What happened to President Bill Clinton?

There will never be another Y2K retooling and the accompanying dot com boom. Yes it was a great 8 years.

Bull. It was a time when companies like Cisco were drawing from investors $150 per dollar of earnings. It was a tulip craze. None of that had anything much to do with the economy, except to eventally dry up investment.

And so, about 2 trillion in dollars just evaporated when the bubble burst.


Originally Posted by The Galatian
Other than the longest peacetime economic expansion in American history, while at the same time, reducing the deificit every year. Not bad at all.




Quote:
Originally Posted by The Galatian
Rev, the dot.coms didn't do anything at all for the economy. They were a tiny fraction of the economy. They were actually as much of a drag on the economy as the Reagan debt, for the same reason.

No, they cost that much in the frenzied investor foolishness. I can remember people writing about "the end of economics." Stupid. They didn't actually do that much business.

My son worked for Microsoft and other companies during that time. He lost several jobs as they crashed. Once, he was out of work for several months. In Seattle. He wasn't too proud to do what he had to do, until he got another job in his line of work.

Originally Posted by The Galatian
Actually, the dot.com crash was much earlier.


[quoite]Glad that you did not experience the pain of your fellow Americans ....[/quote]

I have to admit that I got pretty concerned about my son. But he did OK.

 

I would have to say that Preident Bush has gone against polls as much or more than President Clinton (haven't found any statistics yet for validation - just my opinion) and it hasn't won him friends nor respect from his enemies. Backbone alone doesn't get a president's job done.

A number of factors combined to slow the economy. But the economy never crashed. I doubt that a single president should take blame or credit for the boom times or the busts.

 

I'll be glad to repeat myself. Revisionism is as fresh as this mornings cow patties.

 

Like most, Clinton is a better ex-president than he was a president. Remember though, talk is one thing, and action is another. There has never been a president that could speak as Clinton speaks. He is without equal. But words are empty when the actions are not accompanying them. It's one thing to sound bipartisan when you're on the dais with Dole or Bush 41. It's another when you're preaching to the true blue, such as Clinton's very partisan speech to Harold Ford supporters recently in Nashville.

Clinton's poor performance as president, just as the elder Bush's, is forgotten once you become a "statesman" and are out of office.

I am glad President Clinton is in better health. That is a lesson we all need to learn.

As for calling him "First Gentleman" if Hillary is elected president, so what?

 

Of course, there is a lot of revisionism in trying to deny the way the Cliinton economy worked (even conservative economists praised his performance) and the way Clinton's foreign policy actually succeeded.

But the revisionists seem to be reduced to claiming he was just lucky and Reagan and the Bushes were just unlucky.

If it's luck, then it's pretty clear what sort of policies bring us luck.

The reason Americans think so highly of Clinton is because his efforts made America stronger and more prosperous. The reason they think so poorly of the Bushes, is because their efforts have made America poorer and weaker.

You can't fool all of the people all of the time.

"Lucky me; I hit the trifecta." - Bush, according to his Budget Director, Mitch Daniels, on the 9/11 disaster and subsequent recession.

 

His legacy is in deep do-do. He's responsibility for actions he took/didn't take with the Islamo-fascists is more than a little and he knows it.

 

Let's see... Clinton bombed Osama's "aspirin factory" (which blew up when hit; must have been explosive aspirin), chased him out of Africa, after pressuring Sudan to extradict him.

Clinton set up operation "Catcher's Mitt" to track Al Qaeda finanaces, and started and FBI operation to track Islamist radicals in this country.

Bush shut it all down, and even took terrorism off the list of priorities. The rest is history. If Bush had been as aggressive as Clinton in combatting terrorism, and if, like Cliinton, he had kept Osama running, would 9/11 have been prevented?

We'll never know for sure. But when, after 9/11, Bush restored those efforts, we haven't had a major hit since.

Too bad Bush didn't pay attention before we had a disaster.

 

You should apply for work as a Democrat spinmiester.

 

And another one retreats in a cloud of generic insults....