Topic: Obama Offers a Beautifully Packaged Lie

[Pacer]

Now people can talk all they want about Clinton's personal life and his "no sex" comment, but when he was in office, not only was the budget balanced, but we had a SURPLUS!  The economy was going good, the unemployment rate was low....then came 8 years of BUSH and look where we are now.  We definitely can't continue going in the same direction we're going, and since McClain voted 95% WITH BUSH, I don't see anything different with what he will bring to the white house.   Heck, with McClain in office heck, talk about being in 1 war, we may be in 5 or 6!

And this 8 years of economic happiness was a result of Clinton? Is that your contention?
We had 8 years of economic success because of the dot com boom. We had a one two punch of technological/commercial breakthroughs. First the personal computer which carried the economy in the first part of the '90s (and got us out of what was then a recession), then when that started to flag, the internet took the baton and carried it all the way through to 2000. People where making money hand over fist, and companies were springing up like weeds. The surpluses you are talking about was due to that success and the taxes that were brought in because of that success. Bill Clinton didn't invent the personal computer, and despite Al Gore's slip, he didn't invent the internet.
Now, we get to why the economy is in the tank...
Three things happened to shock the economy. First, the Netscape suit against Microsoft that case hit the Supreme Court in 2000. The Supreme Court ruled that Microsoft was a monopoly and recommended that it be split into two companies (which never happened). That sent shock waves throughout the technology sector and caused people to take a closer look at what was going on everywhere else. What they saw was an orgy of spending and irresponsibility that bordered on insanity. Money was flying all over the place and companies were making NOTHING. They were spending it on $1000 chairs for everyone and wild parties. The result of all that was the dot com bust. Companies folded, or were bought up by bigger fish, as fast as they had sprung up. That's strike one.
Second was 9/11. Of course that was Bush's fault. Clearly he should have seen that coming (and I'm not being sarcastic, he and his predecessors should have seen it. That's their responsibility). Strike two.
Third was the shock of multiple large companies going bankrupt. Enron, Worldcom, and a few other high profile blowups started people taking a closer look at how books were being kept, and what they saw was troubling. Strike three.
But the reason these things were possible were a direct result of decisions made during the Clinton administration (9/11 is more of a long standing historical issue so that wouldn't altogether be included in that comment, though he played his part). Regulations were dropped, and changes were made to allow these companies to do some of the things they were doing to get out of control. This was done by Clinton and by Reagan and Bush senior. They are all at fault. Bush Jr is just left with the mess, similar to Herbert Hoover after the 1929 crash. Hoover proved incapable of handling the situation so it just got worse, and we call that the Great Depression. The bottom line is the ball was dropped by Clinton, and wasn't picked up by Bush.
Since then we've had the rise in oil costs driving gas prices through the roof, and the real estate market's bottom dropping out. Now I would suggest that both of those could have been prevented or perhaps helped by the Bush administration. His adventure in Iraq and irresponsible spending have also been deplorable.
Bush has exacerbated the situation is many ways, so no credit to him at all. But don't blame this situation entirely on him. He is just standing on the shoulders of "greatness".

It's amazing how many viewpoints there are of the same era.  Personally, I think the president usually has minimal direct impact on the economy.

You have a different viewpoint? What is it?

I happen to agree with your assessment!

However, I did a little poking around and it appears that the history books will portray the economy during the Clinton era a bit differently.   Start at the Wiki and go from there. 

To think that one man controls the economy of the U.S. is beyond my comprehension.

Clinton does get a bit more credit than he should. But you didn't hear from me.

[swish]

Never cared for Clinton, lied to congress to save his hide. He could have saved some face by resigning but didn't. Should of went to jail but didn't. A bad role model for the youth to say the least.
Got a lot of credit for how things were going but didn't deserve it.
Pitiful man the way I see it.

[dmastous]

Now people can talk all they want about Clinton's personal life and his "no sex" comment, but when he was in office, not only was the budget balanced, but we had a SURPLUS!  The economy was going good, the unemployment rate was low....then came 8 years of BUSH and look where we are now.  We definitely can't continue going in the same direction we're going, and since McClain voted 95% WITH BUSH, I don't see anything different with what he will bring to the white house.   Heck, with McClain in office heck, talk about being in 1 war, we may be in 5 or 6!

And this 8 years of economic happiness was a result of Clinton? Is that your contention?
We had 8 years of economic success because of the dot com boom. We had a one two punch of technological/commercial breakthroughs. First the personal computer which carried the economy in the first part of the '90s (and got us out of what was then a recession), then when that started to flag, the internet took the baton and carried it all the way through to 2000. People where making money hand over fist, and companies were springing up like weeds. The surpluses you are talking about was due to that success and the taxes that were brought in because of that success. Bill Clinton didn't invent the personal computer, and despite Al Gore's slip, he didn't invent the internet.
Now, we get to why the economy is in the tank...
Three things happened to shock the economy. First, the Netscape suit against Microsoft that case hit the Supreme Court in 2000. The Supreme Court ruled that Microsoft was a monopoly and recommended that it be split into two companies (which never happened). That sent shock waves throughout the technology sector and caused people to take a closer look at what was going on everywhere else. What they saw was an orgy of spending and irresponsibility that bordered on insanity. Money was flying all over the place and companies were making NOTHING. They were spending it on $1000 chairs for everyone and wild parties. The result of all that was the dot com bust. Companies folded, or were bought up by bigger fish, as fast as they had sprung up. That's strike one.
Second was 9/11. Of course that was Bush's fault. Clearly he should have seen that coming (and I'm not being sarcastic, he and his predecessors should have seen it. That's their responsibility). Strike two.
Third was the shock of multiple large companies going bankrupt. Enron, Worldcom, and a few other high profile blowups started people taking a closer look at how books were being kept, and what they saw was troubling. Strike three.
But the reason these things were possible were a direct result of decisions made during the Clinton administration (9/11 is more of a long standing historical issue so that wouldn't altogether be included in that comment, though he played his part). Regulations were dropped, and changes were made to allow these companies to do some of the things they were doing to get out of control. This was done by Clinton and by Reagan and Bush senior. They are all at fault. Bush Jr is just left with the mess, similar to Herbert Hoover after the 1929 crash. Hoover proved incapable of handling the situation so it just got worse, and we call that the Great Depression. The bottom line is the ball was dropped by Clinton, and wasn't picked up by Bush.
Since then we've had the rise in oil costs driving gas prices through the roof, and the real estate market's bottom dropping out. Now I would suggest that both of those could have been prevented or perhaps helped by the Bush administration. His adventure in Iraq and irresponsible spending have also been deplorable.
Bush has exacerbated the situation is many ways, so no credit to him at all. But don't blame this situation entirely on him. He is just standing on the shoulders of "greatness".

It's amazing how many viewpoints there are of the same era.  Personally, I think the president usually has minimal direct impact on the economy.

You have a different viewpoint? What is it?

I happen to agree with your assessment!

However, I did a little poking around and it appears that the history books will portray the economy during the Clinton era a bit differently.   Start at the Wiki and go from there. 

To think that one man controls the economy of the U.S. is beyond my comprehension.

Clinton does get a bit more credit than he should. But you didn't hear from me.

What?? I missed that.....   

[monstertruck]

First off, I find the title of this thread offensive, but it's a free country and you are entitled to start a thread.
Secondly, I agree with whoever said who ever wins the election will probably go down as a bad president because this country is in such a mess.  In my opinion, we're in a mess because of 8 years of Bush and the republican party. (just my view). 

Now people can talk all they want about Clinton's personal life and his "no sex" comment, but when he was in office, not only was the budget balanced, but we had a SURPLUS!  The economy was going good, the unemployment rate was low....then came 8 years of BUSH and look where we are now.  We definitely can't continue going in the same direction we're going, and since McClain voted 95% WITH BUSH, I don't see anything different with what he will bring to the white house.   Heck, with McClain in office heck, talk about being in 1 war, we may be in 5 or 6!

That's all I'm going to say.  Again, everyone can do their part by voting, but if your mind is already made up on who you're going to vote for - then it's a waste of time 'arguing'.  And as a Obama supporter, the title offends me because "politically correct' it should have both names in that title.

Honestly, that's what annoyed me most because the whole premise is wrong. Assuming that Bush would have to be a congressman in order for McCain to support his positions. There was no lie. Again, I find it interesting how those who claim to dislike both candidates, never hold McCain's feet to the fire on anything at all. McCain has no answers, but most don't know that because they don't seem to care. Yeah, pretty interesting.

I nominate you to start the McCain thread and we shall roast him as well!

[retro]

Never cared for Clinton, lied to congress to save his hide. He could have saved some face by resigning but didn't. Should of went to jail but didn't. A bad role model for the youth to say the least.
Got a lot of credit for how things were going but didn't deserve it.
Pitiful man the way I see it.

Getting your whistle wet by a consenting adult is not a crime. They had no business asking that man about his personal life.

[retro]

The more I learn about McCain, the less I like him.

That is how I feel about him now.



Getting back to the Clinton era. This current recession(slowdown) started in 1998 when he was still in office. For some reason people overlook what happened with the Security Exchange Commisson eg Eron. Big corporations were "cooking the books" in addition to to robbing their own employees of their pension. You can almost compare it to what is going on right now with the mortgage companies. Also if I am not mistaken, didn't the boom of outsourcing begin in the Clinton era

[dmastous]

The more I learn about McCain, the less I like him.

That is how I feel about him now.



Getting back to the Clinton era. This current recession(slowdown) started in 1998 when he was still in office. For some reason people overlook what happened with the Security Exchange Commisson eg Eron. Big corporations were "cooking the books" in addition to to robbing their own employees of their pension. You can almost compare it to what is going on right now with the mortgage companies. Also if I am not mistaken, didn't the boom of outsourcing begin in the Clinton era

It started before Clinton. But really started in ernest after NAFTA, which did happen during Clinton's term in 1993/4.

[Babblelot]

Wow, five pages in 2 days!

This must be a good thread 

[dmastous]

Wow, five pages in 2 days!

This must be a good thread 

Typical political thread. No facts, lots of rhetoric and arguing. Nobody really listening to anything, or reading in this case.

[swish]

Never cared for Clinton, lied to congress to save his hide. He could have saved some face by resigning but didn't. Should of went to jail but didn't. A bad role model for the youth to say the least.
Got a lot of credit for how things were going but didn't deserve it.
Pitiful man the way I see it.

Getting your whistle wet by a consenting adult is not a crime. They had no business asking that man about his personal life.

They can ask any question that is deemed important, in itself it is not a crime but lying to Congress is. Clinton never learned to keep his mouth shut and it caught up with him. He wasn't as slick as he thought he was.

[swish]

The more I learn about McCain, the less I like him.

That is how I feel about him now.



Getting back to the Clinton era. This current recession(slowdown) started in 1998 when he was still in office. For some reason people overlook what happened with the Security Exchange Commisson eg Eron. Big corporations were "cooking the books" in addition to to robbing their own employees of their pension. You can almost compare it to what is going on right now with the mortgage companies. Also if I am not mistaken, didn't the boom of outsourcing begin in the Clinton era

A lot of it did, the internet helped a great deal. People could write software programs for half the price and send it in 1 second, no different from being in the next cube.

[dmastous]

The more I learn about McCain, the less I like him.

That is how I feel about him now.



Getting back to the Clinton era. This current recession(slowdown) started in 1998 when he was still in office. For some reason people overlook what happened with the Security Exchange Commisson eg Eron. Big corporations were "cooking the books" in addition to to robbing their own employees of their pension. You can almost compare it to what is going on right now with the mortgage companies. Also if I am not mistaken, didn't the boom of outsourcing begin in the Clinton era

A lot of it did, the internet helped a great deal. People could write software programs for half the price and send it in 1 second, no different from being in the next cube.

We get all our CAD work done in India now. Putting Americans out of work these days seems to be the way to go.

[swish]

The more I learn about McCain, the less I like him.

That is how I feel about him now.



Getting back to the Clinton era. This current recession(slowdown) started in 1998 when he was still in office. For some reason people overlook what happened with the Security Exchange Commisson eg Eron. Big corporations were "cooking the books" in addition to to robbing their own employees of their pension. You can almost compare it to what is going on right now with the mortgage companies. Also if I am not mistaken, didn't the boom of outsourcing begin in the Clinton era

A lot of it did, the internet helped a great deal. People could write software programs for half the price and send it in 1 second, no different from being in the next cube.

We get all our CAD work done in India now. Putting Americans out of work these days seems to be the way to go.

I just think it's a global marketplace, companies have to go with the cheaper alternatives if their competition is doing the same. Unfortunately Americans get the bad end of it. Other countries are happy, jobs are there that weren't before.

[Dallas]

OK, McClain suppoters...answer this for me.  (or anyone)

Now McClain is what - 77 years old?  You know the White House 'age' you.  So just hypothetically speaking, if he gets the presidency, and heaven forbid that something happens to him... Do you really think the Governor of Alaska is fit to take over the United States of American?   McClain's argument about Obama is that he doesn't have enough foreign experience, blah, blah, blah....

What kind of experience does his V.P. candidate have?

[dmastous]

OK, McClain suppoters...answer this for me.  (or anyone)

Now McClain is what - 77 years old?  You know the White House 'age' you.  So just hypothetically speaking, if he gets the presidency, and heaven forbid that something happens to him... Do you really think the Governor of Alaska is fit to take over the United States of American?   McClain's argument about Obama is that he doesn't have enough foreign experience, blah, blah, blah....

What kind of experience does his V.P. candidate have?

Hmmm... interesting question. I'd be curious to compare Sarah Palin's experience with Barak Obama's. How many jobs has Obama had, I mean other than as a professional politician?

[retro]

Neither one has experience since they were never president

Being a good/bad president has to do with timing. Clinton is looked on favorably because of the economic growth which he had nothing to do with. Bush is looked down upon because of the War after the country was attacked. If the roles were reverse, the situation would still be the same because Clinton would have taken us to WAR as well. Remember the senate, as well as congress, overwhemlingly agreed to this nonsense.

[dmastous]

Neither one has experience since they were never president

Being a good/bad president has to do with timing. Clinton is looked on favorably because of the economic growth which he had nothing to do with. Bush is looked down upon because of the War after the country was attacked. If the roles were reverse, the situation would still be the same because Clinton would have taken us to WAR as well. Remember the senate, as well as congress, overwhemlingly agreed to this nonsense.

I would say that is true for the most part. But Bush chose the war in this case, it didn't choose him. Bush was given a raw deal to begin with, but he has done things that have made the situation worse. That's on him.
Clinton, to his credit, didn't screw things up too much, but then one could say he did because the ship he handed to Bush was already sinking due to some of the actions that were taken during his administration. Some of the changes in financial law, and removal of regulations are the reason the ship was sinking.
But in the end timing was the crucial part of how we look upon each president historically.

[monstertruck]

Neither one has experience since they were never president

Being a good/bad president has to do with timing. Clinton is looked on favorably because of the economic growth which he had nothing to do with. Bush is looked down upon because of the War after the country was attacked. If the roles were reverse, the situation would still be the same because Clinton would have taken us to WAR as well. Remember the senate, as well as congress, overwhemlingly agreed to this nonsense.

I would say that is true for the most part. But Bush chose the war in this case, it didn't choose him. Bush was given a raw deal to begin with, but he has done things that have made the situation worse. That's on him.
Clinton, to his credit, didn't screw things up too much, but then one could say he did because the ship he handed to Bush was already sinking due to some of the actions that were taken during his administration. Some of the changes in financial law, and removal of regulations are the reason the ship was sinking.
But in the end timing was the crucial part of how we look upon each president historically.

Can you say NAFTA?

[monstertruck]

OK, McClain suppoters...answer this for me.  (or anyone)

Now McClain is what - 77 years old?  You know the White House 'age' you.  So just hypothetically speaking, if he gets the presidency, and heaven forbid that something happens to him... Do you really think the Governor of Alaska is fit to take over the United States of American?   McClain's argument about Obama is that he doesn't have enough foreign experience, blah, blah, blah....

What kind of experience does his V.P. candidate have?

Although I'm not a McCain supporter, I can answer that-  NONE!

[dmastous]

Neither one has experience since they were never president

Being a good/bad president has to do with timing. Clinton is looked on favorably because of the economic growth which he had nothing to do with. Bush is looked down upon because of the War after the country was attacked. If the roles were reverse, the situation would still be the same because Clinton would have taken us to WAR as well. Remember the senate, as well as congress, overwhemlingly agreed to this nonsense.

I would say that is true for the most part. But Bush chose the war in this case, it didn't choose him. Bush was given a raw deal to begin with, but he has done things that have made the situation worse. That's on him.
Clinton, to his credit, didn't screw things up too much, but then one could say he did because the ship he handed to Bush was already sinking due to some of the actions that were taken during his administration. Some of the changes in financial law, and removal of regulations are the reason the ship was sinking.
But in the end timing was the crucial part of how we look upon each president historically.

Can you say NAFTA?

True enough, but NAFTA was signed by Clinton in 1993, and went into force on Jan 1 1994. Do you think Bill Clinton came up with it, and got the ball rolling?
No. George Bush senior was one of the originating forces in NAFTA. So shame on both parties for the mess that came from that (giant sucking sound).