter did in terms of GDP. In fact you would have to go back to before WW 2 to find less spending in terms of GDP.

You make an awfully good case for Clinton. Thanks for the reminder of something good he did.

 

[sportage]

Just some observations on Billy vs GW:

Got his bj?s from women. Not men.
Sex scandal, yes. But better labeled ?exposed? sex scandal.
The others (i.e. current) well hidden and was not exposed.
(You don?t think they all do it? Power = kinky sex, drugs)
Billy said ?he didn?t inhale?. GW never claimed he didn?t snort.
Beat Newt at his own game (that was the best one of all).
Was elected by actual votes, counted and verified.
Didn?t need the US Supreme court?s help to ??elect?? him.
Was able to read a book right side up (i.e. my pet goat).
Ate McDonalds vs pretzels.

 

[shortylickens]

Well, despite the fact the I was in Kosovo and didnt care for it at all: In the grand scheme of things Kosovo was handled relatively well. But you would have to compare it to Vietnam and the current situation to know the difference.

People used to talk shit about him because he was a draft dodger, but Clinton had the good sense to listen to his military advisors during Kosovo. I also didnt care much for his miltary cutbacks while I was in, but compared to the way Bush has handled the DoD, Clinton was a dream. Most hardcore active duty servicemen and armchair generals would never admit it. Bush has dumped billions into the DoD budget and is simultaniously screwing every serviceman.
How?
Most of that money went to the real power in America: DoD contractors. Its been shown many times over that Bush is concerned with big corporations, not the little people. And he didnt have as good an economy as the Reagan years.
I didnt spend so much time in the Navy that my brain shut off. I know Bush fucked us over MUCH worse than any other president.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

The commanding officers of the war in Iraq are a product of the military culture fostered by Clinton.

Who've done a great job. Too bad assholes like Rumsfieild, Cheney and Bush didn't listen to them.

 

[Genx87]

#1 is false. He didnt eliminate the debt. The deficit turned into a surplus under his watch.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Who've done a great job. Too bad assholes like Rumsfieild, Cheney and Bush didn't listen to them.

The commanders and soldiers on the ground have done an exceptional job...the higher brass have largely played "yes-men" to the Bush Administration, rather than voicing concerns to their leadership of how the politicians were managing the war.

During the Clinton Administration, I know of several high ranking officers who voiced concerns over the effects that the Balkans missions were having on unit readiness, and whose careers were subsequently "cut short." I remember the climate at the upper echelons during the Clinton Administration...a permeating frustration that the military was becoming increasingly political.

 

[m1ldslide1]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Military spending in 1992 was 4.8% of GDP by 1999 it was down to 3%.

That 1.8% decline amounts to $176 billion dollars less per year.

Clinton spent even less than Jimmy Carter did in terms of GDP. In fact you would have to go back to before WW 2 to find less spending in terms of GDP.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but your numbers don't mean anything unless you include what the GDP was in 1992 vs. 1999. The percentage could've declined, but if GDP increased at a greater rate, then spending would've actually 'increased'.

And if military spending did decrease, why is this a bad thing? You realize that we're not in an arms race anymore; there's no cold war for the time being. It could stand to reason that the size of the cold war military was unnecessary when we weren't staring down another super power.

I know a lot of people favor the permanent war-time economy (whether they know what it means or not) but ultimately it's unsustainable and must be replaced with a legitimate economy, preferably manufacturing and goods-based. Oh wait, we don't have that anymore. :disgust: What options can we turn to?

I guess American leaders better start dreaming up a new country to bring 'freedom' to. We failed in SE asia (vietnam), failed in the middle east, maybe Africa will be the next target. China is conveniently economically entangled with many African nations, so hopefully we could start another cold war fought through proxies so that we can keep the wartime economy going and its associated nationalist propaganda. Excellent... it's all coming together.

 

[m1ldslide1]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: flunky nassau
I was a youngin' when he was president, but as I grew older, I heard he was a good one. Instead of just agreeing, I'm trying to form my own justifications. Care to educate?



Good:

1) Eliminated the debt
2) Left office with a federal budget surplus of $127 billion
3) welfare reform
4) wore a leather jacket & played the sax
5) didn't start any dumb ass wars, though, I heard he initiated more military actions than any president in history
6) raised taxes on top 2% of the richest
7) tax cuts for small businesses


Bad:
1) Maintained an embargo the resulted in the death of hundreds or thousands of Iraqis
2) Sex scandel?
3) Something about Haiti I can't remember
4) Practically ignored the genocides in Africa (but what else is new)

I think that's a moot point. Saddam while not a significant threat to the United States was still a douche bag. Economic sanctions was the best option. As for Genocides in Africa - that's sad in a all but I don't live there.

For the bad list I suppose you could say that more people went to jail for marijuana violations than any other president when he was in office.

Do you realize that the OP typo'd, and should've typed "hundreds of thousands of iraqis"? These are primarily families and poor people who have nothing to do with global politics at all. Do you really feel like those people deserved to die because their leader is a douche? Since you feel like they were the best option, can you tell me what exactly we accomplished with those embargoes, or what their longer-term benefits are in contrast to the obvious negatives?

 

[Vic]

I like Bill, and voted for him both times, but I find that the rose-colored glasses effect that the left has for him is just as bad as the same effect the right has for Reagan. It is oddly ironic IMO that both Presidents accomplished more for their ideological opposites than their their own supposed ideological "team."

 

[rudder]

Originally posted by: Skitzer
When he got reelected to his second term I retired from the Navy after 22 years.
He made life and a career in the military almost unbearable.
Other than that he was a mediocre President ....... nothing real bad, nothing real good.

Just not the military. The CIA got gutted during his presidency and never really made the post cold war- terrorism transition.

I would say he was a lucky president since a lot of Americans credit him for a great economy. Although it was a little to great and the bubble burst.

Overall goodwill towards the U.S. from other countries was better. Definetly a mixed bag with Clinton.

 

[shrumpage]

Clinton could have been a great president, even with a the sex/impeach thing. As a person he was likable, and a great orator. He had the fortune of presiding over a booming economy, one that was driven by .com craziness.

After his health care plan fell apart, he didn't push for anything radical. Anything he put forth would be watered down and lite, but nothing profound. "Don't Ask Don't Tell" is a good example of this.

Most of the military actions he committed troops to were done with top priority of PR not mission goal. I.E. no body bags coming home. If i remember correctly in Kosovo planes were ordered to to bomb form a specific altitude, not for effectiveness but so they wouldn't have the slightest risk of being shot down. As soon as Solmolia got hot - pulled out.

If Bill had taken more risks on legislative and military matters (even if some of them failed), he would be memorable president. 50 years from now, he will probably be noted as one of the few two term presidents, had the tech boom, and an impeachment -nothing real significant.



Welfare reform - was a republican effort (that whole contract w/ America thing).

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Vic
I like Bill, and voted for him both times, but I find that the rose-colored glasses effect that the left has for him is just as bad as the same effect the right has for Reagan. It is oddly ironic IMO that both Presidents accomplished more for their ideological opposites than their their own supposed ideological "team."

Indeed.

 

[alien42]

once upon a time there was a great little program that the Bush administration killed years ago....

http://www.clintonpresidential...-empowerment-zones.htm

i lived near one of those empowerment zones and witnessed first hand the amazing results.

 

[bctbct]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Military spending in 1992 was 4.8% of GDP by 1999 it was down to 3%.

That 1.8% decline amounts to $176 billion dollars less per year.

Clinton spent even less than Jimmy Carter did in terms of GDP. In fact you would have to go back to before WW 2 to find less spending in terms of GDP.

Its not how much you have but what you do with it.

Reagans pet project was Star Wars.

"The total cost of such a system was estimated at between $100 billion and $1 trillion. Actual expenditures for SDI amounted to about $30 billion. The initial annual budget for BMDO was $3.8 billion."

Bush bombed tents in the desert with million dollar missles.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: alien42
once upon a time there was a great little program that the Bush administration killed years ago....

http://www.clintonpresidential...-empowerment-zones.htm

i lived near one of those empowerment zones and witnessed first hand the amazing results.

Another good example of the 'don't do it because government can't do anything' view of the Republicans versus the constructive governing of the Democrats.

Yes, that's a generalization and as such there are exceptions, but it's a lot more accurate than inaccurate.

 

[ProfJohn]

^ umm it was Clinton who bombed terrorist tents with million dollar missiles.

 

[ericlp]

At least Clinton was able to speak in complete sentences and convey coherent thoughts. I that that was a like a requirement to even run for presidency?


And they voted him in TWICE????

 

[spittledip]

Originally posted by: bctbct

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Military spending in 1992 was 4.8% of GDP by 1999 it was down to 3%.

That 1.8% decline amounts to $176 billion dollars less per year.

Clinton spent even less than Jimmy Carter did in terms of GDP. In fact you would have to go back to before WW 2 to find less spending in terms of GDP.

Its not how much you have but what you do with it.

Reagans pet project was Star Wars.

"The total cost of such a system was estimated at between $100 billion and $1 trillion. Actual expenditures for SDI amounted to about $30 billion. The initial annual budget for BMDO was $3.8 billion."

Bush bombed tents in the desert with million dollar missles.

lol i remember a Bloom County cartoon where Oliver was given millions of dolalrs to come up with a Star Wards defense system. His plan was to sew together billions of dollar bills to act as an outer space net for missles

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: woodie1

Originally posted by: Skitzer
When he got reelected to his second term I retired from the Navy after 22 years.
He made life and a career in the military almost unbearable.

Yes. He did screw up the armed forces. He's the reason we are so short of troops now.

I'm sure volunteer rates didn't plummet in the months before the Iraq War... and the years during