|
|||||||
this is a discussion within the Poli-Sci Community Forum; I love the "simple arithmetic" line used by Clinton. The $4.351 Trillion Difference Between Obama & Clinton Always looking "forward," President Obama has asked Bill Clinton—who was elected to the presidency 20 years ago—to speak tonight and suggest to the ...
![]() |
|
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
#11 |
|
Re: President Clinton
I love the "simple arithmetic" line used by Clinton.
The $4.351 Trillion Difference Between Obama & Clinton Always looking "forward," President Obama has asked Bill Clinton—who was elected to the presidency 20 years ago—to speak tonight and suggest to the American people (whether explicitly or implicitly) that this is really a choice between Clinton and George W. Bush, rather than between Obama and Mitt Romney. If you're Obama, this beats running on your record. The only problem with this—in addition to the fact that Romney isn't Bush (and Paul Ryan isn't Dick Cheney)—is that Obama's record doesn't bear much resemblance to Clinton's. One could point to the rather obvious differences between the strong Clinton economy and the anemic Obama economy, between Clinton's signing welfare reform into law and Obama's undermining it via executive order, between Clinton's tacking to the center to work with Republicans and Obama's not moving to the center but playing to his base (rejecting the Keystone Pipeline, embracing gay marriage, making it illegal for Americans to offer or to choose health plans that don't include "free" birth control, "free" sterilization, and "free" access to the abortion drug ella). But one thing perhaps highlights the difference between Clinton and Obama most clearly: The increase in the national debt on their respective watches. Both men enjoyed two years of single-party control in Washington before they subsequently lost one (Obama) or both (Clinton) houses of Congress. In this way, their circumstances have been similar, but their results have not. According to the U.S. Treasury Department, from the day Clinton took office (January 20, 1993) to September 5 of the year he sought reelection (1996), the national debt rose from $4.188 trillion to $5.226 trillion -- an increase of $1.038 trillion. Try your own date ranges here During Clinton's entire 8-year presidency, the national debt rose from $4.188 trillion to $5.728 trillion—an increase of $1.540 trillion. In comparison, from the day Obama took office (January 20, 2009) to today, the national debt rose from $10.627 trillion to $16.016 trillion—an increase of $5.389 trillion. That's $4,351,000,000,000 more than during the same span of time under Clinton, and $3,849,000,000,000 more than during the entire Clinton presidency. In other words, during the first 43 months of their respective presidencies, the national debt increased more than five times as much under Obama as under Clinton. In fact, the national debt has increased more than three times as much during the first 3-1/2 years under Obama as it did during the full 8 years under Clinton. As a percentage of the gross domestic product (GDP)—perhaps an even more meaningful gauge—Obama's record looks even worse. Average annual deficit spending under Clinton was 0.1 percent of GDP, compared to 8.4 percent of GDP under Obama. America can't afford four more years of Obama. Link Back | |
|
Said Pope Benedict: "WOW ... that ring is bigger than mine!!!" ![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Resident Swede
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Märsta, Sweden
Posts: 3,947
|
Re: President Clinton
Smash thats some interesting numbers there, I have aquestion if anyone knows the answer. According to those numbers the national debt increased by $4.899 trillion during GW Bush's precidency and $5.389 trillion during Obamas first(?) period. During those years the USA was faced with 9/11 and to consecutive wars in Iraq and Afghanistan coupled with the worst recession since the great depression; how much have the wars helped increase national debt?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Site Donor
|
Re: President Clinton
I was truly disappointed in Clinton last night. I honestly like the man. I think he was a good President. It really hurt me to see him so clearly spouting partisan rhetoric. He knows better - I know it my heart that he knows better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Re: President Clinton
Originally Posted by Crusader
Great point...and apropos. I wish we lived in a different world in which we did not require the kind of military we need. Bush and RINO's did spend too much (acted like Democrats). Dodd/Frank finance bill hurt a lot too.
I also find it very interesting that no one ever talks about the excessive spending levels of today's government. If we could simply go back to 2008 levels, we could save well over 25% of our national expenditures. Under the Democratically controlled everything when PRESBO took office, levels increased across the board by 25% or more. I actually think we need to go back to 2004 levels or earlier. The debt is also devaluing the US currency, thus making everything much more expensive. Just you wait until interest rates begin to creep up... the interest payments on the debt now will seem paltry by comparison. | |
|
Said Pope Benedict: "WOW ... that ring is bigger than mine!!!" ![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
1000 Posts +
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,105
|
Re: President Clinton
You see the smartest man in politics as "spouting" partisan rhetoric even though everything he said was factually correct. But, you see a senile actor talking down to chair as the gospel. LOL. It's clear who the partisan is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
Site Donor
|
Re: President Clinton
Originally Posted by Cruize
Factually correct? No sir. Not even close. He talked right down the party line and made plenty of statements that can't possibly be true because he gave credit to things that haven't even been implemented yet. Further, I don't think Eastwood is 'senile' either, and I thought the empty chair skit was a great performance - which is exactly what it was. A Performance - not unlike Bill's speech - another Performance, only one is an actor and the other is a politician.
Ooops...
So he's boasting about Obama care, and he's using numbers that have precisely NOTHING to do with Obama care to bolster his point? Nice... But you keep thinking everything he said was spot on 100% accurate. You continue to be unwilling or unable to read between the lines. You can be led to the water, but you cannot be made to drink. |
|
Trust in Allah, but tie up your camel...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
Truth Addict
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Spanish Fort Alabama
Posts: 11,029
|
Re: President Clinton
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|