How were your economic and social circumstances during the Clinton administration? Why the hate?

[HamdenRice]

I would like to put aside various personal grudges for a moment to listen to EVERYONE about how things were for you during the Clinton administration.

The reason I ask, is that there have been a number of posts saying that Obama is just as "bad" as Clinton on jobs and the economy.

In the New York area, this is hard to understand because things were really, really good under Clinton. As a "Black Bohemian" I've always had friends and relatives at many levels of economic class, from people on welfare in "The Projects" in Brooklyn to teachers, doctors and lawyers.

One thing I remember about the Clinton years, is that almost all the poor people I know got jobs.

In fact, there was an article in the NY Times in the mid 90s about how unemployment in our region was so low that employers were desperate to find workers. Connecticut employers were sending buses down to Harlem and Bed-Stuy to recruit teenagers, and some employers were even going to hospitals for the mentally ill and compromised to get hands to for factory work. I had lots of friends in the construction trades, and blasted out parts of the ghettos of New York were rebuilt, and working class families moved into renovated homes in Coney Island, Crown Heights, Ocean Hill, Brownsville and other formerly almost abandoned neighborhoods.

I'll never forget driving through Thatford Avenue, Brooklyn in the Clinton 90s. My cousins used to live there in the 60s and I spent many weekends as a child with their large, but poor, family and their neighbors. In the 80s, I drove through Thatford Avenue and every single house was abandoned, including the one my aunt and uncle left in the early 70s for a better neighborhood. In the 90s, I decided to take a look and every single house had been renovated and restored, mostly by West Indian immigrants.

Because of the finance and media sectors in NYC our economic declines tend to be less severe than in manufacturing areas. So maybe NAFTA had a more devastating effect in the mid-west? But I remember reading that the Clinton boom led to high end, high tech steel manufacturing that revived old factory towns. I remember in the 90s, European countries were complaining about a massive wave of US manufacturing exports.

Am I wrong?

I'd be glad if you could correct my impression of what was happening elsewhere in the country.

[InvisibleTouch]

1. I had it good during the Clinton years.

In fact, I didn't know how good I had it until circumstances took a drastic turn for the worse. (Isn't that the way it always goes, though?) We should be so lucky, if Obama could bring a little of those days back.

[HamdenRice]

4. What was that song from the 70s? You don't know what you got till it's gone? nt

[Rabrrrrrr]

2. I remember in the late 90s in NYC seeing "Help wanted" signs in almost every restaurant and store

as I walked up and down the streets.

I remember at that time that the companies were actually competing with each other for talent, and job seekers would weigh their options and be able to say to option one "Hey - company number two has matched your salary and offered a $20,000 signing bonus; can you beat that?"

Part of the good company was some of the fakery of Wall Street spinning out numbers that weren't very real - and the dotcom insanity - but it was still a good economy.

But I do remember that in the early 90s, there wasn't a lot of economy happening, and then it kept building up - and literally building, too. Buildings getting renovated, houses being fixed up, lots of new stores, cleaner streets, cleaner subways, more police, lots of new restaurants.

The transformation of the Morningside Heights area up and down Broadway and Amsterdam was frakking amazing between 1992 and 2000.

[HamdenRice]

3. That's how I remember it.

And that was before a lot of finance was "fantasy" finance. Money was going into rebuilding old neighborhoods, and immigrants, hipsters and post college professionals moved in to pay rent. It was a real economy as I remember it.

[HamdenRice]

5. Wow, the Clinton hating, Obama hating un-rec'ing crew are out in force already!

Can't have recollections of good economic times presided over by a DEMOCRATIC president.

Too much cognitive dissonance.

[blm]

11. I'll give you a rec. I think Dem decisions made in the 90s are UNDER-discussed.

I prefer Dem voters step back and see the big picture and the long lasting effects of decisions made by those in power.

Temporary fixes for a temporary economic boom or open government and accountability that PREVENTS the economic evildoers from their longterm plundering of our treasury and halts the longterm pain of their global agenda?

[HamdenRice]

24. Thanks! nt

[Hamlette]

42. true, we must put all of the corporations out of business, that's how we'll solve unemployment

I hate big corps as much as anyone but tell me what the hell we do about it? What is the alternative. Starbucks is a great example. Started out cute an independent. I supported them. Then they started opening up on every corner. Independents couldn't make it. Starbucks became the enemy.

Do we prevent companies like Starbucks from opening the first store? The 100th? Who decides? Having worked in the restaurant biz I know it is the hardest damned work in the world if you want it to work. Why would anyone work 18 hour days, 7 days a week, if the government was going to bust their chops if they were successful? I wouldn't and neither would you.

[newspeak]

126. no one is saying put them out of business

how about a little more regulating-how about taking personhood status away from them. I'm going to agree with Moore, a corporation can do more damage to a community than a drug dealer. I've seen communities bend over backwards, spend taxpayers' money to bring a corporation into an area-then have that corporation pull out, leaving the citizens' with the bill.

How about less greed and more responsibility for the corporations?

[firedupdem]

6. I purchased my first home in the 90's. I was offered new job

opportunites quite often with substantial bonus options if I had decided to jump ship. Everybody I knew had good jobs in the 90's, and just about everyone I know now doesn't have one...thanks to the last 8yrs.

[HamdenRice]

7. I forgot about that: harassing recruiter calls! If only!!! nt

[Number23]

67. That was my experience as well, firedup. The 90's were damn good for me and just about everyone

I knew. Opportunities for black people and other minorities absolutely SWELLED under Clinton. The windows of opportunity which always seemed closed to us, regardless of how brilliant and talented we were, opened up significantly under Clinton. Compared to his two predecessors, particularly.

And yes, I am aware that Clinton did our community some major disservices during his time in office as well as later but I will always appreciate and respect him, if for no other reason than he reigned over a time of great prosperity for many Americans who had never really been made to feel that those opportunities were available to them before.

[Fire1]

100. You got it! EVERYBODY was working and enjoying life. We

got our first substantial raise, EVER, during the Clinton years. Those were the days.

[treestar]

8. I don't either

Clinton was a Democratic President who basically did as much as he could after 12 years of Raygunism. We slid backwards by selecting the Chimperor. Progressives ought to be so happy right now. We are finally going in that direction. It can't be done overnight or even in just one Presidential term.

[grytpype]

15. +1

I'm getting sick of the libs who are crying because Obama hasn't fixed everything in 10 months.

It's going to take years and years.

[blm]

9. Would you have given up any portion of 90s financial contentment for pursuit of BCCI matters

that would have further exposed international financiers and their funding of global terrorism networks?

Seems to me that IN THE LONG RUN the world economy could have more easily taken the temporary hit that would have occurred from the detailed exposing of these illegal operations within the global banking system better than the longer lasting and FATAL effects of deepsixing these matters brought to this nation AND the world - the last ten years especially.

And BCCI matters also involved long ignored and UNDER-discussed S&Ls, IranContra and Iraqgate matters.

Robert Parry explains how Clinton's decision to side with Bush's secrecy and privilege brought us to Bush2, too.

Parry allows his work to be posted without limit at DU.

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0511-29.htm

Published on Thursday, May 11, 2006 by Consortium News
Hey Democrats, Truth Matters!
by Robert Parry


My book, Secrecy & Privilege, opens with a scene in spring 1994 when a guest at a White House social event asks Bill Clinton why his administration didn’t pursue unresolved scandals from the Reagan-Bush era, such as the Iraqgate secret support for Saddam Hussein’s government and clandestine arms shipments to Iran.

Clinton responds to the questions from the guest, documentary filmmaker Stuart Sender, by saying, in effect, that those historical questions had to take a back seat to Clinton’s domestic agenda and his desire for greater bipartisanship with the Republicans.

. . .

Clinton’s relatively low regard for the value of truth and accountability is relevant again today because other centrist Democrats are urging their party to give George W. Bush’s administration a similar pass if the Democrats win one or both houses of Congress.

. . .

Yet, before Democrats endorse the DLC’s don’t-look-back advice, they might want to examine the consequences of Clinton’s decision in 1993-94 to help the Republicans sweep the Reagan-Bush scandals under the rug. Most of what Clinton hoped for – bipartisanship and support for his domestic policies – never materialized.

. . .

Clinton’s generosity to George H.W. Bush and the Republicans, of course, didn’t turn out as he had hoped. Instead of bipartisanship and reciprocity, he was confronted with eight years of unrelenting GOP hostility, attacks on both his programs and his personal reputation.

Later, as tensions grew in the Middle East, the American people and even U.S. policymakers were flying partially blind, denied anything close to the full truth about the history of clandestine relationships between the Reagan-Bush team and hostile nations in the Middle East.

Clinton’s failure to expose that real history also led indirectly to the restoration of Bush Family control of the White House in 2001. Despite George W. Bush’s inexperience as a national leader, he drew support from many Americans who remembered his father’s presidency fondly.

If the full story of George H.W. Bush’s role in secret deals with Iraq and Iran had ever been made public, the Bush Family’s reputation would have been damaged to such a degree that George W. Bush’s candidacy would not have been conceivable.

Not only did Clinton inadvertently clear the way for the Bush restoration, but the Right’s political ascendancy wiped away much of the Clinton legacy, including a balanced federal budget and progress on income inequality. A poorly informed American public also was easily misled on what to do about U.S. relations with Iraq and Iran.

In retrospect, Clinton’s tolerance of Reagan-Bush cover-ups was a lose-lose-lose – the public was denied information it needed to understand dangerous complexities in the Middle East, George W. Bush built his presidential ambitions on the nation’s fuzzy memories of his dad, and Republicans got to enact a conservative agenda.

Clinton’s approach also reflected a lack of appreciation for the importance of truth in a democratic Republic. If the American people are expected to do their part in making sure democracy works, they need to be given at least a chance of being an informed electorate.

. . .

[Clintonista2]

55. lol

[blm]

59. Jackson Stephens laughed at us and this country's laws all the way to his grave....didn't he?

.

[Clintonista2]

65. lol

[jesus_of_suburbia]

56. So when Clinton doesn't push for prosecution of GHB's war crimes, it's Clinton's fault....

But when Obama doesn't push for prosecution of GWB's war crimes, it's "centrist Democrat's fault".




Why is it that Bill gets blamed for everything that happened during his Presidency, yet in this administration, it's always someone else's fault... never Barack's?






Oh, that's right, some people have an AGENDA and they are hypocrites...

[blm]

57. Incoming Pres. Clinton was HANDED the BCCI report in Dec 1992.

But then, that was exactly what Poppy Bush needed and what Jackson Stephens paid for during the Dem primary, wasn't it?

But then, maybe some people don't even know enough about their own nation's recent history to even HAVE an agenda here at DU other than to be fans of politicians.

But then, it's also quite likely that some have an agenda within the Dem party that calls for discouraging open government and accountability on message boards so BushInc's criminal operations of the last 4 or 5 decades STAYS deepsixed.

[jesus_of_suburbia]

64. Do you think bluedogs are controlling Obama?

[blm]

66. I think there is influence there and mistakes being made by Obama because he doesn't have depth of

knowledge necessary to confront these issues more comprehensively and is probably still playing catch up.

I know he is giving Kerry the room to restart his investigations into BCCI characters, and earlier this year Kerry hired an investigative reporter who wrote one book about BCCI and another about AQ Khan.

That in itself is a big change from Bill Clinton who never cooperated with investigators and never facilitated access to documents that had been stonewalled for years by Bush1 administration.

At some point you have to admit protecting Poppy Bush's secrecy and privilege was not a sound choice at that point, especially WITH the BCCI report's 5 1/2 years of research and investigation that was handed directly to Bill with the accompanying note that further scrutiny was NEEDED on twenty outstanding matters.


It's also important to note that those most protected by the deepsixing of BCCI report also gave heavily to Clinton during his primary (GHWBush's longtime ally Jackson Stephens, the man who BROUGHT BCCI into this country) and even now he has banked tens of millions from Saudi and Dubai royals who were also involved principals in BCCI.

My guess is that you really aren't familiar with BCCI. We wouldn't be having this exchange.

[jesus_of_suburbia]

69. "My guess is that you really aren't familiar with BCCI."

You are right. I'm too young and haven't studied it.


I could be wrong about this situation... I just see condemning of Bill and scapegoating for Barack.


I'm not saying you are wrong in condemning Bill... I'm just saying that if you are going to blame Bill for letting H off, then blame Barack if he does let W off.

See where I'm coming from?


I'm not saying Bill did the right thing.. I'm saying don't put the blame on Bill if you aren't willing to do the same with Barack.


I see that article blaming the President in the 90's, and bluedog Dems now. Why can't we blame the bluedog Dem's in the 90's?





I may be inexperienced politically, but I'm not dumb (and I know you didn't imply I am).

[blm]

124. True....I expect most people NOT to know much about BCCI because it WAS successfully deepsixed

throughout the 90s when it should have been fully exposed along with all its characters, many of who popped up again on 9-11. There was a reason Bush and Clinton people AGREED the 9-11 commission should only track back to 1998.

[newspeak]

127. if you truly understood what the implications have been for this country

for not holding those felons responsible. If you want to talk about terrorism-then go no further and look at the BCCI scandal. If you want to talk about corruption within our government, look at how the PROMIS software was acquired. If you want to talk about brazenly going against Congress and the Constitution, look at the arms deal. If you want to talk about putting drugs on our streets for gain, look at the guns for drugs deal. If you want to talk about the death squads in South America; again, look no further than the Iran-Contra deal. If you want to talk about why these same players were in the * administration and one player is still an ambassador, look no further than Clinton refused to punish the corruption.

Also, I remember in the nineties, the code word was "restructuring." And, a lot of corporations were "restructuring." That's a code word for laying off. My hubby made it through three "restructures" (one was really close). And, to make it through a restructuring he had to lose pay. So, I'm glad some of you were sailing along.

Also, I was a big opponent of Poppy's NAFTA-GATT unfair policy. I prayed Clinton would win just because of that policy. To me, it was like being stabbed in the back.

Now, was he better than Poppy-yes, just by his international presence. But, he pushed some of the same policies Poppy would have pushed. That's why he's the best repug president, other than Lincoln, they've ever had.

[grasswire]

160. maybe we need something called the DU College...

...where those who were too young and those who weren't paying attention could learn about Promis and the death of Danny Casolaro and all the other nefarious happenings that are largely lost to the American conversation or memory.

[blm]

162. I wish a CITIZEN COLLEGE existed. DU would be a start.

It is shmeful that serious matters have been successfully downplayed in the corpmedia so that even Democrats who consider themselves involved citizens are far from informed.

[Beacool]

111. "Hypocrites"

Yep, that's the word. I've been saying the same thing for many months.

No matter the issue, to the left it's like this:

Obama = Good

Clintons = Bad

They accuse the Clintons of some of the same things that they are so quick to ignore about Obama.

:eyes:

[Pavlovs DiOgie]

116. Talk about one trick pony!

[blm]

120. Obama was handed extensive 5 1/2yr report tracking global terror funds that he deepsixed?

Can you post that report?

[Odin2005]

90. Oh, I see the regular one trick pony nutjob has popped up.

Get help, you aren't right in the head.

[Forkboy]

92. Don't you always complain about people using crazy as an insult?

Yet you turn around and tell someone to get help because they aren't right in the head. Nice job. Next time you run to the mental health forum to complain about it I'm linking right back to your own bullshit post here. :thumbsdown:

[Odin2005]

95. No, I complained about notions that the teabaggers were the folks Reagan let out institutions.

"crazy" has a broader meaning than mentally ill, it can also mean ignorant, illogical, or ridiculous. But many posters have went beyond terms like "crazy" and "nut" and actually accused them of being mentally ill.

But that poster's obsessiveness is concerning, he hardly posts about anything else, and constantly tries to change the subject to his pet obsession.

[Forkboy]

96. "actually accused them of being mentally ill."

And what does, "Get help, you're not right in the head" supposed to imply? Give me a break, Odin.

[Odin2005]

99. because I actually am concerned about that poster's mental health.

He posts obsessively about his thing to the point of charging in and changing the subject. That has nothing to do with calling teabaggers mentally ill because they are ignorant and stupid.

[Forkboy]

102. There was no concern in your first reply to blm.

It was mocking and derisive, and you used mental health as a vehicle for your attack. Saying you were just concerned with blm's mental health is such bullshit. Is that how you want people to show their concern for your being an Aspie? By attacking you, then claiming they were really only concerned? Your reply is a huge cop out.

[Odin2005]

103. Sorry, his one-trick-pony thing was just pissing me off.

I lashed out without thinking.

[blm]

117. Since I'm using the historic truth and you use uninformed insults, who has the problem?

.

[blm]

118. The matters involved are the foundation of almost everything happening today. Of COURSE, I'll refer

to the historic record that exists - shouldn't YOU?

[Clintonista2]

105. +1

I think we should give Blm a break... when she takes her tinfoil hat off she thinks her microwave was programmed by Clinton to kill her.

[Beacool]

112. Good one!!!

You made me laugh........

:7

[Pavlovs DiOgie]

115. WTF?

You need to educate yourself, you are sounding foolish. BCCI is real and Documented. Yes it is BLM's main issue but theres no tinfoil involved.

[blm]

119. Hey, thanks, but they NEED to pretend BCCI didn't happen so they can keep worshipping Clinton

and agreeing with him that GHWBush and Jackson Stephens are patriots and the Saudi and Dubai royals did NOT line Bill's bank accounts by the millions after he left office.

[Clintonista2]

121. This is the same Blm who once claimed that Clinton carpet bombed detroit with crack

Blm has some serious mental issues

[Pavlovs DiOgie]

122. I would like to see that post

I gotta say I find it very hard to believe. Regardless of wether or not blm posted something along those lines. BCCI is very real and doesnt come close to approaching tinfoil hat as you suggest.

[blm]

139. Don't worry, this person was warned in the past for posting false attacks

and if they don't change their approach, it will probably happen again. I personally don't care what they post, as it only shows their own craven disregard for truth and accountability.

Edited because TS mention is wrong and inappropriate. It was another DUer.

[Clintonista2]

141. Never been TS'd, though I get the feeling that your time is coming

Obvious trolls are obvious.

[blm]

143. Trolls call for accountability for BushInc and their Dem enablers on BCCI? HaHaHaH

sure....RW trolls exist here and they usually repeat Cheney's claim during the 80s that BCCI matters are mere conspiracy theory. Was Cheney telling the truth according to YOUR read of BCCI history?

BTW - can't recall your old name here at DU, though the attacks you use certainly are worth another laugh or two.

[Lilith Velkor]

147. True, but...

Made trolls are made.

How else can you explain OMC and LoZo?

[blm]

138. Produce that post. Any search would prove that ONE OF US is not being truthful....YOU.

And your need to continually post something absurd that YOU MADE UP is proof that you have no honest refutation for my posts.

[Clintonista2]

142. I no longer have access to the search function, otherwise I would be happy to oblige

Sadly, your "clinton carpet bombed detroit with crack" is but one of your many nutty anti-clinton theories.

[blm]

145. then one of your cohorts will surely help you out....funny, how they never have been able to find

it, either.

[karynnj]

123. BLM is referring to a real report that came out of the Senate - it is not tinfoil hat conspiracy

theory. This was a very serious five year investigation into international financial records that uncovered a large amount of dirt and some pretty scary stuff. I think as big an error was that Clinton should have more aggressively backed and pushed the Kerry legislation developed out of this that created tools to deal with international money laundering. These were fought by people allied with the banking industry in both parties and were made law only after 911. (That work was the opposite of flamboyant conspiracy theory - it was bone dry stuff that attracted no media interest.) The legislation created the tools now used to follow the money - one of the few things that has really made us "safer".

BCCI was real and the federal government, Presidents of both parties and Senators in both parties, fought to keep everything under the rug. After the committee was ended, taking away needed subpoena power and the Justice Department ignored the information, it was taken to NYC DA Morgenthau, who used it as part of the case to close BCCI - OBL's bank.

The list of outstanding issues was written and is in the report. The number one issue dealt with A. Q. Khan and Pakistan's bomb, which BCCI funded. This was before he sold technology to places like NK and Iran.

What is clear is that the CIA seemed to be using BCCI itself to launder money. Between the CIA and powerful money people from both parties, far too many powerful people did not want this unearthed. The fact is that it was one of the roots that fed the mess we have now. Supposedly, Bill Clinton was informed that going further could disrupt the international banking system. (We saw the impact when other things disrupted the international banking system.)

[newspeak]

128. maybe you think Octafish is also a nut job?

It was right there on the front page and sometimes on the editorial page of the damn paper at the time. The whole Iran-Contra, BCCI connection. In the damn fekkin newspapers. One of the journalists on top of it was Danny Casolero, another who did a piece on the drug drop off in Mena AR was Sally Denton (who I went to school with) and a former agent.

Yeah just keep calling people crazy, when you want to stick your damn head in the sand. Keep it there, okay?

[Lilith Velkor]

133. Octafish doesn't blame Clinton for what the Bush Crime Family did

Let alone show up in any and all threads mentioning Clinton - or his wife - in order to blame either of them for 9/11.

He's not a Clinton fan by any stretch of the imagination, but he's not so obviously seething with hatred that he loses credibility.

[blm]

134. I only post the facts...you all need PRETEND those facts are seething hatred to excuse yourselves

because you have been unable to wrap your brains around BCCI matters or the fact that Bush2 and 9-11 would NEVER have happened had those matters been allowed fuller scrutiny and exposure in the 90s.

I'll take any hit y'all got....since none of what you got has any basis in REALITY of the historic record, your verbal hits mean ZERO. They reflect on YOUR consideration for history and accountability, not mine.

[Lilith Velkor]

140. LOL yes, of course, only "sophisticated" minds such as yours blame Clinton for 9/11

So when are you going to start blathering about how Bush2's crimes are all Obama's fault?

I already got you to admit that you think Nixon's crimes are all Carter's fault, so c'mon, let's go for the threefer. :popcorn:

[blm]

146. Prove it. There's a big difference between noting that some of Carter's mistakes

of trust laid groundwork for some of BCCI problems, and YOUR claim that I blame Carter for Nixon's crimes.

Exaggerating and hyperbole is all you got. You NEED it to cover for your revealing disregard for truth and accountability.

[Lilith Velkor]

148. Ah, the mind reading schtick. My favorite, because it's all about me, not truth or accountability

as you pretend to claim.

The selectivity of your regard for such things speaks volumes, plain as day for all to see.

[blm]

150. Just prove what you claimed in your post. Or doesn't search function work for you, either?

.

[Lilith Velkor]

151. Gotcher proof right here in this very fucking thread, thanks for making it so easy!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8725112&mesg_id=8725252

[blm]

153. You claimed I blame Carter for all of Nixon's crimes - prove it. Doesn't YOUR search work, either?

.

[Lilith Velkor]

156. Just checked the archives (not linkable atm) and I was mistaken - you blamed (wait for it) Clinton.

Which goes to show you are a one trick pony after all.

I know you are just going to violate the rules and call me a liar (and then blame Clinton for the invasion of Poland in 1939), but for any interested onlookers, the thread was started by Beacool on May 4, 2009.

[blm]

161. Now you claim I blame Clinton for NIXON'S crimes? Y'all need better material for your comedy act.

Why can't you stick with the truth of what has been posted?

When Clinton took office he deepsixed BCCI matters and related matters in IranContra, Iraqgate and CIA drugrunning which assured the ongoing secrecy and privilege of GHWBush, Jackson Stephens (who bankrolled Bill's primary campaign), and the Saudi and Dubai royals.

Had Bill chosen to cooperate and allow further scrutiny and pursuit there would never have been a Bush2 or a 9-11 event due to the fuller exposure of global terror networks funded by BCCI.

But....you need your overblown and absurd claims to wrap around you like a security blanket - especially since you get no comfort from the historic record.

[Lilith Velkor]

163. Yes, Clinton. No Republican is ever responsible for anything according to you.

And now you're back to blaming him for 9/11, like a good Republican.

Say, wasn't there a Senator who was all up in the BCCI affair? Whatever happened to him?

[blm]

166. Comprehending is hard work, eh? Bush1 set up the illegal operations with Jackson Stephens and

Clinton was helpful in deepsixing the matters for them when he took office. Throughout the 90s Clinton deepsixed matters that JOHN KERRY was exposing in his report, including related outstanding matters that JOHN KERRY requested further scrutiny. Kerry's request was denied and discouraged by the Clinton WH and his Senate allies and no cooperation with investigators would come from the new Dem president who instead sided with keeping Bush1's secrecy and privilege that also benefitted his top campaign bankroller in Arkansas, Jackson Stephens.

Of course, if you believe Clinton DID NOT deepsix these matters you are welcome to show us HOW he resolved those issues and how he cooperated with investigators - use Bill's book - one would expect that it would be in there, wouldn't it?

BTW - did YOU side with Republicans, Bush and Clinton on BCCI or did you side with Kerry's advocacy for open government and his work to expose BCCI?

[Lilith Velkor]

167. Yep, same thing Obama is doing now, which means you'll be all upset about it come 2025

So let me get this straight - you expected Bill Clinton to shit where he eats when it comes to campaign finance? No other politician has ever done that, nor will they, but Bill Clinton was supposed to because...?

And in addition to slitting his own political throat, you also expected him to literally martyr himself in an attempt to take down the Bush Crime Family, not two years after John Tower got Wellstoned?

Now all your blather about hero-worship is starting to make sense. Since you think that way, you assume everybody else does.

I actually feel a bit sorry for you. Not enough to stop making fun of you, of course, but there it is.

[blm]

168. Obama was handed a 5 1/2yr report that cornered BushInc? Really? When?

Now you claim Clinton couldn't allow scrutiny of his donor or cooperate with documents that would have BushInc JAILED, even though by doing so he would have assured Bushes be exposed to the point their power would have been severely compromised?

You seem to think the newsmedia back in 93 was as in the tank for Bushes as they are today. That's absurd. BushInc was cornered by Jan 1993 - they were at their WEAKEST and most vulnerable point. Clinton not only protected them but actively rehabbed Poppy Bush's legacy since. And by protecting Poppy he was also inadvertently protecting the longtime funders of global terrorism who were involved with Bush's illegal operations.

So....you also pretty much amswered what side you were on then - in YOUR book, Clinton did the right thing siding with Poppy and his cronies. Laugh, laugh, eh?

[Lilith Velkor]

170. Oh, the playing dumb routine again. How precious.

Since you're ignoring my questions and making shit up again, I'll just assume Bill Clinton fucked your mother and you're all upset because you weren't invited to join in.

[blm]

171. You're accusing me of what you have done throughout this exchange. Obama was never handed a report

that had BushInc cornered on his illegal operations - Clinton was - he didn't HAVE to do anything but cooperate with the remaining investigation to finish BushInc off.

There is NO COMPARISON, though you need to pretend there is because you really do side with Clinton protecting Bush. because YOU think he had no choice.

Well, if Obama doesn't cooperate with Kerry's work tracking AQ Khan, his funders and his global terror networks, he's another turncoat and I will judge him as such.

You want to smear Obama as being no different than Clinton, but, their circumstances and the conditions of the investigations are nowhere near the same.

[bluestateguy]

10. Not really applicable to me

I was in high school and college. My parents were hard hit by the early 90's recession, and hadn't really recovered until 1995-96.

[noamnety]

12. I did well during the Clinton years.

I worked for the defense industry.

If I hadn't quit for a more ethical option, I'd have increased my pay consistently regardless of whether I was working for Clinton, Bush, or Obama.

[Beacool]

13. I remember very good years.

Times were good and everybody who wanted a job found one. More people were elevated out of poverty than in previous decades.

But I also remember this young first couple being hounded from the moment they stepped into the WH. Initially some even went as low as to go after their child. The Clintons were never given a moment's peace in the WH, it's amazing that they would even want to continue in public service after the crap they have had to take from the right AND the left.

x(

[grytpype]

14. The Clinton years were a golden age for America and for me personally.

It's hard to imagine that time now.

[Festivito]

16. Early 90's "No applications being taken"

Then came Clinton. He had to struggle to get enough Dems to pass his economic package.

Then, the signs came down by summer.

Then, the boom continued while Republicans said, "What recovery?" .. the little ingrates.

Then, Republicans claimed they would bring down the deficit faster than Clinton if they had the presidency.

Meanwhile, we all did well despite the Republican lies.

[The_Commonist]

17. Ah yes, the 90's!

Another New Yorker here.
The best paying job I've ever had was during the late 90's.
I moved to Williamsburg in Brooklyn in '96 and saw the start of that neighborhood boom.
Lotsa fun in those days.
I feel like the 00's have been stagnant, and I've been in a holding pattern for 7 or 8 years.
It started with the horror of the 2000 election, and 9/11 changed everything.
Interestingly, there were a couple of years there after 9/11, when New York City felt like the gentlest place on the planet. But it wasn't fun... like the 90's were.

[Autumn]

18. We had it damn good. I worked in manufacturing,

lots of overtime , steady pay raise and the State had plenty of money for my Husbands job.Toward the last three or four years of Bush it started going downhill and that's where it seems to be staying.

[safeinOhio]

20. Great times for me too

worked lots of overtime. All my stocks took off. In 2000 I sold most of them and got into bonds. Because of the 90s I was able to retire at age 52.

[safeinOhio]

21. I remember some one put a "Sports men for Bush"

sticker on a fork lift. A year later it was still there, so I added "Unemployed Sports men for Bush".

[HamdenRice]

26. Thanks for that. That's what I thought was happening also. nt

[PopSixSquish]

19. I Lived in California, Silicon Valley Specifically and the Boom in Technology

translated into thousands of jobs and infrastructure. Both Bill Clinton and Al Gore were very good at recognizing where the future was in terms of this.

Unemployment was virtually 0 in some sectors and I also recieved phone calls from recruiters on a weekly basis. Yeah, the dot com crash was foreseeable but VCs were throwing money at people.

And when tragedies did occur such as Oklahoma City or the Olympic bombing, most people I worked with (even some Republicans) figured that the government agencies such as the FBI or ATF would be on the ball and find out who did it.

I also seem to recall that when there was a natural disaster, FEMA was right there (or maybe that's what it seemed like).

Most people I talked to could have given a rat's rear-end about Bill and Monica.

But I will say that by 1999, there were concerns about housing costs, healthcare and some of my Democratic activist and operative friends were very worried about what would happen if the Republicans won the 2000 election...

[HamdenRice]

22. OK, a reply to everyone upthread. Am I missing something? Why was Clinton "bad"?

I remember everyone who wanted a job got one. I remember poor people who had been pushed out of the labor market earlier getting back in. I remember neighborhoods being rebuilt.

I remember manufacturing taking off despite free trade.

So are the people who were hurt by the Clinton years simply not posting in this thread?

[blm]

36. Bush2 and 9-11 didn't hurt? You'd choose temporary economic fix over accountability

and your right to open government?

My belief is that you and most of DU would NOT choose a few years of economic contentment over a full accounting of the criminal operations of Poppy Bush and his cronies in Saudi Arabia, Dubai, Pakistan and China.

We DO have the luxury of hindsight in this thread should we choose to include the bigger picture and not the narrowly defined one that actually masks the unattractive reality.

[Rabrrrrrr]

47. Bush2 and 9-11 were AFTER Clinton.

Your point is.... well, I have no idea what your point is, and so I am confused.

[blm]

62. The deepsixing of Bush1's BCCI, IranContra, CIA drugrunning operations happened THROUGHOUT the 90s.

Bush2 and a 9-11 event would NEVER have happened if Clinton sided with accountability instead of with the secrecy and privilege of Poppy Bush and his cronies in Saudi Arabia and Dubai.

[dionysus]

135. he wasn't bad, he did stupid shit like nafta and media deregulation but it was good times otherwise.

the BCCI shit also was a mistake.

[blm]

152. a mistake, dio? The guy who bankrolled Bill's primary campaign helped bring BCCI into this country

with HIS longtime ally GHWBush....that guy was Jackson Stephens. Deepsixing BCCI was intentional, not just a 'mistake' the way you (and I, for that matter) wish.

If it was just a 'mistake' then Clinton would have had no problem saying so in his book for a little CYA. However, he managed to avoid any mention of BCCI or its outstanding matters in his book. Pretty amazing since the book was written well after 9-11.

[dionysus]

157. i'm trying to be nice to the clinton fans. i'll defer to your knowledge on BCCI because you're very

well studied on that whole deal :hi:

[Oregone]

23. Good. That doesn't make free trade agreements instantly good

Despite the initial boom of free trade, it carries some disastrous consequences once the manufacturing base is stripped and exported to an environment where production carries the lowest cost

[HamdenRice]

25. I think Clinton's idea was that we would do other things. I was very skeptical myself.

I remember being invited to a conference on free trade around the time of NAFTA. Very liberal academics arguing in favor of NAFTA.

It did work for a while. Let China produce "pig iron" and ingots. The US was producing high cost, high tech, highly fabricated steel products and creating a tsunamic of US steel products overseas, just not blast furnace ingots.

Why do you think that could not happen again?

[Oregone]

30. "Why do you think that could not happen again?"

The cost of production will always be cheaper over seas. The only limiting factor is the cost of oil for transporting the raw and finished goods. Even if the US could finally find something that they could produce alone due to innovation and education (though even 3rd world countries have show their ability to, with corporate stimulus, innovate and educate), Canada would out compete the US due to health care costs alone.

Americans are not necessarily smarter than anyone else. Technology can easy be exported these days. America hold no competitive advantage in any sector, and the global marketplace allows all competitive advantages (besides cheap labor/standard of living) to be exported (which contradicts one of the main tenants of viable free-trade). Free trade has allowed so many third world nations to have technological and social revolutions, such that they can now produce the same products the US has. Its time to abandon the model, as it has only torn the US worker down a notch along the way.

[HamdenRice]

32. Americans are not necessarily smarter than anyone else. Technology can easy be exported

Actually, that's not true. That's what the 90s proved.

It is very, very difficult for another country to reproduce the engineering and manufacturing synergies of the midwest or the software synergies of northern California -- if the government wants to maintain its competitive advantage.

[Oregone]

34. The 90s proved that lowering the floodgates caused a booming bubble

And the '00s proved that expansion can contract with serious consequences, especially if that economy didn't expand in a sound way.

Using the 90's in an isolated vacuum to justify free trade (or even the economic benefit of the Clinton policies) completely ignores the financial repercussions thereafter.

I honestly do not blame "Clinton" for this. He is merely a man pushing the policy of the hour (which originated prior to Clinton). But he didn't stop it. Gore didn't either. They promoted it.

[amandabeech]

97. After NAFTA and MFN/WTO for China,

U.S. companies moved their plants overseas or simply built new ones there because there were no enforced regulations and labor was cheap. There were no more tariff or other trade barriers to speak of to keep manufactured products out. In the '90s, that still hadn't happened wholesale, especially with respect to China. The "engineering and manufacturing synergies of the midwest" that you mention worked fairly well so long as we were competing against countries with similar economic stituations, although the mercantilist Japanese were eating our lunch in some areas.

With respect to northern California software companies, they're still there, but outsource to India, Taiwan, China and the Philipines, as well as Eastern Europe, and they bring in cheap labor from those countries as well. They're not hiring a lot of U.S.-born software engineers anymore, and the Indian companies that bring in the H-1Bs won't hire native workers. There are reports that immigrant managers don't want to hire native born workers, either.

The problem with Clinton were his trade deals, which did not show results until Clinton left office the tech bubble economy (remember irrational exuberance?) burst in 2000. Manufacturing has been murdered here largely because of what Clinton did, and it has taken shop floor and front office jobs with it. Tech jobs for the native born have been hit by the transformation of H-1B, L-1 and TN visa programs from limited visas for the especially talented, corporate workers and Canadian and Mexican skilled tradesmen and women, respectively, into wholesale immigration vehicles for the college-educated.

You're supposed to be a smart guy HamdenRice. I cannot believe that you actually had to have this explained to you. What's your real motive for asking this question?

[hileeopnyn8d]

31. I think

that's what Obama is hoping for with alternative energy. That WE will be the innovators and that it will burgeon the economy and bring back a different kind of manufacturing job.

I think if Gore had been our president for the last 8 years we'd already be well on our way.

[Oregone]

35. Thats so naive

Other countries are so much further ahead in alternative energy innovatin and production, devoting heavy government subsidies to fuel the activity. I am not sure the US can even catch up to some European countries, let alone surpass them.

Gore, a huge free trade proponent, would of had to of done something as his free trade policies caused a perpetual crumbling of the economy (and the environment, as products overseas are made with less regulation).

[hileeopnyn8d]

39. Well then,

I guess we all need to pack up and fucking leave like you did!

Maybe give half of the country to Canada, and the other half to Mexico and call it a day. Alaska goes back to Russia.

We have no reason to go on, that is what I'm getting from your posts.

[Oregone]

43. Depends on how you look at it

What is the reason to form and maintain a nation-state? To exist in a mediocre state, ensuring a life of low satisfaction for your inhabitants? Or is the entire process an idealist one, whereas a nation is supposed to strive for attainment of higher goals, to benefit their people (instead of just the upper class)? If a nation has no interest in improving its state and the lives of its inhabitants, it may in fact lose any reason to exist at all. So I wonder, are the current government goals aimed at merely pacifying the masses and prolonging the existence of the state (to benefit a small amount of people), or are they aimed at improving its situation, along with the people's?

If the government cannot analyze its mistakes like free trade and work to create a more equitable and sensible system--one that protects its workers' interests and promotes living standards domestically and abroad--it really should make one question what its priorities are and if it should exist at all.

Its all frank honest talk here.

[newspeak]

129. I remember Clinton on TV after NAFTA-GATT was passed

he said we were going to be the "service industry." That's what he said-and I told my hubby, we'd be working at McDonalds.

[Armstead]

165. That's based on a fallacy

The notion that the US can abandon the basics and move on to "better things" is built on a fallacy. It assumes that there is something special about the US that will automatically elevate us.

But we are not exceptions. For example, much of the action in the "green" industry, for example, is happening overseas -- not here in the US. It may create some installation jobs, but peopel will be installing parts and syatems developed and made oversea

The core problem of Clintonism is that it does not recognize that all nations should have balanced economies, and those economies should to some extent be protected. Third World nations should not (and will not) simply be the repository of the shitty industries and jobs America doesn't want.

A global economy can be healtrhy. But not if it is driven into a form of neo-colonialism, which is what the policies of Clinton was doing.

[depakid]

27. One word: Bubble

Clinton's policies set us up for the tech meltdown (and destroyed diversity in radio to boot). The administration pursued these reckless economic policies even after the meltdown at LTCM.

[HamdenRice]

29. As you type onto an internet web site that didn't exist in 1992

I'm amazed that people think that the tech boom was just a bubble. During my brief time in finance in the 90s, one of my main assignments was doing investment agreements into fiber optic networks.

There was a bubble, but an entire infrastructure was built and hundreds of millions of computers and software packages were created and sold. It may have been a bubble, but it wasn't "just" a bubble.

[depakid]

38. It wasn't just a bubble- but changes in various financial regulations caused a lot of problems

Foreseeable problems- like Enron, Tyco, Worldcom, etc.

And there was no excuse whatsoever for continuing to loosen (or prohibit) regulation after the narrow escape from LTCM. Brooksley Born was right- it was obvious at the time to many folks- yet the administration along with Greenspan (who Clinton reappointed) wouldn't be denied (or were in denial).

[mkultra]

44. so which financial policies do you claim caused the tech bubble?

pray tell.

[depakid]

94. The fact that you even ask that question at this point

much less get snarkey about it says a lot.

[mkultra]

108. I'm waiting for an answer

which financial policies passed during Clinton's tenor caused the tech bubble.

[amandabeech]

132. Tech bubble = pets.com with the sock puppets.

The last couple of years, at least, were froth. Companies that were going public were nothing more than a vague idea that the investment houses thought would sell and nothing more. People bought the stuff and pumped up the value, then reality hit. The stocks that went down. People who realized what was happening sold early and your average jane and joe ended up with worthless paper.

Yes, many computers were sold and many software packages were sold. I know: I was going through computers rapidly as the technology kept improving.

However, back then, the computers were much more frequently made here and the software was developed here because there were trade barriers for the former and because software managers hadn't figured out how to do things overseas. Now, most of the hardware is imported and much of the software is done overseas. As you must know, customer service has gone overseas, and that was facilitated by advances in that same technology.

[Politicub]

155. I love the fruits of the Internet boom

And it is still continuing to pay off. I can't imagine what the world would be like today if we didn't have the Internet as a tool to communicate and organize.

[ipaint]

28. Very short memories.

"The U.S. economy created jobs at a fairly rapid rate in the 1990s, but without NAFTA, hundreds of thousands of full time, high wage, benefit-paying manufacturing jobs would not have been lost. It is also important to note that while the U.S. economy is generating substantial numbers of new jobs in absolute terms, the quality of the jobs created is often poor. The U.S. Department of Labor projects that the professions with the greatest expected future growth in the U.S. are cashiers, waiters and waitresses, janitors and retail clerks. These and other lower-wage service jobs are the kind that will most likely be available to workers displaced by NAFTA.

Economic surveys of dislocated workers shows that the jobs lost to NAFTA, in many cases high-paying manufacturing jobs, are, in the majority of cases, replaced by lower-paid employment. NAFTA also has had a negative effect on the wages of many Americans whose jobs have not been relocated but whose wage bargaining power with their employers is substantially lessened; NAFTA puts them in direct competition with skilled, educated Mexican workers who work for a dollar or two an hour ­or less. NAFTA was supposed to ameliorate this problem by raising Mexican living standards and wages. Instead, both have plummeted, harming the economic prospects for workers on both sides of the border."

http://www.citizen.org/trade/nafta/jobs/



Snapshot for December 10, 2003.

NAFTA-related job losses have piled up since 1993
Since the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was signed in 1993, the rise in the U.S. trade deficit with Canada and Mexico through 2002 caused the displacement of production that supported 879,280 U.S. jobs. NAFTA is a free trade and investment agreement that provided investors with a unique set of guarantees designed to stimulate foreign direct investment in Mexico and Canada. It has facilitated the movement of factories from the United States to Canada and Mexico. Most of these jobs were high-wage positions in manufacturing industries.

Proponents of new trade agreements that build on NAFTA, such as the proposed Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA), have frequently claimed that such deals create jobs and raise incomes in the United States. These claims are based only on the positive effects of exports (known as "export effects"), ignoring the negative effects of imports (known as "import effects"). Such arguments are an attempt to hide the costs of new trade deals in order to boost the reported benefits.

The problem with these claims is that they misrepresent the real effects of trade on the U.S. economy: trade both creates and destroys jobs. Increases in U.S. exports tend to create jobs in this country, but increases in imports tend to reduce jobs by displacing goods that otherwise would have been made in the United States by domestic workers. Ignoring imports and counting only exports is like balancing a checkbook by counting only deposits but not withdrawals.

http://www.epi.org/economic_snapshots/entry/webfeatures_snapshots_archive_12102003/


Revisiting NAFTA: Still not working for North America’s workers
By Jeff Faux Carlos Salas Robert E. Scott
September 28, 2006

Twelve years later, it is clear that the costs to workers outweighed the benefits in all three nations. The process differed from country to country, and given the greater size and wealth of the United States, the impact there has not been as great as it was in Mexico and Canada. But the overall pattern was similar. In each nation, workers' share of the gains from rising productivity fell and the proportion of income and wealth going to those at the very top of the economic pyramid grew.

Americans were promised that NAFTA would generate large numbers of net new good jobs. Instead, over a million jobs that would otherwise have been created were lost, and wages were pressured downward for a large number of workers with less than a college education.

Mexican employment did increase, but much of it in low-wage "maquiladora" industries, which the promoters of NAFTA promised would disappear. The agricultural sector was devastated and the share of jobs with no security, no benefits, and no future expanded. The continued willingness every year of hundreds of thousands of Mexican citizens to risk their lives crossing the border to the United States because they cannot make a living at home is in itself testimony to the failure of NAFTA to deliver on the promises of its promoters.

Canada likewise saw continental integration undercut working families. Except for those at the top, real incomes have virtually stagnated. Canadians were assured that NAFTA and the earlier Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement were necessary to save the social safety net of which they are justly proud. Yet a dozen years later, government transfers to individuals have dropped from 11.5% of GDP to 7.8% of the country's GDP, and Canadian government's overall (non-military) program spending fell from 42.9% of GDP in 1992 to 33.6% of GDP in 2001 (see Canadian analysis starting on p. 53).


http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/bp173


In the United States, job losses associated with the trade deficit increased six times more rapidly between 1994 and 2000 than they did between 1989 and 1994, according to figures from the Economic Policy Institute. Even critics of NAFTA acknowlege that these statistics cannot be directly attributed to NAFTA. The EPI paper does not condemn further trade liberalization: "There is no doubt that, in the long run, a system of both freer trade and fair trade which ensures that all participants play by a well-definied set of humane, market-based rules can maximize incomes for most, if not all, countries around the world.... Existing trade agreements should be repaired and rebuilt before moving ahead with another round of broad, new trade details."

http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/nafta.html



Job losses in all 50 states

All 50 states and the District of Columbia have experienced a net loss of jobs under NAFTA (see Table 2). Exports from every state have been offset by faster rising imports. Table 2 provides detailed estimates of job gains due to the growth in exports, job losses due to changes in imports, and the trade balance for each state. In every case, many more jobs are lost due to growing imports than are gained by increasing exports.

...Globalization has put downward pressure on the wages of less-educated workers for three primary reasons. First, the steady growth in U.S. trade deficits over the past two decades has eliminated millions of manufacturing jobs and job opportunities in this country. Most displaced workers find jobs in other sectors where wages are much lower, which in turn leads to lower average wages for all U.S. workers. Recent surveys have shown that, even when displaced workers are able to find new jobs in the United States, they face a reduction in wages, with earnings declining by an average of over 13% (Mishel et al. 2001, 24). These displaced workers' new jobs are likely to be in the service industry, the source of 98% of net new jobs created in the United States between 1989 and 2000, and a sector in which average compensation is only 81% of the manufacturing sector's average (Mishel et al. 2003, 177). This competition also extends to export sectors, where pressures to cut product prices are often intense.

http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/briefingpapers_bp147

[Number23]

68. nice post.

[OHdem10]

33. It is not Clinton was so bad. I have watched many in depth interviews

on this subject. What people are referring to, IMO, is the fact
that the Economic Free Market Fundamentalism of Reagan was furthered
by every President since Reagan including Clinton. You can say
he had a GOP Congress and that made it difficult for him to change.
Others believe, as you know Clinton is Conservative Democrat and
therefore it was not his nature to fight back that hard against
Republicans. No matter, it is Economic Free Market Fundamentalism
that put us in such dire straits. The recent serious comment is
by NYT Tannenhaus (spelling) on C.Rose. In discussing his
book "The Death of Conservatism", he made the case that Obama is
a conservative. He is not being mean spirited--just giving explanations.

Furthermore, Obama has surrounded himself with Clinton Supporters.
Does anyone believe they give him Liberal advice.

[msallied]

37. The economic policies of the Clinton era sowed the rotten seeds we're reaping today.

Not blaming Clinton specifically--he had an all GOP Congress to contend with, and it was their legislation--but it takes time for a lot of those things to take place. They're like parasites that live in your gut for years, doing nothing until one day... BAM. NAFTA, repealing Glass-Steagall. The Telecom Act.

[paulk]

48. I still maintain that the excesses of the programs you mention

were exploited by the thief Bush, and that a Gore presidency would have fixed the problems.

[NYC_SKP]

40. The Clinton years were good, but they were NOT sustainable. They simply were not.

Corporatism and globalism were on the rise, we benefited in the general sense but at the risk of future generations.

What was happening to our industrial base during those years?

When did outsourcing really get going?

:shrug:

[Cha]

52. And, as you know..

PO is working for Sustainability.

[noamnety]

61. +1

That's the issue, right there.

They weren't sustainable for the US, and furthermore the success the US felt came because we were getting fat off exploiting people and resources globally.

It was unsustainable and unethical.

[Liberal Gramma]

41. The critical point is that full employment is unpopular with employers

They have to pay higher wages, offer more incentives, actually treat their employees well. They much prefer high unemployment without its concommittant consumer spending slump, if such a condition can be.

[Warren Stupidity]

45. The Clintons represented the corporatist takeover of the Democratic Party

and pretty much the end of the road for the New Deal progressive era that started with FDR. Yes the 90's was a boom time, but it also should have been the time that we made real progress on climate, energy, and health issues. Instead we got free trade fundamentalism, deregulation, and the globalist economic and geopolitical perspective that now runs the planet for the benefit of the few. Feh. I'd trade in the fake boom anyday for real progressive reform.

[HamdenRice]

46. Did you PERSONALLY suffer under Clinton? Cuz I'm hearing lots of theory, but no PERSONAL bad times

under Clinton.

That's the value of forums like this -- we get to hear real people's real stories.

So far, I've read several posts about why Clinton was theoretically bad, but not one post about a person doing bad as an individual, and lots of thread about people doing really well as individuals at several class levels.

[ipaint]

54. The only time I did well in the last 20 years is during the housing bubble during the bush years.

What the hell is anecdotal experience have to do with the value of the policies. It's not about the individual it's about the overall effect after looking at the results. Learning from the mistakes is what causes change.

There has been no change as a result of analysis of the mistakes we made with nafta, welfare reform, de-regulation of industry and finance, other countries and our own pro-profit health insurance mistakes and most of all our warmongering middle east policies.

How about you ask the half a million children under 5 in iraq that died as a result of Clinton's embargo policies.

[Warren Stupidity]

58. I did quite well under Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and now Obama too.

I think all of the above have not been good presidents for the people or the planet, although I still hold out hope for Obama. I am obviously missing your point.

[Garam_Masala]

49. I made more money during Clinton than all others combined

in the stock market. Which enabled me to quit my stressful job
and take it easy at age 57.

So a big grateful thank you Bill Clinton!

[paulk]

50. from '94 - '99 was the first time in my life that I felt

the American Dream included me. We bought a house, a new car, both had really good jobs with healthcare, started a business that showed every sign of succeeding, had money in the stock market, had savings, etc, etc. - then George Bush stole the White House and, almost to the day, things began to go down hill.

I still have my house (just barely, month to month) and I'm still driving that same car, but everything else is gone.

---------------

Obama hasn't been in office long enough to know what effect he will have on the economy. It took Clinton two years to turn things around - that said, I believe that Obama has been too cautious and has underestimated how bad things really are. He hasn't shown the political courage Clinton did dealing with the economy - Clinton rescinded the Reagan era tax cuts on the wealthy, at great political cost. Obama is worried the same could happen to him, but his failure to act could cost him just as dearly.

[girl gone mad]

51. I was still in school, but a few things..

most of my family in Ohio and the Midwest suffered during this time as inflation hit while good manufacturing jobs were lost. I have a couple of uncles who went from high paying factory positions to lower paying sales jobs in the 90s. One of my aunts became a real estate agent when her manufacturing job was outsourced.

The big thing that impacted my life was that SSC was killed during this time. I don't blame Clinton, though he barely lifted a finger to save it. This was pretty devastating to the scientific community around here. A job I would have easily graduated into was gone.

Toward the end of the Clinton years we saw a flood of H1B immigrants brought in to replace higher paid American workers. Many of the people I knew who worked in tech were training their replacement workers and looking for new jobs. Most people I know lost money when the tech bubble burst.

Greenspan and Rubin are two of the biggest villains of the economic collapse and both were Clinton appointees. The repeal of Glass-Steagall set the stage for the derivatives meltdown. Artificially low interest rates spawned continuous fake bubble economies which only temporarily masked the effects of NAFTA and globalization, but which also made life much more difficult for young people just starting out. By the time I graduated, houses were already unaffordable without crazy loans. Cars and health insurance took a bigger chunk of income. In the 80s, my mom didn't work for long periods of time and my family was comfortable. By the year 2000, it would have been very difficult for a middle class family to live that way on one income. Education costs were also beginning to skyrocket in the late 90s.

[HamdenRice]

53. Although we often disagree on lots of things, thank you for this

I wanted to hear from someone who did not have a knee jerk, "Clinton was bad" response without having experienced why.

You provide this thread with the balance of actual personal experience of the downside of the Clinton years.

Thanks again.

[Orsino]

60. My hate, such as it is, stems from the growing wealth inequities during that Administration...

...as during others. That my economic situation, like yours, bettered is largely irrelevant--though it makes a handy smokescreen.

The president gets the largest personal share of blame, perhaps, but he was rather outnumbered by the 535 Congressional seats and thousands of the uber-wealthy who directed policy.

[paulk]

70. except that it's not true

wealth inequities - the gap between the rich and the poor - shrank during the Clinton Presidency.

Any simple google search will show you this.


ed for sp

[Orsino]

72. Perhaps those Google searches are too simple.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/4/15/154342/469

[paulk]

78. I don't see the gap between ceo pay and average worker

as indicative of the economy as a whole. Over 22 million new jobs were created while Clinton was President, there was the longest period of real wage growth in over 30 years, and the poverty rate declined by the largest amount in, again, 30 years.

I don't find "hating" Clinton for one thing like CEO pay particularly rational - and you're going to have to explain how he was responsible - that is, what policies of his led to the rise in CEO pay.

[Orsino]

84. I think I made it clear how little of the blame I would assign a president...

...and as for the wealth inequities that grew during the Clinton Administration, that graph explains it.

[Orsino]

73. Perhaps those Google searches were too simple.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/4/15/154342/469

[Orsino]

75. Perhaps those Google searches were too simple.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/4/15/154342/469

[Sinti]

63. I have a really biased view of the Clinton presidency

Having been homeless for the entirety of the Bush I presidency, and having lost 2 family members to the life-stealing grind of homelessness, when Clinton got into office and I, my son, and my sister, got a roof over our heads, I was grateful. I am still grateful, and I cannot help but love Bill.

I've tried to look at him as a set up for Bush II (as some people do), as more of a friend to the money men than the common man and all that - but I assumed when Bush was in office that I was going to die and leave my son with no one. The boy is grown now, and I'm really grateful I was there to see him grow. I don't believe that if Bush I had won I would have been there.

The BCCI investigation may have been tucked away in a box when Bill came into office, but the damn democrats would not let John Kerry really follow through on it even before Bill (and he John Kerry did try). The Dems fought Bill tooth and nail his first two years, just like they're fighting Barack. Then they lost, and so did we. Let's not pretend that one party owns all the corruption.

Clinton changed people's minds a bit. I had two jobs, my sister also worked, we made more than enough money to pay rent. We had enough for first months rent, last month's rent, and a deposit, but even crappy places wouldn't rent us an apartment or anything, because we were homeless. It's expensive as hell being homeless. If you've never been in that position, I don't think you can imagine what it's like, especially with a small child. Somehow, when Bill got elected, people softened. I've met other people who were also homeless under Bush I and things changed dramatically for them with Bill, as well.

So, I love Bill. I'd vote for him again if he ran. But, it's completely personal.

Sometimes rhetoric makes a huge difference. One of the primary jobs of the president is to set the tone for the nation. Apparently, President Obama's tone is one of calm cooperation, and thoughtfulness. We'll see how it turns out. I'm just grateful the second Bush didn't put me back on the street. When he got elected I was terrified.

The thing that's caused the most trouble, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act which repealed Glass-Steagall passed in the Senate with 90-8 and in the House with 362-57. Clinton could have vetoed it, but they would have over-ridden the veto. So, the veto would have been pointless, except to keep his hands clean. There was a lot of media hype at that time, Dow 30,000 was the big meme they were selling. It was stupid, lacking historical perspective, and ridiculous, but they just kept telling the lie until it was accepted as truth.

What people don't know is that Bill prevented the wish list of the Federalist Society from getting rammed through their Republican Congress. I did some work for them, transcription of meetings. And believe me, you may have hated welfare to work, but you would have hated workhouses (with the children being put in state-run orphanages) even more. And that's what they wanted. They wanted to do away with SSI for mentally and physically handicapped children and a myriad of other "programs" worthy of a Dickens tale. This push from the Federalists was the primary reason for the whole "shut down the government" debacle. It could have been much more ugly than you think.

Things can change, and change more quickly than you think, but minds have to change first. The president, whoever the president is, also has to deal with a media (fourth estate) that is owned entirely by large corporations, most of whom profit from the war and poverty of others. So, I'm going to be patient and watch, and try to ask the right questions. I'm patient anyway, I learned at a young age that it keeps me happy.

BTW, good question HamdenRice :hi:

Edited to add:

My family was not anywhere near poverty before the end of Reagan and beginning of Bush I. My mother made $65,000 +/- per year - a series of bad luck (company bankruptcy) and banking deregulation beat the hell out of her and she just could not get back up.

[HamdenRice]

74. Thank you for that thoughtful, heartfelt and informative reply! nt

[Beacool]

79. Thank you for your terrific post.

I'm bookmarking this thread because of your post.

Both Bill and Hillary have been demonized on this board and by the Left in general. I think that they all should read what you wrote:

"The thing that's caused the most trouble, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act which repealed Glass-Steagall passed in the Senate with 90-8 and in the House with 362-57. Clinton could have vetoed it, but they would have over-ridden the veto. So, the veto would have been pointless, except to keep his hands clean. There was a lot of media hype at that time, Dow 30,000 was the big meme they were selling. It was stupid, lacking historical perspective, and ridiculous, but they just kept telling the lie until it was accepted as truth.

What people don't know is that Bill prevented the wish list of the Federalist Society from getting rammed through their Republican Congress. I did some work for them, transcription of meetings. And believe me, you may have hated welfare to work, but you would have hated workhouses (with the children being put in state-run orphanages) even more. And that's what they wanted. They wanted to do away with SSI for mentally and physically handicapped children and a myriad of other "programs" worthy of a Dickens tale. This push from the Federalists was the primary reason for the whole "shut down the government" debacle. It could have been much more ugly than you think."

People think that the 90s were the same as this era, they were not. Bill had to fight an uphill battle even with the Democrats, most were entrenched in their comfy positions and didn't want this upstart from some hick state to upend the apple cart. They said NO to him almost as much as the Republicans. Hillary put herself on the line to try to get healthcare legislation passed for all of us. For her efforts she was vilified and even had to wear a bullet proof vest when she was out campaigning for healthcare reform. These two people were hounded by a special prosecutor for years. What was the result of the 5 year persecution? That Bill got some BJs in the WH. Big freaking deal!!! So, as far as I'm concerned, those who keep attacking either Clinton can go to hell.

Thank you for your thoughtful post and I'm very glad that your situation has improved.

:hug:

[Sinti]

91. Thanks, me too :)

People have incredibly short memories. It's probably due to TV programming and leading such hectic, striving lives. Mere survival for many of us leaves no time for thinking, let alone remembering.

For some reason we've come to believe that assigning blame for the bad things is equivalent to, or more important than, finding solutions. There's incredible frustration out there, and pointing the finger seems to be the only response left in the toolbox. Don't let it get you down.

History has a very long view, and I think it will be much more kind than the short view, if the whole truth ever comes out. I remember the vitriol over Hillary - just like today, only with people who seemed to be more sane/reasonable on the surface.

The media seems to drive this strange behavior, we first deify people, and then crucify them for the sin of being human beings. It's like the disposable economy, only with people. All human beings are imperfect, just like everything else in nature.

I think some people don't understand that you can love and expect/hope for the best from Barack, and still love Bill and Hillary. The two are not mutually exclusive. In a little while, as the wheels get turning a bit better, I expect that stream of thought will fade with the frustration that causes it. Then again, I'm an optimist. You can't know the future, but you can choose what you expect from it. If I'm disappointed, at least I won't have spent the intervening years with a heart full of cynicism.

[ProSense]

85. This is sheer nonsense

The thing that's caused the most trouble, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act which repealed Glass-Steagall passed in the Senate with 90-8 and in the House with 362-57. Clinton could have vetoed it, but they would have over-ridden the veto. So, the veto would have been pointless, except to keep his hands clean. There was a lot of media hype at that time, Dow 30,000 was the big meme they were selling. It was stupid, lacking historical perspective, and ridiculous, but they just kept telling the lie until it was accepted as truth.

Clinton wanted the repeal, he lobbied for it. The bill was passed by Republicans. The 90-8 vote was on a conference report, and the Dems were able to include a bill to try to protect consumers, but then Bush came along and weakened the measure.

One policy Clinton said he doesn't regret is his repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999, which, for the first time since the Depression, allowed commercial banks to engage in investment banking activities. Clinton said the commercial banks were an important moderating force on the risk-taking of the big investment firms that collapsed this week. "In the case of the current crisis, I believe the bill I signed allowed Bank of America to take over Merrill Lynch," he said.

link

Clinton's 1999 statement of repealing Glass-Steagall

Clinton had no desire to veto the bill, none.

[Sinti]

87. Okay, I was not aware of this statement.

I did not intend to repeat falsehoods. So, please forgive my mistake.

In your link he said this in '99, I wonder how he feels about it today. I think we've all seen the result of this wrong-headed approach to regulation and/or lack thereof. Hopefully we can get back on a more correct path now. Many sane people knew that repealing Glass-Steagal would lead to this kind of wild west mentality and ultimate demise.

At the time, though, there was an idea that the "business cycle" was a thing of the past, and that the only way was up - after all, we were an information society and it was a new world. There was huge media hype, a man named Jim Glassman was one of the major proponents. If you read this guy's writing on the subject you get a good sense of how far from reality he was. We just shook our heads and transcribed his nonsense, knowing full well that he had gone mad and was not alone - it was like gold fever.

I typed some of the hearings on this - I'm a transcriber (scribe in old world speak), and get to see all kinds of nonsense propounded as obvious truth.

Edited to add:

That said, I still love Bill. It's personal. If he could run tomorrow, I'd vote for him again.

[Hippo_Tron]

107. Chicken or the egg

Clinton became a cheerleader for Gramm-Leach-Bliley but it was also clear that the bill would pass especially due to the fact that they attached the Community Reinvestment Act provisions on to get Democrats on board. I haven't seen anything that conclusively says which way he would've come down on the bill if there had been enough Democrats in opposition to sustain a veto.

[CakeGrrl]

136. Thanks again for the reality check on the rose-colored glasses, ProSense

The seeds of NAFTA were planted and are now in fruition. People take a short-term romanticized view of the past for various reasons.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

71. You want the great american autobiography? Work hard, study, get canned. Stay unemployed.

My career died in 1994 and I tried to get into other careers, and have never had any sort of steady income since 1994. This is about two of us. My hubby's career died too, so I guess sexism had nothing to do with his problems.

My career died (court reporting) in 1994 and I finally gave up my state license in 1996 b/c they wouldn't accept my BA in biology and my Juris Doctor as continuing ed credit toward their chickenshit continuing ed sessions (which were a complete waste of time for me). They wanted me to explain EVERY SINGLE COURSE in biology and law school and how that would make me a better court reporter. I cannot imagine a better background for a court reporter than those two degrees. They urge court reporters to finish a bachelor's degree, but they don't really mean it. And I told them they were afraid of a truly well educated court reporter with a law degree, like me. They are busy being glorified secretaries.

I was burned out anyway from mean nasty lawyers and judges who attacked me verbally for no reason. I've been on blood pressure meds for twenty years.

I was taught to do the very best job I could, and I did. My transcripts were perfect even if they had big words in them like spondylolisis, spondylolisthesis, and spondylosis. And I knew the differences between those words. I would hire typists, and then they would do a less than perfect job, and I would have to do my own typing.

Oh and did I mention that I worked full time at the courthouse as a court reporter, in the 80s, and went to law school at night and worked, and did this for five years to earn those difficult ninety semester hours? And paid for private school tuition out of my pay as a court reporter? So I don't owe any student loans. And I was sick with a dead thyroid at the time, and wondered why I was exhausted? I thought it was because I had a very stressful job and was going to grad school which was very difficult.

I tried to get jobs as a legal assistant with a Juris Doctor and a lot of experience as legal secretary and as a court reporter who had seen many many trials. There aren't a whole lot of people with law degrees who were working as a super qualified legal assistant, but I would have been one. I should have been training trial lawyers. I got nowhere.

I tried between 1996-1999, and also between 2002-2006. I went to my law schools job office which was supposed to help us find jobs. I called up just about every guy and gal I went to law school with and asked them to help me. No dice. I went to a couple of large churches (Names provided on request) and offered to help them with spreading their message if they would help me and my hubby get jobs -- anything. I told them I was an excellent secretary and hubby could do video/CD/DVD production to spread their sermons on CD/DVD. I have directed church choirs before and been a Music Director in a couple of churches. Nope, they wouldn't pay us a crying dime. Nor would they help us find jobs doing anything else. Needless to say, we are no longer Christians.

The only jobs I had after that were crappy sales jobs and temporary jobs. They finally drove me nuts at my department store job selling shitty jewelry in a lease department(1998-1999) when the manager (female) came up to me behind the counter and screamed at me (while the store was open, there could have been customers, but there were none) and I started crying and she screamed at me to stop crying and I could not. None of these people I worked with knew what a Jeweler's Loupe was or what it is for. I guess they never had to take a biology course and look through a microscope in high school either. After that I went home and hid from the phone for a month with PTSD and jumped every time the phone rang. I finally went back to the store and formally resigned. The manager was bitching at me while I was filling out a form about how she has trouble communicating with her employees.

I had a couple of temporary jobs. At one I took ancient legal documents and did data entry into a database. You had to have a law degree to figure out what you were looking at, but it was boring. I could barely stand that one. That lasted 4 months and died.

When I took a typing test for my database job, I did it on a computer. I typed and went back and corrected my mistakes, and came out that way at 114 words per minute with no errors. Back in the 1970s when we had IBM Selectrics, the fastest I did was 97 words per minute, with 2 errors in five minutes. That is an error rate of 0.4%, four-tenths of one percent.


I got a job as a salesperson at a jewelry store. I have, besides my three college degrees, 3 Gemological Institute of America certificates. Two of them are in Diamond Grading and Colored Stone Grading. The owner decided not to let me sell jewelry. He stuck me in the back room sorting diamonds, which was not what I was qualified for and not what I applied for. After four days, he fired me. I told him he asked for a salesperson and I was not a diamond sorter and that it was his problem. If he wanted a diamond sorter he should have hired one. He showed no comprehension at all of that. I think he hired me and then realized I was not "cute enough" to be a salesgirl. I never was allowed to show any merchandise. I think the sales girls were hired because they were conventionally cute, and knew NOTHING about diamonds or jewelry. That job lasted about four days. My blood pressure got ridiculous, I was so pissed at him. I told him he did not understand English and I did not know why. This guy has a well advertised store on the corner of Westheimer and Fountainview in Houston called Nazar's. I would not buy anything from him.

Then I had a temporary job transcribing medical records for doctors who did cancer research at one of the med schools. They kept a girl working there who heard the word "monoclonal" on a tape and transcribed it as "molecular" because that was the biggest word she knew that started with "M"!!!!
She didn't understand what was on the tape and I heard "monoclonal" clear as day!!!!

I have a BA in biology and I can spell the big words. I got canned b/c I got my husband (then boyfriend) to come over from the other med school in the Med Center, and fix a computer problem I had. They told me after they canned me that I could not have visitors; and that I was supposed to call the agency if I had a computer problem.

I asked them 1)You never told me I could not have visitors; 2)He was not visiting, he was helping me solve a work related problem; 3)Did the agency people I was supposed to call have thirty years experience in programming in Basic and Visual Basic, and had math and physics degrees?? The stupid girl just got mad at me, and I told her, "I see. I draft the closest computer expert I know, to come solve a work related problem, in order to save the client time and money, and I get PUNISHED for it by being fired for SHOWING INITIATIVE".

All that did was make the bimbo mad. That job lasted all of NINE DAYS. That was in summer 2001.

I have not worked since then.

What all these jobs had in common was catch-22 situations. They would tell me something I did was forbidden, and tell me that after the fact, just so they could fire me. They were scared of an educated woman like me. No wonder American business has gone to hell. It's all about mediocrity and paying lip service to excellence.

My hubby was an engineer in the oilfield support business and he got laid off January 2, 1993. His boss decided that because a Democrat got elected president, that the economy would be horrible and he would have to lay people off (we know the opposite is true, the economy does better under Democrats).

He was hoping that Congress would fund the Superconducting Supercollider in Waxahachie, Texas. He has always wanted to do research in nuclear physics. Of course the idiots in Congress refused to fund basic research. He had applied at NASA Mission Control countless times. Never heard from them.
I also applied to United Space Alliance, the main contractor. as a technical secretary and never heard back from them.

He went back to school and got one of those ripoff proprietary school diplomas from The Art Institute (the chain that advertises fashion design, culinary, and video production). He was a programmer and an electronics expert and got an associates in Music & Video Production. He said it was a total waste of time, he already knew more than the instructors did about video and audio editing, learning on his own. He made a straight 4.0 average, got an Outstanding Student Award. This did him absolutely no good. He has a BS and MS in math/physics/Electrical Engineering.

There was a large lawsuit against the Houston branch of the Art Institute, with about 200 plaintiffs, for misrepresentations, lack of transferability of credits, and promises to have the inside track with the industry on employment. This was a complete lie. My hubby was the oldest student they had. The settlements they offered were only for a couple of thousand dollars. That was not anywhere near the costs of the student loans. The result? He got no jobs due to his Art Institute Diploma. There were no audio recording studio jobs, no TV station jobs, no radio station jobs, no video production house jobs in Houston.

Now, 15 years after he graduated, they take student loan payments out of his Social Security Check.


He got a shitty job at one of the med schools shooting video of lectures, and trying to do the job of four people, upload the videos to the med school server, and get yelled at by idiots who told him he "was NOT their equal, he was their subordinate". They had NO college degrees, no idea how to program, and were just stupid bureaucrats. They did not understand that file names need the eight-dot-three naming system. xxxx.jpg.jpg does not work. They could not figure out why it did not work.

They were all about buzzwords and "team players" and complete administrative mediocrity. He got canned in 2006 because the president of the med school decided to run up huge debt, piss off the hospitals they worked with, and generally destroy the school. Because of the stress, he got extremely hateful working there. He kept an Excel spreadsheet from day one, of all the overtime, they refused to pay because they told him "We don't have to pay you overtime if you have a title" (this was said by some idiot secretary who obviously didn't know the Department of Labor regs). He took home about $10 an hour and were ruining his health, and taking his student loan out of his so called "discretionary income".

When they fired him he turned in his spreadsheet with 6 years of overtime on it, and they paid him after a couple of weeks, when he turned in a letter with it that said, "I really don't want to pursue legal action, so here is my spreadsheet of the overtime you should have paid me".

They paid him every bit of the time and and a half and it was several thousand dollars.

My parents gave me and my hubby TOTAL AND COMPLETE HELL while they were alive. They kept saying, "We paid for a damn good education for you, you went to twelve years of college, why can't you get a job?". My answer was, "I don't know, I'm certainly qualified to do well". My father was an attorney and my mother was his legal secretary.

They got mad because we paid all our money out on luxuries like house taxes and car insurance, and food other than bananas and oatmeal.

The only thing that cured their nagging was their deaths. Pardon my French. The voices in my head (YOU ARE SO EXTRAVAGANT! QUIT WASTING MONEY!) have finally started to subside since it's been a few years.

The only reason we have any money now is because I inherited a house, moved in to it, and get rent from my other house and he gets Social Security now. We have not had health insurance since 2006.

Bill Clinton governed like a Republican. Even though I loved him personally, he never did anything for the working stiffs. He passed NAFTA and helped offshoring. As Michael Moore said, "He's the best moderate Republican president we've had in a long time".

I don't think much of the economic prosperity then. My hubby and I were educated baby boomers, he with a master's, me with a doctorate, and everything went to hell then.

My last attempt to earn income was about 5 years ago. I put up a website, got a domain name and got shopping cart software to sell my jewelry and silk paintings (I string beads). Results? In one year I made exactly ONE sale on my website. I adverised on Bartcop. So much for starting my own business. Hubby also got an assumed name to make CDs/DVDs and has done some as favors for other people, but has sold very few. I hate the right wing assholes that say "Oh you should start a small business". They haven't realized that because people don't have discretionary income, they are not going to buy stuff other than necessities, let alone spend money on art or jewelry.


Who, me, bitter? At least now I don't have to suck up to anybody, get up early and go to a suckwad job, kiss ass, or put up with some stupid employer's crap. Chewed up and spit out by the economy. Did what I was supposed to -- went to college, got job skills. They told use we needed to major in science, because of the space program, and Sputnik and they needed high school science teachers.
After I got my BA, 30 years ago, I applied for high school biology teacher jobs, and got nowhere. Not even junior high science teacher jobs. I decided they didn't really mean it.

We spent our lives trying to get approval for learning lots of cool stuff. All we got was backstabbing and "you are overqualified".

We didn't major in liberal arts, and where did it get us?? Nowhere. We might as well have run off and joined rock and roll bands and been hippies for all the good it did.


On edit: I stopped looking for a job, because of the futility of it and the cost of driving around, putting on work clothes, and the serious depression/high blood pressure it creates. I am not old enough for social security, nor sick enough for disability. I am one of those who stopped looking several years ago. Our society throws away the brightest and best educated, sad to say. I must not have the right rich friends who would give me an easy job.

[Jennicut]

76. For the most part I liked Clinton but I was in high school and college then and not having to find a

major job that would be a career. I graduated high school in 1994 and college in 1999 (took a year off). I would say I was not touched by anything bad in the 1990's except when my Dad almost lost his job at the telephone company (now AT&T). That was 1992 and it was do to the bad economy of the early 90's under HW Bush.
I don't approve of all the things Clinton did but I don't hate him either.

[saltpoint]

77. Economics isn't the only gauge of individual Democrats' job performance,

whether someone did well or not during this or that administration.

One useful context for assessment, IMO,is whether someone considers herself or himself to be more aligned with Democrat 'A' than with Democrat 'B,' and why.

There are Robert F. Kennedy Democrats.

There are Scoop Jackson Democrats.

There are Ann Richardson Democrats.

There are Mo Udall Democrats.

There are Bella Abzug Democrats.

It's like an internalized Facebook construction with the individual Democratic voter accepting "friends" among available Democrats past and present.

IMO a great deal of the passion someone feels for this or that politician has to do with this emotional/political alignment rather than itemized issue-directed opinios of a given administration or term served.

[Onlooker]

80. Clinton was much tougher than Obama

Clinton forced the Republicans' hand and very much used their ideas to implement a number of good reforms. We had a much better economy under Clinton, and I personally was better off too. Obama reminds me of Carter -- a good and decent man who only knows how to play nice. Also, given Obama's failures, I'm sick of his photo op after photo op. Michelle looks like an idiot in a Holloween costume when her husband so far is failing on all the critical issues.

[ProSense]

86. "Michelle looks like an idiot in a Holloween costume "

Issues?

:rofl:

[hileeopnyn8d]

101. You're really pushing

that particular meme today.

Michelle did not look like an idiot, but you certainly sound like one.


btw - the word is Halloween.

[Lilyeye]

125. Thanks for showing your true colors.

Was there really a need to say the First Lady looks like an idiot? How fucking petty are you.

[firedupdem]

137. Again, you're the only idiot around posting these teabagger,

name calling posts. You're a miserable ass.

[Brickbat]

81. During the Clinton years, I graduated into a recession, found a job four months after graduating

in my field. It had excellent health care and paid me enough to live in a fairly safe apartment in Minneapolis. I worked abroad for awhile, came back, got several great jobs in my field. Mr. Brickbat, working in construction, never wanted for work. One month after 9/11, my industry collapsed and I was laid off and unemployed for four years. Construction slowed down and then stopped, and our family was in some pretty dire straits for awhile. We looked back on the Clinton years with considerable nostalgia.

ETA: I answered this OP with my own experience. I understand that NAFTA was a complete nightmare and I agree with that completely. The Clinton years were good to me and my family; they were not good to all.

[GoCubsGo]

82. I did well under Clinton

Not well now. But, my problems started more than two years ago, when Shitboy was in office and the rethugs controlled Congress. I don't hate Obama. I'm not happy that things aren't getting better as quickly as I would like. But, I wasn't expecting them to. He has a hell of a mess to clean up, and I realize that won't happen overnight.

It's not Obama I hate. It's Bush, Cheney, everyone associated with them, and every last one of those who put these motherfuckers in control of our country for eight years (and for the 10 years the GOP was allowed to run Congress.)

[and-justice-for-all]

83. Like my mother said:

"At least when Clinton was President, we had money."

[MellowDem]

88. You are wrong...

to assume a president should get any real credit (or blame) for a good or bad economy. The President has little to no influence on the economy and policies instituted by other presidents usually take a while to effect the economy anyways. But to be fair, Clinton was basically a very conservative president economically and his policies helped lead us to the crisis we are in to be sure.

[Odin2005]

89. Maybe it's just my idealization of childhood, but the Clinton years were like a lost Golden Age.

The economy was healing from Reagan BS, then Bush came in and used a recession to fuck things up again.

[jonnyblitz]

93. making that era "all about me" and judging it based on THAT

is SELFISH and something that wingnuts do. I could be doinG WELL by sheer luck while most people are suffering and that wouldn't make it an ideal time for MOST. there is a laundry list of crap Clinton promulgated that got us to where we are NOW.

[Fire1]

98. I bought my first home, took post grad classes and got a

promotion albeit, short lived. Sold the house in the city and bought a home in the burbs. Life was good.

[quiller4]

104. My spouse and I hit our peak earning years of our careers 1997-2000

We are both retired now. We traded up and bought a larger house on acreage in '93. We sold with a large enough gain that we paid cash for our retirement place in 2002.

[Vidar]

106. Considerably better!

[MadHound]

109. Sure, it must have been nice on the coasts,

But here in the Midwest, NAFTA put the final nail in the coffin of the manufacturing sector. People that had well paying jobs in manufacturing all the sudden had to find other work. Sure, there was other work around, but McJobs certainly don't pay as well as factory jobs do. Not to mention that NAFTA also hurt agriculture around here badly, driving even more small and mid size farmers out of business. Not to mention the fact that while the rest of the country was booming, we were still trying to recover from the '91 recession, and frankly we never really did (again, manufacturing fleeing south, lower paying jobs, agricultural communities drying up).

Oh, and let's not forget the fact that Clinton deregulated the financial sector even more than Reagan/Bush did, setting us up for our latest collapse, not to mention the fact that he helped usher in our propaganda media with the '96 Telecom Act, all the while shredding our social safety net.

Yeah, Clinton was good, one of the best Republican presidents I've seen. Trouble was, he was supposed to be a Democrat. Instead, he turned out to be another corporate whore.

[polichick]

110. Unfortunately, some things were put in motion then that have...

...helped bring us to today's joblessness - like NAFTA and the repeal of Glass-Steagall.

[Norrin Radd]

113. No hate, then or now, but back then,

I was working, poor and starving and freezing in the winter, with no extra money for fun.

[girl_interrupted]

114. Great years for my family & especially for Harlem

The Clinton years benefitted so many of us. For that I will always be grateful. Student loans, creation of jobs, raising the minimum wage & medicare,(the very things the republicans tried to stop by shutting down the federal govt)ecomomy was booming, 401k's making plenty of money and we had surpluses. His 1993 Ominbus bill really started to bring our debt down. In New York we have a debt clock. We watched it go backwards during the Clinton years and go in the opposite direction during the bush years, in fact it even ran out room, and extra digits had to be added, because the debt had gone so high. We had peace & prosperity, yet we had 8 years of republicans trying to take this man down. Glad they Didn't succeed.


But what touched me so much, was the additional funds Clinton sent for the renovation of Harlem. Once a beautiful place, it had been in serious decline and decay. It has improved so much since then. Even after he left office, his foundation continued to send funds there. Real estate values have gone up there. The restoration has been a wonderful success and it continues. I was very happy when President Clinton decided to locate his offices there, instead of Park or Madison.


I know no administration is perfect. But by and large his was one of the best. I still believe he deserved a Nobel for his work in Kosov & N. Ireland.

I've learned there are a lot of Clinton haters on DU, but I'm happy to say thats the only place. I don't find it out in the real world, unless it's some talking head on tv. But you can see for yourself, where ever Clinton appears in person, the crowds still go wild for him. Yesterday some of the media reported how the people in Kosov honored Clinton with a statue. They are so appreciative of what he has done for them. It was very touching. Yet on DU, it didn't even make the homepage. With the way the Media seems to take so much joy in ripping Democrats apart, I would have thought DU would have been proud, that one of our own was being honored, but I guess not. So for anyone who is interested:

Kosovo honors Bill Clinton with statue
Large crowd of ethnic Albanians turn out to welcome ex-president

PRISTINA, Kosovo - Thousands of ethnic Albanians braved low temperatures and a cold wind in Kosovo's capital Pristina to welcome former President Bill Clinton on Sunday as he attended the unveiling of an 11-foot (3.5-meter) statue of himself on a key boulevard that also bears his name.

Many waved American, Albanian and Kosovo flags and chanted "USA!" as the former president climbed on top of a podium with his poster in the background reading "Kosovo honors a hero."

Some peeked out of balconies and leaned on window sills to get a better view of Clinton from their apartment blocks.

To thunderous applause Clinton waved to the crowd as the red cover was pulled off from the statue. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33573112/ns/world_news-europe

And as for the "haters", I pay as much attention to them as I do Rush Or Coulter...none.

[newspeak]

131. I like calling those who criticize policies or actions "haters"

I see Clinton and Obama as politicians who play the game, but we, the people, rarely have a voice, but are deeply affected by such games. I'm for accountability; I'm for justice; I'm for the health and well-being of ALL citizens of my country. So, I'll quote Theodore Roosevelt, "It is the duty of all citizens to question their president, to do otherwise is treason." That's how responsible citizens hold their government accountable, be it a Democrat or Republican.

[slackmaster]

130. It started out with me badly underpaid. I landed the best job I've had to date, got laid off,

Took a mediocre but stable position that I stagnated in for five years.

During the Clinton years I experienced a marriage falling apart, lost a grandmother, and had an inheritance stolen.

[NoSheep]

144. The times were good for me (comparatively)

[Milo_Bloom]

149. Because what your're talking about had little to do with Clinton

and was actually about the inflating of the internet bubble!

The problem is that the policies Clinton followed and the actions he took actually fed the problem and led to the mess we are in today.

Financially... our best years were 2003->2007 because of the real estate bubble and as long as you saw it clearly, you could protect yourself from the collapse... however, that doesn't mean bush was good on the economy... he just inflated yet another bubble that created the illusion of prosperity.

[Politicub]

154. I wasn't as afraid of being unemployed if I were to lose my job

Now it's terrifying to think of what it would be like to have to join the ranks of the unemployed who are all competing for a tiny number of job openings.

I do take hope in the prospect of healthcare reform. Because even though I value my job and being employed, I've always felt like having insurance has made me stay places I would have otherwise left if I could have bought coverage for myself. If I started a small business, for instance, it sounds like under the legislation proposed by the House that I would be able to get insurance for myself.

I felt like I was better off during Clinton, but probably because I was in a job that provided services to the tech industry and tech companies. Much of the 90s were impacted by the Internet bubble which caused the general tech industry to rise. I know I would have felt differently if I worked for one of the factories that got shipped overseas due to NAFTA.

And while I'm at it, I think NAFTA was one of the worst pieces of legislation to get passed in a generation. Followed by the Patriot Act and then DOMA.

NAFTA gutted the blue collar middle class, and I don't think we will ever fully recover from that.

[Midwestern Democrat]

158. The problem with this argument as an absolute is that it could be made

with equal force on behalf of Calvin Coolidge - "How was your economic situation in the 1920s?" Happy memories of the 1920s didn't spare Coolidge from historians' scrutiny, and happy memories of the 1990s won't spare Clinton either. Clinton will not receive anywhere near the condemnation that Coolidge has received - and in fact, will receive a large amount of praise. Nonetheless, I think Clinton will come under some criticism as someone who too often bowed to the prevailing conventional wisdom of the moment of the power class.

[CitizenLeft]

159. it was damn good.

Lost my IT job in 2003 and still haven't recovered. Our entire help desk was outsourced to Canada. Will never see that kind of salary again.

[Armstead]

164. Was Okay.....But it's not the surface that matters

I live in an unusual area. It's a depressed factory city that was devastated since the 70's by the corporation that dominated it and then pulled out. But also a beautiful area that is influenced by metro areas, with second homes, urban refugees and entrepreneurs, which adds a veneer of prosperity.

Overall the regional economy is usually apart from national patterns. We never get too fast, but when shit hits the fan, it is not as devastated as the go-go areas. During the Clinton years, things seemed better here. But we experienced the same illusions as many otehr areas, with the promise that the "new economy" would replace all the lost jobs. Then the new economy went bust, and so did the illusions.

That is larger than any one place or person. The problemeverywhere in the 90's is that the so-called prosperity of the 90's was built on illusions. The actual prosperity was limited to a few. Some people temporarily had it better, but when the rug got pulled out there were no middle-ground options available for many. meanwhile many other people lost their middle class status and were pushed to the margins.

The forces that ghit us full force in the Bush years -- and especially last autumn -- had been building during the Clinton era. And the problem is that Clinton and his fellow travelers among the Democrats enabled those forces by policies and attitudes that were basically right-wing free-market conservatism with a kinder face. They allied with the Corporations and Oligarchs rather than protecting the existing working classes and providing real opportunities for the poor and building a solid economic foundation.

They should have known better...Or it's possible that they did know better, but chose to cast their lot with the oligarchs instead. Either way, they sowed the seeds for the disasters that befell us.

That's whar angers those of us who dislike Clintonism and are worried that Obama may follow the same path.

[blm]

169. Your post SHOULD be read and absorbed for its simple truth.

Unfortunately, even simple truth gets bulldozed by spin around here.