Why I'm Supporting Hillary Clinton For President 2008

[OutHouse]

errr what exactly leads you to believe that hillary will have the same economic as bill?

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: TheSlamma

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: TheSlamma
If you think Hillary can bring back the late 90's economy you really need to take an economics class.

No, you are the one who need to take some economics class to see how fiscal policies from the White house can affect the economy. While you are at it, read Greenspan's Age of Turbulence and see how Clinton is the one that worked most closely with him to get the economy going.

So tell me then expert, why did the economy begin to tank in late 1999 and especially in 2000.. while Bill was in Office... if he was still in control things should have been swell right?

Go check your facts, economy didn't tank, stock market did. Maybe you should study stock valuation a little too and see if DASDAQ at 5000 is sustainable.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Sorry compuwiz, we won't have a balanced budget again because theres no social security to raid.

 

[Rockinacoustic]

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
I believe, as much as I dislike the Clinton clan, that Hill will be our next President.

And that's your reason to "support" her? You make NO sense and represent the problem with the general American voter.

 

[maverick44]

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
I don't like Hill and I don't like Bill, but there is no denying that the best, most recent years in our economy were under the Bill Clinton administration.

That said, I believe this is really a 3rd term for Bill, IF Hillary gets elected, BUT, there really are not any good options on the table, are there?

I mean, Ron Who is a joke. McCain will never make it. Romney is a Mormon and on that premise alone will not get elected. Huckabye baby is too irrelevant and Obama is a good candidate, but he's still black, and that is going to be an issue at the polls, sadly to say.

So, what "real" choices do we really have?

I believe, as much as I dislike the Clinton clan, that Hill will be our next President.

From an NBC news article,


http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com...2007/11/19/473397.aspx

At a press conference in Fort Dodge, IA, Obama was asked about Clinton's questioning of his economic experience, and he replied "My understanding is that she wasn't Treasury secretary in the Clinton Administration."

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: maverick44

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
I don't like Hill and I don't like Bill, but there is no denying that the best, most recent years in our economy were under the Bill Clinton administration.

That said, I believe this is really a 3rd term for Bill, IF Hillary gets elected, BUT, there really are not any good options on the table, are there?

I mean, Ron Who is a joke. McCain will never make it. Romney is a Mormon and on that premise alone will not get elected. Huckabye baby is too irrelevant and Obama is a good candidate, but he's still black, and that is going to be an issue at the polls, sadly to say.

So, what "real" choices do we really have?

I believe, as much as I dislike the Clinton clan, that Hill will be our next President.

From an NBC news article,


http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com...2007/11/19/473397.aspx

At a press conference in Fort Dodge, IA, Obama was asked about Clinton's questioning of his economic experience, and he replied "My understanding is that she wasn't Treasury secretary in the Clinton Administration."

No president make decision by themselves, not even Bill Clinton. Hillary Clinton will have access to Bill, and the network of people that worked and closely associated with Bill Clinton that made his term successful. Obama got his own machine and his own people, not sure how proven they are. I know some of them come from the Clinton admin but I doubt they are the majority in Obama camp.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
Obama is a good candidate, but he's still black, and that is going to be an issue at the polls, sadly to say.

That sounds more like a pathetic excuse for not backing Obama than a reason for choosing Hillary.

BTW, as someone already mentioned, Bill Clinton came after Bush senior, who was a very good and competent manager of the economy. His hard work paved the way for something Clinton took credit for (although he deserved a lot of credit himself).

 

[cKGunslinger]

It's true, we all know that when a President takes office, he reaches for the big "Economy" dial and turns it either towards "Good" or Bad," and *wham* the market feels the effect and reacts immediately.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
It's true, we all know that when a President takes office, he reaches for the big "Economy" dial and turns it either towards "Good" or Bad," and *wham* the market feels the effect and reacts immediately.

Hahaha :thumbsup:

It's like the Easy button in those office store commercials.

 

[maverick44]

No president make decision by themselves, not even Bill Clinton. Hillary Clinton will have access to Bill, and the network of people that worked and closely associated with Bill Clinton that made his term successful. Obama got his own machine and his own people, not sure how proven they are. I know some of them come from the Clinton admin but I doubt they are the majority in Obama camp.

Breakdown of the clinton administration

VP- Al gore .... distanced himself from the clinton camp in 2000
Secretary of State- Madeline Albright... endorsed clinton this time (granted)
Secretary of defense: Les Aspin, William J Perry, William S. Cohen.. no statements of endorsements of hillary ( General Wesley clarke has though endorsed her...but thats after an unsuccessful bid at the presidency himself)
Secretary of Treasury: Lloyd Bensten, Robert E. Rubin, Lawrence H summers- not a sqeak from them either.

So she has a grand TOTAL of ONE person from the Clinton administration who MATTERED..

The debate isnt done though... she claims that she has a lot of support from " advisors" in the clinton administration... 73 at last count... Obama claims he has 42 people from the clinton administraion... I didnt know there were that many people in the clinton administration

Link:http://www.usatoday.com/news/p...obama-experience_N.htm

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: rchiu
No president make decision by themselves, not even Bill Clinton. Hillary Clinton will have access to Bill, and the network of people that worked and closely associated with Bill Clinton that made his term successful. Obama got his own machine and his own people, not sure how proven they are. I know some of them come from the Clinton admin but I doubt they are the majority in Obama camp.

http://www.time.com/time/polit...0,8599,1698025,00.html
They both have a long list of former Clinton advisors... just an FYI.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
It's true, we all know that when a President takes office, he reaches for the big "Economy" dial and turns it either towards "Good" or Bad," and *wham* the market feels the effect and reacts immediately.

I don't even consider the President a figurehead when it comes to the economy. They have almost ZERO control of it.

Bill inherited an economy poised for expansion. He had nothing to do with that. I'm not crediting Reagan or the Pubs or whatever, I'm just pointing out the real world obvious. When Clinton took the helm, we were coming out of a recession, inflation was diminishing, interest rates were high, and prices were relatively low. That's a recipe for a certain boom even if nothing else happened. Combine that with huge technological advances and that was the '90s. Giving credit to any single person for that would be silliness beyond words.

In the meantime, I have serious issues with people who keep citing Bill's administration as a reason to vote for Hillary. Serious issues. Bill served his 2 terms. He's not eligible to serve anymore under the Constitution. Plus, this begs the question, would Hillary really be our first woman President if she just rides to office on Bill's coattails?

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: maverick44

No president make decision by themselves, not even Bill Clinton. Hillary Clinton will have access to Bill, and the network of people that worked and closely associated with Bill Clinton that made his term successful. Obama got his own machine and his own people, not sure how proven they are. I know some of them come from the Clinton admin but I doubt they are the majority in Obama camp.

Breakdown of the clinton administration

VP- Al gore .... distanced himself from the clinton camp in 2000
Secretary of State- Madeline Albright... endorsed clinton this time (granted)
Secretary of defense: Les Aspin, William J Perry, William S. Cohen.. no statements of endorsements of hillary ( General Wesley clarke has though endorsed her...but thats after an unsuccessful bid at the presidency himself)
Secretary of Treasury: Lloyd Bensten, Robert E. Rubin, Lawrence H summers- not a sqeak from them either.

So she has a grand TOTAL of ONE person from the Clinton administration who MATTERED..

The debate isnt done though... she claims that she has a lot of support from " advisors" in the clinton administration... 73 at last count... Obama claims he has 42 people from the clinton administraion... I didnt know there were that many people in the clinton administration

Link:http://www.usatoday.com/news/p...obama-experience_N.htm

Heh, are you kidding, count how many government agencies there are and how many people holds the title of policy maker or adviser. Your own link shows that more previous clinton admin people support Hillary. And it's not the endorsement that matters, it's the network and the connection through previous work and friendship that matters in Washington. Did Michael Brown (that FEMA guy) endorsed Bush? Clinton has much bigger network to proven people in agencies that you never heard of, and Clinton's admin was proven in running the country successfully in the economy, foreign relations, fiscal discipline and other areas for 8 years.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
It's true, we all know that when a President takes office, he reaches for the big "Economy" dial and turns it either towards "Good" or Bad," and *wham* the market feels the effect and reacts immediately.

I don't even consider the President a figurehead when it comes to the economy. They have almost ZERO control of it.

Bill inherited an economy poised for expansion. He had nothing to do with that. I'm not crediting Reagan or the Pubs or whatever, I'm just pointing out the real world obvious. When Clinton took the helm, we were coming out of a recession, inflation was diminishing, interest rates were high, and prices were relatively low. That's a recipe for a certain boom even if nothing else happened. Combine that with huge technological advances and that was the '90s. Giving credit to any single person for that would be silliness beyond words.

In the meantime, I have serious issues with people who keep citing Bill's administration as a reason to vote for Hillary. Serious issues. Bill served his 2 terms. He's not eligible to serve anymore under the Constitution. Plus, this begs the question, would Hillary really be our first woman President if she just rides to office on Bill's coattails?

Well, if you wanna roll the dice in selecting the one single most powerful person in the world, go right ahead. But I prefer to see people with proven track records, or who know people with proven track records to run the country. Don't really care if Hillary rides to office on Bills's coattails, as long as the result will be good. Plus she have 4 year to prove herself and a congress/senate to balance her power. Not like she will become the emperor of the US just because her husband was the president for 8 years before.

 

[maverick44]

Well, if you wanna roll the dice in selecting the one single most powerful person in the world, go right ahead

I believe thats what elections are all about rchiu, or do you prefer china's system where the head of state is always an insider and the "network of efficient people" preserved for eternity

Don't really care if Hillary rides to office on Bills's coattails, as long as the result will be good

Then I guess it will be Chelsea in '016 or Jeb Bush '012... YAAYY for the two first families...

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: maverick44

Well, if you wanna roll the dice in selecting the one single most powerful person in the world, go right ahead

I believe thats what elections are all about rchiu, or do you prefer china's system where the head of state is always an insider and the "network of efficient people" preserved for eternity

Don't really care if Hillary rides to office on Bills's coattails, as long as the result will be good

Then I guess it will be Chelsea in '016 or Jeb Bush '012... YAAYY for the two first families...

Hey, if China's system produced an excellent result or if Chelsea become a senator a few years and get her experience, what's wrong with going with chinese system or Chelsea. Do you have some kinda reverse discrimination? Oh and Jeb, well if his bro or father ran the country well, I would have support him too, but hey we all know what happened the last 8 years. I certainly don't want another Browny in any of the agencies.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
It's true, we all know that when a President takes office, he reaches for the big "Economy" dial and turns it either towards "Good" or Bad," and *wham* the market feels the effect and reacts immediately.

I don't even consider the President a figurehead when it comes to the economy. They have almost ZERO control of it.

Bill inherited an economy poised for expansion. He had nothing to do with that. I'm not crediting Reagan or the Pubs or whatever, I'm just pointing out the real world obvious. When Clinton took the helm, we were coming out of a recession, inflation was diminishing, interest rates were high, and prices were relatively low. That's a recipe for a certain boom even if nothing else happened. Combine that with huge technological advances and that was the '90s. Giving credit to any single person for that would be silliness beyond words.

In the meantime, I have serious issues with people who keep citing Bill's administration as a reason to vote for Hillary. Serious issues. Bill served his 2 terms. He's not eligible to serve anymore under the Constitution. Plus, this begs the question, would Hillary really be our first woman President if she just rides to office on Bill's coattails?

Well, if you wanna roll the dice in selecting the one single most powerful person in the world, go right ahead. But I prefer to see people with proven track records, or who know people with proven track records to run the country. Don't really care if Hillary rides to office on Bills's coattails, as long as the result will be good. Plus she have 4 year to prove herself and a congress/senate to balance her power. Not like she will become the emperor of the US just because her husband was the president for 8 years before.

You accuse me of rolling the dice while you're voting for the machine and not the candidate?

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
It's true, we all know that when a President takes office, he reaches for the big "Economy" dial and turns it either towards "Good" or Bad," and *wham* the market feels the effect and reacts immediately.

I don't even consider the President a figurehead when it comes to the economy. They have almost ZERO control of it.

Bill inherited an economy poised for expansion. He had nothing to do with that. I'm not crediting Reagan or the Pubs or whatever, I'm just pointing out the real world obvious. When Clinton took the helm, we were coming out of a recession, inflation was diminishing, interest rates were high, and prices were relatively low. That's a recipe for a certain boom even if nothing else happened. Combine that with huge technological advances and that was the '90s. Giving credit to any single person for that would be silliness beyond words.

In the meantime, I have serious issues with people who keep citing Bill's administration as a reason to vote for Hillary. Serious issues. Bill served his 2 terms. He's not eligible to serve anymore under the Constitution. Plus, this begs the question, would Hillary really be our first woman President if she just rides to office on Bill's coattails?

Well, if you wanna roll the dice in selecting the one single most powerful person in the world, go right ahead. But I prefer to see people with proven track records, or who know people with proven track records to run the country. Don't really care if Hillary rides to office on Bills's coattails, as long as the result will be good. Plus she have 4 year to prove herself and a congress/senate to balance her power. Not like she will become the emperor of the US just because her husband was the president for 8 years before.

You accuse me of rolling the dice while you're voting for the machine and not the candidate?

That's a big problem we have. People want someone who will "run the country," "run the economy."

Bullshit. What we need is for the people to run this country, the private sector and free markets to run the economy. We need a president strong enough not to take power a president shouldn't have. People have forgot what made this country great, and in doing so, have made this country a shit hole. Our country was founded on the idea that government is corrupt, and people now believe we should give the government more power and more control.

When the Republicans and Democrats both increase the power, size, and spending of the federal government, you'd think the people would be pissed. Instead they celebrate. It's insanity fueled by ignorance.

 

[senseamp]

Before we move further, can we all agree that we had a great economy in the 90s?
At least we need to nail that down before the revisionist history crowd jumps in and tries to tell us how much the Clinton years sucked.

 

[FoBoT]

there is a two term limit for POTUS, sorry , Bill isn't going to be president again

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Before we move further, can we all agree that we had a great economy in the 90s?
At least we need to nail that down before the revisionist history crowd jumps in and tries to tell us how much the Clinton years sucked.

You refuse to understand why the economy was great in the 90's. If you could take your head out of Clinton's ass, you may be able to see something besides shit.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: senseamp
Before we move further, can we all agree that we had a great economy in the 90s?
At least we need to nail that down before the revisionist history crowd jumps in and tries to tell us how much the Clinton years sucked.

You refuse to understand why the economy was great in the 90's. If you could take your head out of Clinton's ass, you may be able to see something besides shit.

Quickest synopsis possible:
- Inflation dropped to near-record lows.
- Asset values low.
- Rates dropped into the single-digits (and stayed there) for the first time in 2 decades.
- Major technological advances for the mass market consumer.


Contrast to today:
- Inflation rising.
- Asset values high.
- Interest rates already at or near historic lows.
- Technology??..

In laymans terms, going into the Clinton admin, the country got a new job with fat pay raise after years of working sh!tty jobs. Today, we still have the same job and we're neck-deep in debt, having already spent it all and then some.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: senseamp
Before we move further, can we all agree that we had a great economy in the 90s?
At least we need to nail that down before the revisionist history crowd jumps in and tries to tell us how much the Clinton years sucked.

You refuse to understand why the economy was great in the 90's. If you could take your head out of Clinton's ass, you may be able to see something besides shit.

Quickest synopsis possible:
- Inflation dropped to near-record lows.
- Asset values low.
- Rates dropped into the single-digits (and stayed there) for the first time in 2 decades.
- Major technological advances for the mass market consumer.


Contrast to today:
- Inflation rising.
- Asset values high.
- Interest rates already at or near historic lows.
- Technology??..

In laymans terms, going into the Clinton admin, the country got a new job with fat pay raise. Today, we still have the same job and we're neck-deep in debt.

Do you not understand how deficit spending leads to inflation, and how the government competing with the private sector for borrowing leads to higher interest rates? You make it sound as if the fiscal policy of the US government have nothing to do with the economy.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Vic
- Major technological advances for the mass market consumer.

You could have just said that, Vic.

Those technologies alone are what boosted the economy, and because consumers were buying them, it made them cheaper via mass production, and more available to smaller businesses as well as larger business. So, small and large businesses were producing their products and services more efficiently, as well as creating all kinds of new products and new services. That produces a domino effect which accounts for everything else you posted above. We should be thanking Microsoft, Intel, and the internet. Not Bill Clinton. A rock could have presided over that economy.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
It's true, we all know that when a President takes office, he reaches for the big "Economy" dial and turns it either towards "Good" or Bad," and *wham* the market feels the effect and reacts immediately.

I don't even consider the President a figurehead when it comes to the economy. They have almost ZERO control of it.

Bill inherited an economy poised for expansion. He had nothing to do with that. I'm not crediting Reagan or the Pubs or whatever, I'm just pointing out the real world obvious. When Clinton took the helm, we were coming out of a recession, inflation was diminishing, interest rates were high, and prices were relatively low. That's a recipe for a certain boom even if nothing else happened. Combine that with huge technological advances and that was the '90s. Giving credit to any single person for that would be silliness beyond words.

In the meantime, I have serious issues with people who keep citing Bill's administration as a reason to vote for Hillary. Serious issues. Bill served his 2 terms. He's not eligible to serve anymore under the Constitution. Plus, this begs the question, would Hillary really be our first woman President if she just rides to office on Bill's coattails?

QFT

If the OP wants the economy of the 90's back, he better look for another Bill Gates et al instead of another Clinton.

If you do get your Clinton, I'll guarantee right here in public that you're gonna be sorely disappointed.

There are int'l economic influences beyond any President's control likely to prevent a return of the 90's economy. I can only see it if some amazing technological development occurs (which is unforeseeable and would have nothing to do with a President anyway).

Worse, there's no indication that Hillary knows anything about business or the economy. Bill was at least a governor of a state (albeit a small rather backwards one at that time). But Hillary's never ran a damn thing, never made a payroll and never been a business owner etc. She's just a junior Senator who's had some experience commanding her small staff.

Fern