LSU - 468x
Go Back   New Orleans Saints - Black and Gold > Main > Everything Else > Poli-Sci
Shop Horizontal

President Clinton

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 ...

Like Tree1Likes

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-06-2012, 10:04 AM   #11
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 14,393
Blog Entries: 22
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!!!"

SmashMouth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2012, 10:47 AM   #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?
Crusader is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2012, 10:49 AM   #13
Site Donor
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 9,563
Blog Entries: 5
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.
saintfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2012, 11:09 AM   #14
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 14,393
Blog Entries: 22
Re: President Clinton

Originally Posted by Crusader View Post
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?
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!!!"

SmashMouth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2012, 12:02 PM   #15
1000 Posts +
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,105
Re: President Clinton

Originally Posted by saintfan View Post
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.
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.
Cruize is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2012, 01:30 PM   #16
Site Donor
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 9,563
Blog Entries: 5
Re: President Clinton

Originally Posted by Cruize View Post
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.
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...

CLINTON: "I know many Americans are still angry and frustrated with the economy. ... I experienced the same thing in 1994 and early 1995. Our policies were working but most people didn't feel it yet. By 1996, the economy was roaring, halfway through the longest peacetime expansion in American history."

THE FACTS: Clinton is counting on voters to recall the 1990s wistfully and to cast a vote for Obama in hopes of replicating those days in a second term. But Clinton leaves out the abrupt downward turn the economy took near the end of his own second term and the role his policies played in the setting the stage for the historic financial meltdown of 2008.

While the economy and markets experienced a record expansion for most of the rest of Clinton's two-term presidency, at the start of 2000, there were troubling signs. Then-Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan warned in February 2000 that "we are entering a period of considerable turbulence in financial markets."

Sure enough, the tech-heavy Nasdaq composite stock index and the Dow Jones industrial average both peaked in March 2000. The bursting of the high-tech bubble dragged down the economy and markets through the rest of the year. From September 2000 to January 2001 when Clinton left office, the Nasdaq dropped 46 percent. Even now, in 2012, the Nasdaq has not returned to its 2000 peak. By March 2001, the economy toppled into recession.

Also, as president, Clinton supported the 1999 repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, a law dating back to the Great Depression that separated banking from high-risk financial speculation. Robert Rubin, who had been Clinton's first treasury secretary, helped broker the final deal on Capitol Hill that enabled the repeal legislation to pass. Some financial historians say the repeal of the law paved the way for banks to invest in risky investments like mortgage-backed securities and collateralized debt obligations that played a role in the 2008 financial meltdown.

Read more: Bill Clinton's DNC speech: Fact check finds former president's claims of compromise a stretch - NY Daily News
So you can see what he's insinuating and reality aren't precisely the same, are they?

Clinton said that “for the last two years, health care costs have been under 4 percent in both years for the first time in 50 years.” That’s true, as reported by the journal Health Affairs in January of this year. But Clinton went too far when he added: “So let me ask you something. Are we better off because President Obama fought for health care reform? You bet we are.”

Actually, the major provisions of the 2010 law — the individual mandate, federal subsidies to help Americans buy insurance, and big reductions in the growth of Medicare spending — haven’t yet taken effect. Experts mainly blame the lousy economy for the slowdown in health care spending. As a report by economists and statisticians at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services reported last year, for example (as quoted in the Washington Post): “Job losses caused many people to lose employer-sponsored health insurance and, in some cases, to forgo health-care services they could not afford.”
FactCheck.org : Our Clinton Nightmare

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...
saintfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2012, 02:03 PM   #17
Truth Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Spanish Fort Alabama
Posts: 11,029
Re: President Clinton

Originally Posted by Cruize View Post
In a political sense he bent Romney, Ryan, the Republican party and Faux News over for sure! LOL.
Well if you believe in a big government nanny-state, the redistribution of wealth, class envy and race baiting, you have a point.

Otherwise, you don't have a clue.
Danno is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:59 AM.

Footer Banner

Copyright 1997 - 2012 - BlackandGold.com
no new posts

SEO by vBSEO