The Clinton Thread II

[Marx]

President Clinton will be on 'The Late Show with David Letterman' tonight.

 

[Dr. Evil]

President Clinton will be on 'The Late Show with David Letterman' tonight.

He'll make a few jokes about Chelsea's wedding no doubt. I wonder if Dave will talk to him about what his relationship is with Mick Jagger.

 

[StorminNorman]

Hillary is not a Centrist. She is firmly a Progressive.

 

[Kelly]

She is a "Realist Progressive"....

 

[Kelly]

He'll make a few jokes about Chelsea's wedding no doubt. I wonder if Dave will talk to him about what his relationship is with Mick Jagger.

He already has on other talk shows, he said something to the affect of..... "Chelsea's wedding was my contribution to helping the economy..."

 

[Marx]

He already has on other talk shows, he said something to the affect of..... "Chelsea's wedding was my contribution to helping the economy..."

Yeah. He said that on The Daily Show.

 

[Kelly]

I'm not far left.

I'd have a very hard time seeing Hillary run in 2012. I think she'll wait for 2016 if she decides to run again.

I don't think she will take the chance that a Republican could win, and end up in office for 2 terms....

She will be 65 in 2012...I don't think she wants to take the chance of trying to pull a Reagan or McCain in 2020.

IMO, if she doesn't go for it in 2012, it will be too late...and her chance will go by....

 

[StorminNorman]

She is a "Realist Progressive"....

Which is the most dangerous. It means she supports as much government power as it can realistically assume.

 

[Kelly]

I don't know that it is the most dangerous, seems to me Progressives like Obama are, in that they are just going to ram and ram and ram as much Progressive legislation in as they can....no matter the outcome.....hiding as much of their agenda within the legislation as they possibly can....

To me a "Realist Progressive" is just that....they are realistic and they know what people will go for and what they won't.....and THAT is the Progressive Agenda they follow.....

 

[StorminNorman]

Hillary Clinton's political reputation is much better than Obama's today.

That's why a I fear her more.

 

[Kelly]

I see where you are coming from....

 

[chaseter]

I agree with Kel, it is 2012 or bust for Hillary. If the Republicans throw up Sarah Palin as their nominee, then I could definitely see Hillary winning and becoming president. If the Republicans throw up a stronger candidate, then Hillary or Obama will both lose.

 

[Doomed_hero]

I don't see hiliary doing it. I think Obama will be the nom. again and despite what people say he will win again. There is really no republican out there who is strong enough to win. I can see him possible naming Hiliary as his VP to gain more votes.

 

[chaseter]

As of right now, he will not win re-election. I don't see things getting any better any time soon.

 

[Doomed_hero]

But who do you think will beat him? His numbers are down but no lower then most at this time in there presidency( except maybe W. at this time since 9/11 just happen.)I mean who can beat him right now Romney? Palin? Gingrich? I don't see any strong contender. Plus the Republican party is going so far to the right, I don't see them coming back by 2012.

 

[chaseter]

Once the GOP picks someone that is reasonable and not a looney toon, then their numbers will start to rise. We won't know until the GOP throws somebody out there but if an election were held today and the GOP candidate was already well known like Obama is, Obama would lose.

I think it is crazy that in 2008 the Dems took control of everything and less than two years later they already ruined that control and will be ousted in 2010 and if things continue down this path then Republicans will have complete control again in 2012.

 

[Marx]

Once the GOP picks someone that is reasonable and not a looney toon, then their numbers will start to rise. We won't know until the GOP throws somebody out there but if an election were held today and the GOP candidate was already well known like Obama is, Obama would lose.

I think it is crazy that in 2008 the Dems took control of everything and less than two years later they already ruined that control and will be ousted in 2010 and if things continue down this path then Republicans will have complete control again in 2012.

The GOP is being overrun by Tea Partiers and catering to those 'looney toons'. Unfortunately, the GOP party nominee in 2012 will likely be an extremist right winger. (After all, alot of people in the GOP seem to think they lost because McCain wasn't 'conservative enough'.)

 

[Marx]

President Clinton to Katie Couric on the CBS Evening News about the coming midterms and if he thinks the Democrats are facing a bloodbath...

People just need to think. The outcome of the Democrats will depend on if it's a choice, or a referendum. If it's a choice, I think we're going to surprise alot of people and do just fine.

He went on to say...

The Republicans had eight years to dig us into this hole and now they're arguing that the Democrats have failed because the Democrats haven't fixed everything in twenty-one months?

I this man.

 

[Kelly]

The problem with that statement is, a good amount of the money spent was in the last 2 years.....Dems had control. So, yes I can agree with Clinton on most of that....but to lay it all on the Republicans is simply a partisan ploy, and understandable at this time....but still not the entire truth.

Also, I'm not quite sure about all of this anyway...

[FONT=times new roman,times]

So spending $572B in two years stimulates an economy, but spending $554B over six years ruins one?

[/FONT]

I read this awhile back, I found it VERY interesting.....when you really break down the numbers, and not use numbers like "jobs saved"....???? it really shines a light on some things.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/08/iraq_the_war_that_broke_us_not.html

Source:
[FONT=times new roman,times][Data sources: All data for 2009 and later are from the CBO's recent [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]budget outlook[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times] ([/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]pdf here[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]). For an accounting of Iraq war spending, see Box 1-3 of that report. For an accounting of stimulus spending, see Box 1-2 of that report. For summary federal budget numbers in 2009 and later, see Table 1 of that report.[/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman,times]Federal budget figures through 2008 are from the [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]U.S. Statistical Abstract[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]. See Table 457 for overall spending and deficit levels, Table 458 for debt levels, and Tables 459 and 461 for spending in specific categories.][/FONT]

 

[DACrowe]

Depends what you spend it on. Keep in mind that we lost $3 trillion due to the economic crash of 2008 (which I think Bush, Reagan, and to be fair CLINTON'S economic policies contributed to). Albeit they go more at the feet of Bush as it was he and the GOP who ran the entire show for six of the seven years leading up to this recession/near-depression.

Obama has invested $800 billion into the economy. Nearly $400 billion of which went to tax cuts (not the most efficient way, but it is what he did to get three Republicans in the Senate to vote for it).

$800 billion cannot recreate the wealth industry lost ($3 trillion) when nobody is lending. To be fair there were some economic mistakes. But, I tend to believe most economists who say that both W. and Obama's reaction to the crisis in the first 12 months saved between 1-4 million jobs (that includes the Auto Industry "Bailout").

But the damage that happened was severe. Clinton is right, whoever is in charge will get blamed for that economy. But it is ironic that the people who made the mess are going to be voted back into power because the other guys didn't clean it up fast enough. The irony of the two party system and American politics is rich here, I do think.

 

[Hobgoblin]

I'm not far left.

I'd have a very hard time seeing Hillary run in 2012. I think she'll wait for 2016 if she decides to run again.

Exactly. Loyalty is everything in DC. It was true for the Bush Administration and its no less so for the Obama Administration. Now, if President Obama were to announce that he would not run in '12, than Hillary would have no problem announcing her candidacy. But how often does a sitting President decline a second term?

 

[Kelly]

Depends what you spend it on. Keep in mind that we lost $3 trillion due to the economic crash of 2008 (which I think Bush, Reagan, and to be fair CLINTON'S economic policies contributed to). Albeit they go more at the feet of Bush as it was he and the GOP who ran the entire show for six of the seven years leading up to this recession/near-depression.

Obama has invested $800 billion into the economy. Nearly $400 billion of which went to tax cuts (not the most efficient way, but it is what he did to get three Republicans in the Senate to vote for it).

$800 billion cannot recreate the wealth industry lost ($3 trillion) when nobody is lending. To be fair there were some economic mistakes. But, I tend to believe most economists who say that both W. and Obama's reaction to the crisis in the first 12 months saved between 1-4 million jobs (that includes the Auto Industry "Bailout").

But the damage that happened was severe. Clinton is right, whoever is in charge will get blamed for that economy. But it is ironic that the people who made the mess are going to be voted back into power because the other guys didn't clean it up fast enough. The irony of the two party system and American politics is rich here, I do think.

I have sources with mine, wheres yours....

 

[DACrowe]

NON-PARTISAN CBO ESTIMATED EARLY LAST DECEMBER THAT STIMULUS SAVED OR CREATED 1.6 MILLION JOBS

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...stimulus-saved-or-created-as-many-as-16m-jobs

THIS MONTH NON-PARTISAN CBO ESTIMATED THAT STIMULUS RAISED NATIONAL GDP BETWEEN 1.7 TO 4.2 PERCENT, KEPT UNEMPLOYMENT RAISING ANOTHER 0.7 TO 1.5 PERCENT, CREATED 1.2 TO 2.8 MILLION JOBS AND SAVED BETWEEN 1.8 TO 4.1 MILLION FULL TIME JOBS

http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/t...nomy-but-it-wont-matter-in-november/19614039/

MCCAIN ADVISOR SAYS STIMULUS SAVED OVER 3 MILLION JOBS AND KEPT UNEMPLOYMENT RAISING TO AROUND 11.5 PERCENT

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/25/mark-zandi-boehner-was-wr_n_694506.html

COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC ADVISERS (WORKS WITH WHITE HOUSE) SAYS STIMULUS SAVED 3 MILLION JOBS, KEPT UNEMPLOYMENT RISING ANOTHER 1.5 PERCENT

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/72218

"AUTO BAILOUT" WORKED, HUGE ECONOMIC SUCCESS FOR WHITE HOUSE, SAVED HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF JOBS AT LEAST

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703999304575399670446387614.html

 

[chaseter]

"The Stimulus Didn't Work"
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204731804574385233867030644.html

"Economists: The stimulus didn't help"
http://money.cnn.com/2010/04/26/news/economy/NABE_survey/

"CBO ups health care cost projections"
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/37081.html

"Do Unemployment Benefits Increase Unemployment?"
http://capitolcommentary.com/2010/08/18/do-unemployment-benefits-increase-unemployment/

 

[DACrowe]

Your first is an opinion piece on a newspaper that is staunchly opposed to big government (unless it comes to bailing out banks) and 9 times out of 10 never wrote a positive op-ed or editorial about an Obama program. That's like me using a Frank Rich column on the Tea Parties to prove they're racist.

Your second link is from a group of economists who are part of a pro-business trade association (read: special interest), who again have a predictable bias on the issue.

Your last two are unrelated to the stimulus, which is what Kel and I were discussing, and again the latter is a think/opinion piece.

I agree the CBO (once it factors in the Doc Fix) shows the true cost of HCR. That is a good link. However, that was not what the discourse was about above.