General Question

webman1's avatar

Does anyone remember why Bill Clinton was perceived as a good President?

Asked by webman1 (12points) January 26th, 2008

No one has to endorse Bush to point to the fact that the only reason Bill Clinton appeared to have any success was because he was in office when the internet blew up, thus any idiot would have appeared to be a GREAT president. People are looking more seriously at electing a Democrat because of the nostalgia of our nice bank accounts when a democrat was in office. How do we jumpstart our economy? Bring back our tech jobs, put incentives for VC’s to invest in U.S. .com start-ups again, and limit our trade with 3rd world countries that save the corp giants money which only increase margins for them. The small to medium sized companies are the ones that brought so much to our economy during the internet boom. The first president that promises to bring back the tech jobs that are now over seas and promises to take measurments to get start up IPO’s growing will win the election as there are people, such as myself, who was making $130,000 a year that if I had stayed in that job I’d be making $50,000 at the most. Am I the only one who remembers just what the internet economy did for the entire nation and world economies? Put McCain as President and a Bill Gates, Michael Dell, etc….. as Vice President with a Internet Re-growth platform and I know hundreds of friends that would endorse that ticket. A commader and technology Capitalist would be a sure victory. Clinton was in the right place at the right time (ask Monicas dress and chin…lol) to be labled a “Great President. But since that ticket isn’t a true possibility I think that a combination of Romney and McCain ticket is our best shot at beating Democrats, recovering our economy, and getting out of Iraq the right way. Anyone agree or disagree? And Why?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

22 Answers

jrpowell's avatar

He was super awesome because he knew what a paragraph was. Seriously dude, that was hard to read.

And I’m sure you have some faulty logic in that jumble of words.

The blowjob thing is really old. Did Clinton send 4000 troops to the graveyard.?

jz1220's avatar

Wow, HUNDREDS of your like-minded friends? That would surely bring the candidate victory.

tekn0lust's avatar

Because America grew to be fat dumb and happy while he was in office.

America is ending it’s 200 year run at the top. It’s happened throughout history.

To quote Alexander Tytler
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure….The average age of the world’s great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage.”

sndfreQ's avatar

have to agree with johnpowell-seriously-I respect that you have a particular viewpoint about Clinton from reading the last thread you started, but front-loading a question-especially with your parting comment from the last thread is poor taste and IMO straining the guidelines for asking questions on the site. I’d recommend you consider reviewing them (the guidelines).

I haven’t been a member that long but I’ve seen this happen before and frankly it smells of flame-bait.

Just a friendly suggestion.

sndfreQ's avatar

Lastly, the Monica joke is waaaaay played
out and detracts from your arguments-especially on the ‘re-run’... just my $0.02.

vanguardian's avatar

He did go to war to make the monica deal disappear…but that’s not the point.

If we want to be prosperous as a nation again…And this is just my opinion. We can do it simply by taxing the crap out if items coming in from other countries. We made it too easy for them. Our farming industry is in trouble, our car companies are in trouble and all our tech jobs are outsourced. I believe we have the smartess, innovative tech minds on the planet and they can’t find a job. Why do we allow other countries to do this, while hurting our own. Our country’s greed has brought us down this path and we need to fix it.

Response moderated
sndfreQ's avatar

@webman that was productive


hossman's avatar

If we are supposedly accepting a global economy, and there are people overseas able to do the same job for a fraction of the compensation, then the jobs will go overseas. The tech bubble was based upon a false perception of the value of the .com startups, which should have never been paying some of those salaries to begin with. Many of those startups that tanked spent a lot of other people’s money without ever producing a tangible product. That is not the kind of business that should last.

And if we start heavily taxing products coming in from other countries, what are you going to tell the single mother dependent upon child support who can no longer afford shoes, much less consumer electronics? Every economic decision has consequences, and those $130,000 jobs either have to produce more than $130,000 of product, or that money is coming out of somebody else’s pocket.

Isolationist economic policies result in domestic businesses having a disincentive to be competitive globally, which will further drive foreign markets to up and coming competitors, such as China and India.

aaronblohowiak's avatar

Liberal economic policy, liberal social policy, “united” the nation by bringing the left waaaaaaaaay to the right, got lucky with the economy (though set us up for the lending practices that still plague us,) gun control policy, great foreign policy (though he dropped the ball on interfering in Africa.. but since when have americans cared about africa?).. toppled milosovich without great loss of American life, was pretty daft with cutting deals (both at home and abroad,) and so on. The “dixie democrats” are usually well liked (the only two democratic presidents for the past 30 years were southerners.. clinton and carter.)

tagging your question as “obama” is inaccurate.

hossman's avatar

aaron, I’m sure it was a typo and you meant to say “deft,” but I like “daft” better.

vanguardian's avatar

@hossman – I agree about the price if items, but by taxing, I would do it as a basis to boost american jobs, wages & economy. We produce very little here. I would want it to create more better paying jobs for the single mother. That’s the whole point. I would rather pay a little more for something produced here instead of some lead toy from china. At least my extra dollar helps to pay that single mothers salary. Maybe that’s to lofty of an idea I guess.

The Asian market set this up years ago by manufacturing products at a loss. Their government would give them the difference. Long enough to put some of the great American companies out of business. Now once they controlled the electronics market here, they now had the ability to raise & set prices. Yeah there’s some crap out there, but the majors players in the electronic industry are by no means putting out cheap prices. Those items are a premium now.

wallarookiller's avatar

Completely agree with you. Clinton did very little to help this country and I can’t even imagine what his wife with way less experience is going to do. On top of that if she wins who is going to talk to the leaders of the Muslim countries that don’t recognize a women as any kind of authority figure. I’m not a big mcain fan because he seems more like a liberal than a republican to me but I’m all for Romney.

gailcalled's avatar

@qwebman; thank you for reminding me to make my annual appt w. my Opthamologist.

And has anyone asked Bill Gates or Michael Dell whether they would, indeed, enjoy being Veep under McCain?

hossman's avatar

The point is, vanguardian, the single mother may not at this time have the ability to be employed. You can certainly choose to pay a premium price for premium products from domestic producers. The problem is, you wish to impose that decision upon others by denying them the availability of less expensive consumer goods, to boost the wages in certain labor sectors. It is simply a more subtle form of income redistribution. Further, protectionism removes incentives from American producers to be able to compete globally. It is also, in essence, a disproportionate tax, because the wealthy will simply buy their products abroad and bring them back to this country.

You also provide an incentive for a black market. It is not just illegal drugs that are smuggled across our borders. As an example, due to U.S. restrictions on toilets, requiring them to use less water to flush, the preferences of Americans for a vigorous flush has led to toilets being transported into the U.S. from Canada and sold on the black market. A good illustration of the principle is tobacco, a completely legal product, yet there is a very large black market in untaxed cigarettes. A high tariff or tax on imported goods will simply feed organized crime to expand the variety of their imports.

cwilbur's avatar

The problem is that manufacturing jobs are going overseas because the cheap price wins. Would you pay $150 for a pair of sneakers you could get for $30, just because the $150 sneakers were made entirely in America with American labor? Would you pay $250 instead if you knew that the American labor making the sneakers was earning a livable wage? I really doubt it, and so do the executives at Nike and Adidas, who locate their shoe factories offshore for that very reason.

The opportunity for sustainable growth right now is in knowledge work—the arts and humanities, science research, entertainment, engineering, software development—but the problem is that to work successfully in that area, you need education, and the United States has been educating factory workers for 100 years and has not adapted its public education system to the changing times.

trainerboy's avatar

I think it was Monica who said he was good, but she didn’t mean anything to do with him being President.

sundayBastard's avatar

Sure everyone associates him with a blow-job. Can’t beat that!

TaoSan's avatar

Democrat / Bill Clinton administration = NY Times Square debt clock off because of Government surplus

Republican / Bush administration = NY Times Square debt clock removed because it ran out of digits

Clinton Admin:
– Family and Medical Relieve Act of 1993
– Gay rights
– Brady Bill
– Earned Income Tax Credit
– Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act
– Exceptionally low unemployment rates throughout the country
– Desert Storm (that’s how it’s done, not years of costly occupation of the wrong country)
– Maintained America’s status as world superpower, highly respected and envied throughout the world.

Sorry, you asked. McCain wins, I leave the country. Mark my words, the guy’s age and temper will have us see him fall off a chair with a heart attack and the mayor of Wasilla and her radical religious zealot friends will gladly ring in home-made Armageddon cause then she’ll finally get to meet Jesus in heaven. Don’t get me wrong, McCain is a genuine American hero, POW n’ all. I just don’t think that alone qualifies you to be President. As a matter of fact, that kind of experience and the underlying psychological effects could effectively screen you out of plenty of low level Government jobs like cop or fireman due to the PTSD potential.

As for Lewinsky? If the man with the most important job in the entire world needs a little relieve, I say hell give it to him. If Bush had gotten a little now and then we might not have a Trillion Dollar deficit and wouldn’t be occupying the wrong Sh****le at the cost of our fine young soldiers.

Garebo's avatar

We will never get protectionism again, even with Obama, because it is the elitists desire to have a homogenized one world government-I firmly believe that. The best thing is to throw tariffs at unfair trade, and it is already starting to happen in economic desparation.. But I am afraid the “great sucking sound” Ross Perot declared is here and is likely to continue under the present administration. I hope not!

Crashsequence2012's avatar

The same reason any President is now.


VenusFanelli's avatar

Who said he was a good president? I’m not an American, but I have friends there I visit. I don’t recall any of my American friends liking him. Some were angry about his strict new gun laws.

Answer this question




to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther