Why I'm Supporting Hillary Clinton For President 2008

[Vic]

Originally posted by: senseamp
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.

Likewise, you make it sound like it has everything to with the economy.

Hey, look, I can argue like you do, too! Pal, I work everyday in finance.

The fact remains that most of the Clinton years were in deficit (only the last 2 weren't, and that was solely due to economic expansion causing an unexpected rise in revenues, not a decrease in government spending or borrowing, for that matter), and that the economy was poised for expansion during the 90s REGARDLESS.
I wish I could go back and buy, buy, buy like crazy. Stocks, bond, real estate, commodities, you name it. I'd be retired already (in my 30s). Do you think, years from now, that people will ever be saying the same thing about the economy to be inherited from this election?

 

[Skitzer]

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
Romney is a Mormon and on that premise alone will not get elected. Obama is a good candidate, but he's still black, and that is going to be an issue at the polls, sadly to say.

Would you care to elaborate on these 2 statements?
You could have used just about any other detrimental statement for your argument, why did you chose those?

Yes, you should vote for the Clinton machine ...... like people think alike.

 

[compuwiz1]

Originally posted by: Skitzer

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
Romney is a Mormon and on that premise alone will not get elected. Obama is a good candidate, but he's still black, and that is going to be an issue at the polls, sadly to say.

Would you care to elaborate on these 2 statements?
You could have used just about any other detrimental statement for your argument, why did you chose those?

Yes, you should vote for the Clinton machine ...... like people think alike.

Sure, those two things are what I hear people all around saying on a daily basis. Not my view, but people still think that way.

 

[pstylesss]

Originally posted by: bamacre
You have GOT to be kidding! Bill Clinton's economy? Bullshit. You should be thanking the private sector for that, and I mean, Windows 95, the Pentium I, and the birth of the internet. It is not difficult to understand what these things did not only for consumers, but for small and large businesses.

A rock could have presided over that economy.

I don't usually agree with you but this is a true statement.

 

[rchiu]

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?

Well at least I understand one person doesn't run the country, the people he/she associates with do most of the work. Just like I understand without his neo-cons friends, Bush wouldn't accomplish half of the crap he accomplished in his term.

 

[Lemon law]

I have my own take on the economy of the 90's. And there is a certain Lewinksi effect that made everything about Bill Clinton suck for certain idiots who can't get over it. But if some latter day Lewinskis could suck any sense in GWB, we ought to hire at least 21 of them on so we can have coverage three eight hour shifts seven days a week. Sadly, nothing can bring enlightenment to GWB&co, so that is not an option.

The point is, after eight years of the free spending spend and borrow policies of Ronald Reagan, economic realty prevented further borrowing. And GHB had to raise taxes. And just when the economy was recovering and starting to improve, GHB was voted out of office and Bill Clinton inherited an improving economy. Eight more years of semi sane economic policy
followed and then GWB was elected. Yes, the economy was entering a slight recession at the time, economies are always cyclical, but GWB brought back spend and borrow policy with a vengeance. And if GWB had stopped the spend and borrow after the mild recession was corrected, we would be in much better shape now.

But since I am touting the policies of GHB and Clinton, its time to reveal their secret formulas
for economic success. And its not hard to figure out. They just failed to do really stupid things
and the American economy engine took care of the rest. Now if either GHB or Bill Clinton were better at the economy and really smart, they would have done really smart things and the economy would have done much better than it did.

But getting back to GWB and his really stupid spend and borrow policies, the capital markets finally dry up and its impossible to keep running up the debt. And unlike Reagan, it looks like a big recession will hit before GWB slinks out of office.

And whomever is elected POTHUS, that unlucky smuck is going to be dealing with a deep recession. And in terms of the country slowly recovering economically, the worst choices we could make would be Giuliani or Romney. And the best choices are probably Hillary, Obama, or Edwards. And in that order. After that, either McCain or Huckabee who have at least some pragmatic realism.

Thats my take on the matter for the short term. Maybe by 2016, things will not look as bleak
if we can reverse the spend and borrow.

 

[maverick44]

Originally posted by: 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.

Topic for another thread ... boy I could write a thesis on this

The fact remains that most of the Clinton years were in deficit (only the last 2 weren't, and that was solely due to economic expansion causing an unexpected rise in revenues, not a decrease in government spending or borrowing, for that matter), and that the economy was poised for expansion during the 90s REGARDLESS.

I believe that going from deficit to surplus takes time and I dont think you can make the case that Bill Clinton was LESS fiscally responsible compared to Bush Sr. or Junior....

I agree with you on separating Bill from Hillary' candidacy but lets give some credit where its due

Do you think, years from now, that people will ever be saying the same thing about the economy to be inherited from this election?

They just might. Fundamentally there is nothing wrong with the economy. There are technological advances being made in the tech industry. Moore's Law hasnt changed to the best of my knowledge. No one can compete US dominance in software or hardware. The only real problem is the inflation and the falling dollar. If the federal budget is balanced that should address the inflation issue to some extent. If Iraq stabilizes and oil prices fall we could see a turn around...

 

[piasabird]

The biggest problem is the Cronies that each candidate have. Bush's biggest problem is he had all of his dad's Cronies along with his new stupid NEOCON Cronies. I never understood the Neocon way of thinking. War does not solve all the world's problems and it does not really work well against Muslim Extremists that have no country and no honor. We need somone that is willing to embrace new tactics for our current situation. Old world tactics will not work well for this fight. We need to embrace a different set of tactics to combat these extremists. If we keep fighting these wars with muslim countries, then we obviously do not have a large enough of a military force, so we need some different methods we can use to combat these people.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
I have my own take on the economy of the 90's. And there is a certain Lewinksi effect that made everything about Bill Clinton suck for certain idiots who can't get over it. But if some latter day Lewinskis could suck any sense in GWB, we ought to hire at least 21 of them on so we can have coverage three eight hour shifts seven days a week. Sadly, nothing can bring enlightenment to GWB&co, so that is not an option.

The point is, after eight years of the free spending spend and borrow policies of Ronald Reagan, economic realty prevented further borrowing. And GHB had to raise taxes. And just when the economy was recovering and starting to improve, GHB was voted out of office and Bill Clinton inherited an improving economy. Eight more years of semi sane economic policy
followed and then GWB was elected. Yes, the economy was entering a slight recession at the time, economies are always cyclical, but GWB brought back spend and borrow policy with a vengeance. And if GWB had stopped the spend and borrow after the mild recession was corrected, we would be in much better shape now.

But since I am touting the policies of GHB and Clinton, its time to reveal their secret formulas
for economic success. And its not hard to figure out. They just failed to do really stupid things
and the American economy engine took care of the rest. Now if either GHB or Bill Clinton were better at the economy and really smart, they would have done really smart things and the economy would have done much better than it did.

But getting back to GWB and his really stupid spend and borrow policies, the capital markets finally dry up and its impossible to keep running up the debt. And unlike Reagan, it looks like a big recession will hit before GWB slinks out of office.

And whomever is elected POTHUS, that unlucky smuck is going to be dealing with a deep recession. And in terms of the country slowly recovering economically, the worst choices we could make would be Giuliani or Romney. And the best choices are probably Hillary, Obama, or Edwards. And in that order. After that, either McCain or Huckabee who have at least some pragmatic realism.

Thats my take on the matter for the short term. Maybe by 2016, things will not look as bleak
if we can reverse the spend and borrow.

I agree with this.

The problem with our current situation is that GWB screwed the pooch so badly that there's no way that ANYONE who gets elected is going to be able to turn it around quickly.
Loose monetary policy only works so long, then the bill has to be paid. And with GW, it's already long past due. And whoever wins the White House this fall is going to have to pay it.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Vic
Loose monetary policy only works so long, then the bill has to be paid. And with GW, it's already long past due. And whoever wins the White House this fall is going to have to pay it.

what does GW have to do with monetary policy (besides having picked some of the fed governors, including the current chairman)

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Vic
Loose monetary policy only works so long, then the bill has to be paid. And with GW, it's already long past due. And whoever wins the White House this fall is going to have to pay it.

what does GW have to do with monetary policy (besides having picked some of the fed governors, including the current chairman)

Yeah, that's what I'm thinking?

Fern

 

[Lemon law]

ElFenis asks--what does GW have to do with monetary policy (besides having picked some of the fed governors, including the current chairman)

The executive branch has a huge role in setting the Federal Budget. If the economic foundations are tenable the Federal reserve can have the effect of steering a huge economy with a very small steering wheel.

If the budget is out of way out of wack, the economy will go out of all control regardless what the Fed tries to do. It basically happened with Hoover, they cut interest rates to near zero with no takers.

 

[Starbuck1975]

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.

Your rationale for supporting Hillary is disturbing. The Clinton Administration had nothing to do with the economic prosperity of the 1990s...if anything, the speculative credit fueled spending of the 1990s is what set the foundation for the recession we are now entering.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Vic
Loose monetary policy only works so long, then the bill has to be paid. And with GW, it's already long past due. And whoever wins the White House this fall is going to have to pay it.

what does GW have to do with monetary policy (besides having picked some of the fed governors, including the current chairman)

"Hi, we're from the US govt., and we're here to borrow more money."

 

[Pabster]

Good lord, Techs, I believe you've hit the record for 0-star threads :laugh:

 

[M0RPH]

Originally posted by: Pabster
Good lord, Techs, I believe you've hit the record for 0-star threads :laugh:

That's real cute. I've noticed how the anti-Clinton zealots around here are just sitting at thier computers waiting for pro-Clinton threads so they can give it a zero-star. I guess that makes them feel powerful... pretty pathetic if you ask me. The rating system should be removed from these forums, it's completely worthless.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: M0RPH
That's real cute. I've noticed how the anti-Clinton zealots around here are just sitting at thier computers waiting for pro-Clinton threads so they can give it a zero-star. I guess that makes them feel powerful... pretty pathetic if you ask me. The rating system should be removed from these forums, it's completely worthless.

Yeah... :roll:

Another liberal free speech advocate, eh? :laugh:

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: senseamp
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.

Likewise, you make it sound like it has everything to with the economy.

Hey, look, I can argue like you do, too! Pal, I work everyday in finance.

The fact remains that most of the Clinton years were in deficit (only the last 2 weren't, and that was solely due to economic expansion causing an unexpected rise in revenues, not a decrease in government spending or borrowing, for that matter), and that the economy was poised for expansion during the 90s REGARDLESS.
I wish I could go back and buy, buy, buy like crazy. Stocks, bond, real estate, commodities, you name it. I'd be retired already (in my 30s). Do you think, years from now, that people will ever be saying the same thing about the economy to be inherited from this election?

Depends on who gets elected. If Hillary, then yes.
If another Republican to mortgage us into oblivion, then no.
Plus the same people now scaring us that tax hikes will kill the economy have to acknowledge that it's absolute BS based on what happened in the 90s.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: M0RPH
That's real cute. I've noticed how the anti-Clinton zealots around here are just sitting at thier computers waiting for pro-Clinton threads so they can give it a zero-star. I guess that makes them feel powerful... pretty pathetic if you ask me. The rating system should be removed from these forums, it's completely worthless.

Yeah... :roll:

Another liberal free speech advocate, eh? :laugh:

Not quite. We all recognized online polls as useless when He Who Shall Not Be Named was winning them by a 50 point margin. Saying they were useless and painted a false picture of the race doesn't equate to a condemnation of free speech, just abused speech.

 

[compuwiz1]

There is no way anyone can post who they favor around here with impunity.

That said, my thinking is that Hillary is the lesser of most of the evils and the others who are not, simply are unelectable. If you have no good choices, who do you vote for, or do you even vote at all? I don't believe that a Clinton in the White House is gonna have an immediate positive effect on the economy, but all I was stating is that I want those good years back. Unrealistic thinking, probably.

 

[senseamp]

Yeah, everyone who posts here saying they support Clinton is being called all sorts of names and attacked personally.
As if wanting a return to the peace and prosperity of the Clinton years after 8 years of the POS we have running the government is so crazy.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Yeah, everyone who posts here saying they support Clinton is being called all sorts of names and attacked personally.
As if wanting a return to the peace and prosperity of the Clinton years after 8 years of the POS we have running the government is so crazy.

Awww, poor widdle man, getting called names. If you can't handle it, go back to Off Topic widdle man.

And since you still don't understood, I'll repeat it again. The prosperity of 93-2001 had nothing to with Clinton. Electing Hillary will not bring that back.

 

[M0RPH]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

And since you still don't understood, I'll repeat it again. The prosperity of 93-2001 had nothing to with Clinton. Electing Hillary will not bring that back.

Maybe the prosperity wasn't his doing but at least he didn't do anything to kill it, like starting an unnecessary war and ballooning the defense budget to record levels.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: senseamp
Yeah, everyone who posts here saying they support Clinton is being called all sorts of names and attacked personally.
As if wanting a return to the peace and prosperity of the Clinton years after 8 years of the POS we have running the government is so crazy.

Awww, poor widdle man, getting called names. If you can't handle it, go back to Off Topic widdle man.

And since you still don't understood, I'll repeat it again. The prosperity of 93-2001 had nothing to with Clinton. Electing Hillary will not bring that back.

That's where you are wrong. Again. It had a lot to do with Clinton. Clinton is the one who made GOP fiscally responsible. Notice how they went back to their deficit spending ways as soon as he left? When government competes with the private sector for credit, we all suffer. That money that the Chinese and foreigners lend to US government to finance our huge deficit could be lent to US businesses to grow and hire people instead.
Clinton's raising taxes to balance the budget before the GOP Congress came in, and then holding them in check for 6 years brought about the prosperity of the 90s when every rightwing thinktank has been telling us that the only way to achieve economic growth was to cut taxes. That's one reason why Republicans like you feel the need to make baseless claims that 93-2001 prosperity had nothing to do with Clinton, because it had everything to do with him, and he proved Reaganomics wrong once and for all.

 

[compuwiz1]

The way I see this, is Hillary will take her ideas and actions from feedback from Bill. This can't be an all bad thing. I'm not one of the ones who is mad at Bill because of the damn BJ.