PDA

View Full Version : Clinton or Obama? I take Clinton Every Time...


revefsreleets
03-06-2009, 08:16 AM
(Notice this isn't Obama/McCain. This isn't partisan hackery here, I'm taking a largely unbiased long-view here)

Chapman has been SPOT ON lately. His take here is exactly right. Clinton, for all his foibles and inability to tell the truth, at least governed from the middle, was a true centrist, had some conservative balance to his liberalism. He moved to the right as he went on, learning to adopt the best of both sides of the aisle.

Obama is something else entirely. He is remaking this country into something it was never intended to be. I wholeheartedly agree that Clinton would be a MUCH more solid choice to handle this crisis than Obama. But we're stuck now...

http://www.ohio.com/editorial/commentary/40831457.html

Why I miss Bill Clinton
By Steve Chapman
Chicago Tribune

Published on Friday, Mar 06, 2009
CHIGAGO: If Barack Obama achieves nothing else in his presidency, he may do something that once seemed impossible: Give a lot of people who aren't crazy about his party a new respect for Bill Clinton.
Clinton, for all his appetites and excesses, was a cautious, centrist sort of Democrat. He had innumerable ideas for things the government could do, but most were small and fairly innocuous. He was willing to go along with Republicans on some of their sound ideas — such as balancing the budget, reforming the welfare system and expanding foreign trade.
He focused on making government better, not making it bigger. He didn't greatly enlarge Washington's role in our lives. He proclaimed — or conceded — that the ''era of big government is over.''

But Clinton never foresaw Obama. From the sound of his budget speech last week, the new president hopes the era of big government is just beginning. It's hard to overstate the expansion Obama proposes. Leave aside the supposedly temporary spending binge that constitutes his stimulus package. Under his budget blueprint, total spending would soar by roughly 75 percent above what it was last year.
Of whom else could that be said? Do you expect to be spending 75 percent more 10 years from now? Does your employer? The budget deficit, which Clinton (with the help of a Republican Congress) eliminated, would be with us forever. After the gargantuan $1.75 trillion shortfall this year, it would decline briefly before climbing to more than $700 billion a year.
Obama's fiscal blueprint builds on profligate habits established by George W. Bush. Under Clinton, federal spending fell to 18.4 percent of gross domestic product — the lowest level since 1966. By 2007, it was up to 20 percent. By 2019, according to the administration, it would rise to 22.6 percent.

This increase may not sound like much, but it is. Before the current recession began, reports budget analyst Brian Riedl of the conservative Heritage Foundation, government spending amounted to about $24,000 per household. Under Obama's plan, it would exceed $32,000 per household (in inflation-adjusted dollars). Someone will have to pay for every cent of that spending, and it won't be just the rich. During the campaign, Obama often came across as a sensible pragmatist with an appreciation for both the value of markets and the limits of government — a Bill Clinton with self-discipline. He often painted Hillary Clinton as an old-fashioned, command-and-control Democrat.

But that Obama vanished sometime after Election Day. Lately, he brings to mind Lyndon Johnson, who imagined that the country could easily afford both endless war and a costly array of new programs.
Obama thinks the scariest economic crisis since the Great Depression is cause — or at least excuse — for an aggressive expansion of government, a la the New Deal. But it's a false parallel, economically and politically.

The severity of the Great Depression bred desperation, which made the public receptive to radical changes. This contraction has been far milder and less disruptive. In Franklin Roosevelt's day, Americans were open to transforming the economy. All they really want today is to revive it.
While they are willing to accept drastic measures to reverse the recent slide, they are not likely to favor keeping them once the emergency has passed. We all hope to see firefighters in the house if the kitchen catches fire. Few of us would want them to move in after the flames are out. LBJ illustrates the dangers of taking an election victory for a far-reaching mandate. He got the Great Society passed, but two years after his landslide victory, Republicans made big gains. In 1968, Johnson didn't even run for re-election, and Richard Nixon won the presidency — which the GOP would hold for 20 of the next 24 years.

Americans, with their traditional wariness toward government, never bought into Johnson's expensive agenda. Before long, they were voting in Ronald Reagan, who saw Washington as the problem, not the solution. So even though Obama may be able to get his programs through a Democratic Congress, he and they may come to regret it. Under Clinton, they demonstrated that his party could exercise fiscal responsibility, contain the role of government, learn from liberal failures (like welfare) and generate broad prosperity. He was convincing evidence that Democrats had changed. Right now, I miss him. Before long, Democrats may as well.

Chapman is a Chicago Tribune columnist. He blogs daily at newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/steve—chapman.

Michael Keller
03-06-2009, 08:32 AM
From Washington, Jefferson , Lincoln, Wilson, Roosevelt, Kennedy, and even Clinton to <<<<<< Oboma with the disturbing "anchors" of Pilosi & Franks .

Something really has gone wrong. Anybody who can defend this leadership is in constituency part of the dramatic change. Either the American people are sadly going to get what they want or most probably DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY ARE GOING TO GET.

I

SCSTILLER
03-06-2009, 09:04 AM
Either the American people are sadly going to get what they want or most probably DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY ARE GOING TO GET.
I

Agreed, and most likely it is that they don't know what they are going to get! He has the wool pulled down over the eyes of alot of people

Pretty good article Revs. For all the crap I give Clinton about national security, he was great at governing from the middle. We need that in the presidency right now. The only way for this to get fixed is for the two sides to come together and collectively figure out a solution, not a "we won, that's why attitude"

MACH1
03-06-2009, 09:46 AM
I'd take Carter over Obama!

Michael Keller
03-06-2009, 09:47 AM
I really hate to sit by and let this Congress and administration "pull the wool over our eyes" . Perhaps we should generate a TERRIBLE GOVERNEMENT TOWEL for the NFL Preseason Opener, which I believe will be on the Thursday before the rest of the NFL begins play the following Sunday.

A National audience with Dan Rooney leading the towel waving in the center of the field before the coin toss. The Nation would never deny the correctness of the Steeler Nation.

The Steelers as a team go to the White House soon . Maybe there is a centrist Steeler that could have a word with Obama.

Seriouslly I do intend to make an effort of protest. This is absurd and frightening..

When Oboma won I chose to hope for the best but this is worst than I ever anticipated.

steelreserve
03-06-2009, 11:54 AM
Either the American people are sadly going to get what they want or most probably DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY ARE GOING TO GET.I

This is basically what happens in a democracy when you have one bloc of voters who are demanding more services from the government, and a completely different bloc of voters who are being asked to pay for it.

You just get one extreme pitted against the other, and they're both pissed off at each other. In the end, whatever gets done is extreme and stupid.

HometownGal
03-06-2009, 03:28 PM
As far as leading this country goes, I'd take Philandering Bill any day of the week and twice on Sundays. I voted for him in the 1996 election and felt he did a decent job overall, other than national security issues and his perjuring himself under oath.

I've said it before on this board and I'll say it again - when all is said and done, there are going to be a lot of people out there who voted for Obama who are going to wish they could take back that vote. Obama may well surpass GWB's low public opinion rating.

steelerbuckeye
03-06-2009, 03:30 PM
Politics suck

America rules!

http://sydlexia.com/imagesandstuff/hulkamania/hulkflag.jpg

TheWarDen86
03-06-2009, 03:34 PM
For some of us this is almost like asking, "Would you rather burn to death, or freeze to death?" :chuckle:

I'd probably go with Clinton. In 8 years, he never turned us into a Socialist government. I'm curious to see if we head that way now. I hear there is already talk of amending the Constituion to ommit the 2 term max for a Pres.....WTF? He hasn't even been in office 6 months yet!

:banging: I'm using this one because there does not appear to be a smiley who shoots himself.

Dino 6 Rings
03-06-2009, 05:00 PM
Politics suck

America rules!

http://sydlexia.com/imagesandstuff/hulkamania/hulkflag.jpg

I am a Real American!!!!


:tt02::tt02:

steelerbuckeye
03-06-2009, 05:02 PM
You don't get 6 rings without eating your vitamins and saying your prayers brother!!!!!

:tt02::tt02::tt02::tt02::tt::tt::tt::tt:

Stlrs4Life
03-06-2009, 08:23 PM
I'd take Carter over Obama!




I take anybody over Bush, even Bush Sr. Even, egad Reagan.

augustashark
03-06-2009, 11:36 PM
I take anybody over Bush, even Bush Sr. Even, egad Reagan.

Nice try, but taking Carter over the O is untouchable. Yet you try....swing and miss myfreind.:thumbsup:

tony hipchest
03-06-2009, 11:54 PM
Nice try, but taking Carter over the O is untouchable. Yet you try....swing and miss myfreind.:thumbsup:
i was gonna say that a somewhat comprehensive post might help your cause, but then i realized that it simply wouldnt.

augustashark = lost cause

BrandonCarr39
03-07-2009, 12:46 AM
Obama is no different from any other President...a 33rd Degree Freemason NWO puppet.

BTW-Clinton's and Greenspan's fiscal policies in the 90's were nothing more than a short-term illusion, only to cause alot of damage in the long-run. Although I'll admit I miss those yearly 99 cent Big Mac specials in the 90's.

augustashark
03-07-2009, 12:51 AM
i was gonna say that a somewhat comprehensive post might help your cause, but then i realized that it simply wouldnt.

augustashark = lost cause

I would try to explain, but it would'nt help.


tonystark = bloviated muscle fingers.

tony hipchest
03-07-2009, 01:14 AM
I would try to explain, but it would'nt help.
.

yeah, dont bother.

we all know the biggest delimma you face is-

Aunt Jemmima or Mrs. Buttersworth

:applaudit:

you couldnt even begin to wrap your 2 living dendrites around an obama vs. clinton debate. :chuckle:

augustashark
03-07-2009, 01:34 AM
yeah, dont bother.

we all know the biggest delimma you face is-

Aunt Jemmima or Mrs. Buttersworth

:applaudit:

you couldnt even begin to wrap your 2 living dendrites around an obama vs. clinton debate. :chuckle:

HELLO........................someone learned a new word today. Nice jr, NICE!

Just like the sandbox.

tony hipchest
03-07-2009, 01:59 AM
HELLO........................someone learned a new word today. Nice jr, NICE!

Just like the sandbox.it only took you 20 minutes to look up the definition of "dendrites"... :thumbsup:

im impressed!

youre catching on lil guy. you may stick around here after all.

augustashark
03-07-2009, 02:30 AM
it only took you 20 minutes to look up the definition of "dendrites"... :thumbsup:

im impressed!

youre catching on lil guy. you may stick around here after all.

And it only took you 25 minutes to come up with this lame ass post. Tony Obama for prez:thumbsup:

Godfather
03-07-2009, 11:04 PM
This is basically what happens in a democracy when you have one bloc of voters who are demanding more services from the government, and a completely different bloc of voters who are being asked to pay for it.

You just get one extreme pitted against the other, and they're both pissed off at each other. In the end, whatever gets done is extreme and stupid.

The divisiveness and anger comes more on social issues than economic issues. When it comes to economic issues most people realize the Republicrats are screwing everyone except the few who can afford to buy them off.

Taxes and spending were still too high even with the GOP completely in charge...and even with the D's in charge the top 1% gets richer and everyone else gets shafted :banging:

Hammer Of The GODS
03-08-2009, 04:35 PM
I'll take........... none of the useless bums.


Get rid of the he said she said, us vs. them bipartisan bullshit and then we'll talk.


As I've said before, bipartisan government doesn't work! Look at where it has gotten us.

Lobbyist just might be the worst idea in the history of government!


The free world needs a new way of governing. Sadly only a "revolution" will change things. But alas Americans have become to lazy and ignorant to fight for whats right!