The Clinton Thread II

[Kelly]

Well, the problem with our economy is it is sooooo freaking big, that really....you don't see the real positive or negatives of policy until about 10 years down the road...

 

[redfirebird2008]

Well, the problem with our economy is it is sooooo freaking big, that really....you don't see the real positive or negatives of policy until about 10 years down the road...

In what way is outsourcing American jobs to countries with slave labor a good policy? It has never been a good idea, except for the corporations.

 

[Paradoxium]

Summers, is the Treasury Secretary of Clinton. He is also an advisor to Obama now, and Geithner is his protege. Summers said a while back the Japan debacle would improve their economy:

“If you look, this is clearly going to add complexity to Japan’s challenge of economic recovery,” Summers said. “It may lead to some temporary increments, ironically, to GDP, as a process of rebuilding takes place. In the wake of the earlier Kobe earthquake, Japan actually gained some economic strength.”

This is the type of economic thinking we have nowadays. And I am not done.

Japanese Industrial Production has fallen 15.3%.

Any layperson can see why disaster does not improve the economy. But this is the type of economic thinking that pervades in Washington - every spent penny would raise GDP - but the quality and context means absolutely nothing. Someone spending 1 million on a giant hole, is just as productive, as 1 million in making a building energy efficient. They are both "investments", and raise the same GDP numbers.

 

[redfirebird2008]

Summers was also the biggest supporter of derivatives in the Clinton administration. Can't stand the guy.

 

[Kelly]

In what way is outsourcing American jobs to countries with slave labor a good policy? It has never been a good idea, except for the corporations.

My post was just a general statement really about the economy, that is why I didn't reply to anyone specific...

 

[Paradoxium]

I'm glad Matt is learning more about the long term consequences of Clinton. It's too bad more people don't try to immerse themselves in that view. Even if Clinton returned post-Bush (instead of Obama) I don't think much will improve the current situation.

 

[redfirebird2008]

I'm glad Matt is learning more about the long term consequences of Clinton. It's too bad more people don't try to immerse themselves in that view. Even if Clinton returned post-Bush (instead of Obama) I don't think much will improve the current situation.

Derivatives = crap.
Outsourcing = crap.

What do Clinton and Obama have in common? Larry Summers is their chief economic adviser and he has supported those two policies during both the Clinton and Obama administrations. The figure head is irrelevant when the same people behind the scenes are pulling the strings in both instances.

 

[Paradoxium]

The type of derivatives that are crap are the ones where you do not need to meet margin. Compared to ones where you cover for your loses. It's the former that they encouraged. The latter is more self-regulated by virtue you need to cover.

 

[Matt]

I'm glad Matt is learning more about the long term consequences of Clinton. It's too bad more people don't try to immerse themselves in that view. Even if Clinton returned post-Bush (instead of Obama) I don't think much will improve the current situation.

I started reading Frank about four years ago and was shocked that a self-proclaimed Democrat was so critical of Clinton. But the more I read, the more that it made sense. The problem is, Bush, Obama, Clinton, even Reagan are all essentially the same. Their economic policies are all essentially the same. Whoever wins, we lose.

 

[redfirebird2008]

I started reading Frank about four years ago and was shocked that a self-proclaimed Democrat was so critical of Clinton. But the more I read, the more that it made sense. The problem is, Bush, Obama, Clinton, even Reagan are all essentially the same. Their economic policies are all essentially the same. Whoever wins, we lose.

Correct. It's the multinational corporations against the American worker. The politicians sold us out by allowing outsourcing of jobs by so-called "American" companies. These "American" companies benefit from the stability of our government while screwing over the people of this country in order to make as much money as possible through slave labor overseas. There needs to be a two-way street. You want to be headquartered here? Fine, don't ship all your jobs overseas. If you want to take advantage of slave labor overseas, then go ahead and move your headquarters over there as well.

 

[Marx]

HILLARY CLINTON TO BE FEATURED IN COMIC BOOK
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/10/hillary-clinton-the-action-hero/

 

[Kelly]

Yeah, she has been before....as was Palin, and others. I think I actually had a thread on it a few years ago.

As long as its not propaganda crap and a desire to educate kiddos....cool.

 

[Marx]

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has flatly denied rumors of her being interested in heading the World Bank.

 

[Paradoxium]

Super explosive diarrhea hypocrite FTW

Hilary in 2007.

Clinton, D-N.Y., a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has since May requested a briefing from Pentagon officials as to whether they have undertaken any serious planning for a future withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.

On Thursday she received a response from the Pentagon that she told ABC News was “outrageous and offensive.”

The letter from Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Eric Edelman did not mince words. “Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies,” he wrote.

“I deeply resent the administration’s continuing effort to impugn the patriotism of those of us who are asking hard questions,” Clinton told ABC News.

This year.

But the bottom line is, whose side are you on? Are you on Qadhafi’s side or are you on the side of the aspirations of the Libyan people and the international coalition that has been created to support them? For the Obama Administration, the answer to that question is very easy.

 

[Marx]

PRESIDENT CLINTON COMMENTS ON 'CLASS WARFARE' ACCUSATIONS AGAINST PRESIDENT OBAMA
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/01/blitzers-blog-bill-clinton-on-class-warfare/

 

[Belvedere]

Taxing the highest earners is class warfare, cutting their taxes on the other hand is 'encouraging aspiration.'

Interesting.

 

[Marx]

Today is former President Clinton's 65th birthday! Happy Birthday!

 

[Quetzal]

Indeed happy birthday. t:

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

Ole Bubba has pulled a 180 from his fast-food addict days and is now a vegan. I just want to congratulate him on his new healthy outlook.

 

[Marx]

POLL: 1/3 OF AMERICANS SAY COUNTRY WOULD BE BETTER UNDER HILLARY CLINTON PRESIDENCY
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...-optimistic-about-hillary-clinton-presidency/

 

[Quetzal]

Hillary was my first choice, and would gladly vote for her if she did run eventually again.

 

[DACrowe]

I have no idea. The grass is always greener and all that. I think she may have been able to handle a GOP House better than Obama has in the last (painful) nine months. However, Hillary is far more centrist and pragmatic than Obama is. I imagine she would have backed off HCR after a December-January breakdown in 2009-2010, much as how she and Bill backed down in 1995. I also think we wouldn't have refocused in drawing down Afghanistan as she was one of the strong voices that escalated the war in 2009 and did not want the 2014 drawdown last year. I also wonder if she would have fought for liberal causes like repealing DADT.

But it's all theoretical, so I don't focus on that.

 

[Marx]

Hillary was my first choice, and would gladly vote for her if she did run eventually again.

Same here.

I have no idea. The grass is always greener and all that. I think she may have been able to handle a GOP House better than Obama has in the last (painful) nine months. However, Hillary is far more centrist and pragmatic than Obama is. I imagine she would have backed off HCR after a December-January breakdown in 2009-2010, much as how she and Bill backed down in 1995. I also think we wouldn't have refocused in drawing down Afghanistan as she was one of the strong voices that escalated the war in 2009 and did not want the 2014 drawdown last year. I also wonder if she would have fought for liberal causes like repealing DADT.

But it's all theoretical, so I don't focus on that.

I question whether she would have pushed for the gay issues that Obama has but I strongly believe she would have been stronger in message and approach in general. She also never would have allowed Nancy Pelosi to hijack the beginning of her presidency.

 

[DACrowe]

Yes and no. I think Obama let Pelosi be an excuse for the GOP to do nothing. Honestly, I kind of see the Clintons making the same mistake of turning a much needed stimulus into a Democratic Party wish list instead of focusing on job creation. But let's say the GOP was just as obstructionist against Hillary as they have been towards Obama on HCR--and this is very believable as back in 2007 and early 2008, they "praised" Obama just to knock Hillary who they assumed would be the nominee--I could see her doing what Rahm wanted to do and pulling out of getting HCR done. And I see her backing off social issues like DADT (which her husband signed), because that is not her interest. And honestly, I think Afghanistan could have been an even bigger sinkhole of human life and money because she still wants to double down on that tragedy we call a war.

However, if the GOP did swing into power in 2010, she probably could have made some shrewder moves than Obama and Daley did who got left at the alter by Boehner a half dozen times before it finally resulted in a downgrade and the reality of not having a governing partner sinked into this White House.

But who really knows.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Yes and no. I think Obama let Pelosi be an excuse for the GOP to do nothing. Honestly, I kind of see the Clintons making the same mistake of turning a much needed stimulus into a Democratic Party wish list instead of focusing on job creation. But let's say the GOP was just as obstructionist against Hillary as they have been towards Obama on HCR--and this is very believable as back in 2007 and early 2008, they "praised" Obama just to knock Hillary who they assumed would be the nominee--I could see her doing what Rahm wanted to do and pulling out of getting HCR done. And I see her backing off social issues like DADT (which her husband signed), because that is not her interest. And honestly, I think Afghanistan could have been an even bigger sinkhole of human life and money because she still wants to double down on that tragedy we call a war.

However, if the GOP did swing into power in 2010, she probably could have made some shrewder moves than Obama and Daley did who got left at the alter by Boehner a half dozen times before it finally resulted in a downgrade and the reality of not having a governing partner sinked into this White House.

But who really knows.

I don't think the GOP wouldn't be as obstructionist towards Hillary as they are with Obama.

The biggest problem with the Obama Administration is that Obama just doesn't know what the hell he is doing. It's not his ideology. It's not that he's elitist or out of touch. It's that he doesn't know what he's doing at all.

Take the recent debacle where John Boehner told him that he couldn't hold a joint session of Congress to give a speech. It was an unprecedented move where even Democratic pundits came out and said that Obama looked petty. That would have never happened under Hillary because Hillary would have had the common sense not to schedule such a thing during the GOP debate and she wouldn't have done it so publicly.

There is also the fact that Obama doesn't know how to work with Congress at all. Back when the Democrats had a supermajority in Congress, Obama still had trouble getting things such as the stimulus and Obamacare passed because he had trouble with conservative Democrats. And now that the GOP has the House and the Democratic Senate majority has deteriorated to the point where it is now expected that the GOP will retake the Senate in 2012, Obama can't get anything he wants done because the GOP is bitter towards him for how he treated them during the 111th Congress and because he kept trying to push incompatible ideas onto them. Obama's negotiating skills in Washington are considered to be horrific by all sides of the isle. He doesn't know how to pick his battles at all.

Hillary on the other hand, is far more pragmatic. She knows how to work with Congress because she actually spent time in Congress (and even though I don't agree with her politically, I will say that she did a terrific job as my Senator, she actually did work to represent Upstate New York). She dealt with them during the Clinton Administration. She knows when a proposal is dead in the water like attempting to raise taxes on those who make over $250,000 a year. She wouldn't waste political capital on lost causes like Obamacare. And she would have turned things like the debt ceiling debacle into victories if the Republicans were obstructionist.

That is why I think that Hillary would have been a far better President. She would have known what to do. The GOP wouldn't have been as obstructionist with her as they are with Obama because Hillary knows how to fight and she knows when to drop ideas that have no chance of passing. They would be too afraid to be absurdly obstructionist because they did so with Bill Clinton and lost. The GOP has no such fears of Obama because he's an incompetent man who has lost relevance.

Hillary supporters have earned the right to say "I told you so."