"It takes a Clinton to clean up after a Bush"

[Bread and Circus]

I admit it was a great laugh line.

However, there are numerous instances where the mess started in the Reagan-Bush years we NOT cleaned up or fixed.

Take NAFTA for instance. This was started by and for corporate interests during the Bush I years and was enacted and signed into law by Clinton. Ross Perot, the coot that he was, accurately predicted the "giant sucking sound" we all know too well. It is my understanding that the Clintons and even Gore gave strong support to NAFTA in getting it passed.

There are many other examples of Clinton completing what Bush I started.

So is that what Sen. Clinton means by cleaning up?

[flpoljunkie]

1. It's an old line, of course, but the pundits played along.

[Buzz Clik]

2. I thought it was a funny line, but it made me cringe.

Early on, Hillary was making great efforts to prove herself independent of Bill and a political force in her own right. In the debate before South Carolina, she chastised Obama for quoting Bill: "He's not here tonight. I am."

And now this -- she presents herself as fused with Bill. It's an interesting change and one that will not fly well with the Republicans she's been wooing for the past 18 months.

[dmallind]

3. Well probably

Dropping unemployment in almost half

Creating 23 million new jobs

Increasing median wage in REAL terms by 20%

Reducing the number of people in poverty by over 7 million

Changing a deficit into a balanced budget, even a surplus to pay off some of the debt crippling our economic options now and in the future.

Things like that I would guess - things with rock solid inarguable data rather than soundbite objections and doom and gloom predictions that never quite worked out to come true.

I mean gosh all those horrible Bush-things Clinton I did really screwed things up didn't they? I mean if he was just a continuation of Bush I I wonder how come the results never worked for Poppy and stopped working after his idiot kid usurped the office?

Gimme that kind of clean up. I don;t think Hillary is Bill and I think the mess the second Bush will leave will be in some ways worse than the first one. But given a Dem Congress, some good advisors and a little luck yes it's possible she'll be able to do something. Hell I'd settle for a clean up half as good as the last one you're so worried about.

[Nederland]

7. Link

Increasing median wage in REAL terms by 20%

Got a link to prove that statistic? (The other ones I believe, that one, not so much...)

[dmallind]

12. Yes but before I post it

From an official, non-partisan source no less, will you then believe it or start trying to explain how it doesn't matter because somehow this came from McJobs and we still lost all the "real" jobs due to NAFTA (even though of course if the median wage went up, we must by definition have gained more higher paying jobs than we lost)?

I've been down this road before you see.

[Bread and Circus]

32. "Median" - do you even know what the term means?

And do you know how meaningless it is the context of describing household income for the vast majority of Americans in the way that you are using it?

[dmallind]

34. Ermm...do you?

Median is a meausre of the income at the 50th percentile. So in other words exactly half of us make more and half make less. It is the BEST measure of the overall impact on income because it cannot be massively skewed by the Gates' and the Soros' liuke the MEAN income would be.

The "vast majority" must, by definition, include the median in discussions of income, since in any contiguous band of incomes, the median would be included in any majority, let alone vast majority, given that it resides in the exact center of the scale.

What would you prefer to use, pray tell?

[Bread and Circus]

37. In order to really understand you have to look at each population

segment individually.

And when you do that you find that the incomes of the bottom 80% of population (aka, we the people) did no better during Clinton's term and the bubble of the 90's. It was the gains of the top 20% that made everything look better.

Statistics can be made to support lies very easily but I will grant that there were many good economic indicators of the 90's. However, at the end of his term the economy was headed back toward recession.

And again, let me reiterate you can only give Clinton credit for his policies and practices. The notion that "all things good in the 90's are attributable to Clinton" is just farcical bullshit that Clinton would have us all believe in order to forget things like NAFTA and other conservative measures he promoted at the expense of working class people.

[Bread and Circus]

39. On more thing...

From this graph you can see that median income went up in the 80's too, under Reagan. So do we now take your leap of faith and say that his economic policies are good ones too?

[dmallind]

47. Actually yes

I'm far from the cult of personality demonizer of all things done by those I dislike that you apparently are. Reined in by a Dem Congress that cut EVERY single Reagan budget, the 80s did indeed see real incomes rise. Remember Reagan saw the error of his early ways and raised taxes - he was, fiscally speaking, not as hardcore a partisan as Bush 2.

[dmallind]

43. CITE!

Showe me how 80% of the people lost out! It's absolutely impossible to defend that claim when the median went up. How can the 50the percentile gain if 80% lost out? That's absolute bullshit. Prove it or retract, or be branded a moron. Official, real data please.


This is justr as idiotic as that blind fool who kept trying to tell me Clinton created "more poor people" despite absolute cast iron data of reducing poverty levels in both numbers and percentages. How can some people let their blind partisan bias overcome facts?

Here's mine....

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/p01ar.html

[Bread and Circus]

9. Many of those things Bill Clinton did not actually do.

First off, real wages for the bottom 80% didn't actually go up. It's stagnated. Secondly, the wealth disparity between the top and the rest widened. Just as it did under Reagan and Bush I.

Also, Clinton cannot claim credit for making all the jobs and the boom of the 90's. A lot of that came from the dawn of the information age, which Clinton cannot take credit for directly. Another portion came as the "peace dividend" with the fall of the Soviet Union. One of the effects was to set the stage for a brief period of relative peace. All the while though, during Clinton's Presidency, Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations formed and grew unchecked. One could argue that 9/11, though happened on GWBush's watch, was seeded and planned on Clinton's.

I will give you this: Clinton was a good steward of the economy in many senses, but not the cause of it.

Bill Clinton's legacy also includes deregulation of the telecom industry and the banking industry. This has helped us get into the mess we are in today. Those are another couple messes Clinton didn't clean up. He got them enacted into law.

[dmallind]

19. So in other words

If good things happen under a Clinton it's not their doing, but if bad things happen it is?

It was absolutely amazing then how that luck just perfectly coincided with his tenure in both beginning and end wasn't it? How that job growth started when he took office and ended after he left? Same for real income growth (and it's absolute bullshit that 80% lost income as a median is by definition a measure of the income of the 50th percentile. That income, in real terms, skyrocketed under Clinton and again stopped improving the year after he left - another stunning coincidence apparently).

I'm fully aware a president does not have 100% influence on all economic forces, but they can screw it up, and they can take advantage of opprotunities. Clinton avoided the former and did the latter very admirably, and that's all we can ask. I detest revisionism to make a political point. The economy was handled brilliantly and successfully in his tenure and screwed up beyond belief in the ones that sandwiched it. If Hillary can do half as well we sjhould all be cheering from the rooftops, but it will never be enough for the naysayers who ignore hard data and instead rely on rhetoric about what they think SHOULD have happened due to various bills etc.

[Bread and Circus]

25. Clinton is responsible for the things he actually did...

the laws he signed, the programs he pushed.

He didn't "create" jobs as he was not the inventor of the silicon chip nor the internet (actually the internet is a military invention). Nor was he a small business owner or the head of a large corporation.

His economic policies, which were essentially Republican policies, had an effect to be sure. So if you want to talk about his success then talk about what policies he made and their direct effects.

But you can't just blanket give credit to Clinton for the bubble of the 90's. It's like giving him credit for the sun rising every morning he was President.

I'd wager you probably don't really know what his policies were as all you are armed with are the rosy talking points but none of the substance.

Mind you, Clinton had a Republican Congress for most of his tenure. Do you want to give them credit to because it seems you go by the flawed logic that association means causation?

[dmallind]

38. OK

let's go that way....

Budget Reconciliation act raising taxes on high earners and corporations while reducing them on middle incomes

Welfare Reform that despite all the hand-wringing about how "cruel" it was helped to move people into the workforce to take some of those 23 million new jobs.

Budget proposals and vetos that reined in spending proposals to allow a budget surplus.

Minimum Wage increase

Taxpayer Relief act increased incentives for investment and gave low income child credits and tax incentives for saving and education

Appointing professionals not hapless hangers on to important positions with economic impact

Line item veto

Cut defense spending from 4.8 to 3.0% of GDP (lowest since Pre WW2)

Above all - not using the bully pulpit to screw up the economy

It's amazing the lengths some people will go to to try to deny HARD DATA just because it makes someone with the name "Clinton" look good.

Now what did he do that had bad RESULTS for the aggregate economy? Real data not just things that sound bad to you. Give me NUMBERS that show he hurt the economy. Same rules - things he actually did not things that happened by coincidence.

[rodeodance]

44. Eash Presidency takes credit when they can-fdr, jfk, bush, clinton ect ect

[INdemo]

21. Well this could certainly be argued...

"\Also, Clinton cannot claim credit for making all the jobs and the boom of the 90's. A lot of that came from the dawn of the information age, which Clinton cannot take credit for directly."
I believe you are wrong.....Clintons was able to get legislation passed that actually helped create millions of jobs and he put pressure on the Fed's to lower interest rates....allowing the boom in tech jobs.
I'll take 8 more years of Clinton even if it is as C0-President.

[Bread and Circus]

31. Lowering interest rates entices people to borrow more...

unfortunately that sets the stage for people getting in over their heads and going bankrupt.

Many economist have argued that what Clinton did in the 90's with respect to banking and deregulation helped people further into debt and even has direct effect on the mortgage crisis we have now.

And again, if anyone should get credit for the Tech boom, it should be Gore, not Clinton. He was the one who actually helped usher in the legislation that took the internet from being a military technology into a commercial and cultural one.

Clinton was playing a shell game. By the end of his 8 years, we were heading back toward a recession.

Then GWBush came in with another shell game, pulling out some of the same gimmicks, and made the economy look good, for a while.

Either way, under both Bushes and Clinton wages and buying power for 80% of Americans stagnated and the disparity between the rich and the rest got bigger.

You see, you really have to look at these things.

[dmallind]

41. It also allows SENSIBLE people

access to capital so they can invest in business opportunities, improve their lot in a sustainable way given their budget.

Pleas defend with cites this laughable claim that 80% lost spending power under Clinton. Since REAL median incomes went up 25% ( I was pessimistic in my memory) in his tenure and by definition this means 50% had to earn more at the very least (and that's with the stupid and completely unrealistic implication that nobody below the median income saw any gains - rather tricky to imagine with the massive drop in poverty) how can 80% have lost? Here's my cite - where's the backup for your claim?

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/p01ar.html

[INdemo]

45. It appears you voted for Perot(or Bush) and just didnt like Clinton very much

You wouldn't give Clinton credit for anything that caused voters to re-elect him would you?

[John Q. Citizen]

11. He never cleaned up the criminal aspects, he just swept them under the rug.

They came back and bit us pretty hard.

[dmallind]

22. And I'd let even this Bush walk free in exchange for the same

Gimme 7 million fewer people in desperation and higher incomes throughout the socioeconomic strata, and half as many people looking for work, and I don't give a damn if Bush lives his life in luxury on a private tropical island surrounded by the Playboy centerfolds for the last five years ministering to his every need.

[John Q. Citizen]

24. I'm not talking revenge. I'm talking rule of law. Both families seem to have little regard

for it.

As long as we let the criminals off, then they will continue being criminals.

If justice is less important to you than a few bones, then be prepared for criminality to continue unabatted.

[dmallind]

30. Justice is debateable, realpolitik is not

Remember the people who think Bush is a criminal may very well be right, but are a small minority. A plurality consider him dumb and wrong but no more. A minority think he is right and just. This is NOT rule of law black and white. There is no crime for which he could be charged that would nbot be seen as nothing more than a partisan witch hunt by the majority. Remember all his political misdemeanors can and would be covered by the OK of the Justice Department. On what grounds could they be prosecuted when the, yes cronyist and twisted but still official, arbiters of legality in this context concurred with his actions? It's a non starter.

And heck yes unless we have absolute cast iron proof of a definitive punishable felony that is not political disagreement or personal distaste or questionable division of powers OK'd by the JD then yes I'll take a "few bones".

I ask you the question in reverse - is "justice" for Bush worth condemning 7 million people to poverty and reducing the incomes of the middle class for the next eight years?

[John Q. Citizen]

50. Hillary claims bush lied to congress about the IWR. That's a felony, unless your

fellow elites are committing it.

We have a ruling class intent on empire. The consumers (formerly known as citizens) always get screwed in empire.

Without your 7 million in poverty, they couldn't keep us bouncing back and forth between tweedle dum and tweedle dee. Two trillion wasted on empire would make those 7 million quite better off. $285,714.28 per person. Problem solved!

Lewis Carol nailed it a long time ago. It's as true today as it was when he wrote it. My guess is you identify with "The Carpenter"

The Walrus and The Carpenter
Lewis Carroll
(from Through the Looking-Glass and What Alice Found There, 1872)

The sun was shining on the sea,
Shining with all his might:
He did his very best to make
The billows smooth and bright--
And this was odd, because it was
The middle of the night.


The moon was shining sulkily,
Because she thought the sun
Had got no business to be there
After the day was done--
"It's very rude of him," she said,
"To come and spoil the fun!"


The sea was wet as wet could be,
The sands were dry as dry.
You could not see a cloud, because
No cloud was in the sky:
No birds were flying overhead--
There were no birds to fly.


The Walrus and the Carpenter
Were walking close at hand;
They wept like anything to see
Such quantities of sand:
"If this were only cleared away,"
They said, "it would be grand!"


"If seven maids with seven mops
Swept it for half a year.
Do you suppose," the Walrus said,
"That they could get it clear?"
"I doubt it," said the Carpenter,
And shed a bitter tear.


"O Oysters, come and walk with us!"
The Walrus did beseech.
"A pleasant walk, a pleasant talk,
Along the briny beach:
We cannot do with more than four,
To give a hand to each."


The eldest Oyster looked at him,
But never a word he said:
The eldest Oyster winked his eye,
And shook his heavy head--
Meaning to say he did not choose
To leave the oyster-bed.


But four young Oysters hurried up,
All eager for the treat:
Their coats were brushed, their faces washed,
Their shoes were clean and neat--
And this was odd, because, you know,
They hadn't any feet.


Four other Oysters followed them,
And yet another four;
And thick and fast they came at last,
And more, and more, and more--
All hopping through the frothy waves,
And scrambling to the shore.


The Walrus and the Carpenter
Walked on a mile or so,
And then they rested on a rock
Conveniently low:
And all the little Oysters stood
And waited in a row.


"The time has come," the Walrus said,
"To talk of many things:
Of shoes--and ships--and sealing-wax--
Of cabbages--and kings--
And why the sea is boiling hot--
And whether pigs have wings."


"But wait a bit," the Oysters cried,
"Before we have our chat;
For some of us are out of breath,
And all of us are fat!"
"No hurry!" said the Carpenter.
They thanked him much for that.


"A loaf of bread," the Walrus said,
"Is what we chiefly need:
Pepper and vinegar besides
Are very good indeed--
Now if you're ready, Oysters dear,
We can begin to feed."


"But not on us!" the Oysters cried,
Turning a little blue.
"After such kindness, that would be
A dismal thing to do!"
"The night is fine," the Walrus said.
"Do you admire the view?


"It was so kind of you to come!
And you are very nice!"
The Carpenter said nothing but
"Cut us another slice:
I wish you were not quite so deaf--
I've had to ask you twice!"


"It seems a shame," the Walrus said,
"To play them such a trick,
After we've brought them out so far,
And made them trot so quick!"
The Carpenter said nothing but
"The butter's spread too thick!"


"I weep for you," the Walrus said:
"I deeply sympathize."
With sobs and tears he sorted out
Those of the largest size,
Holding his pocket-handkerchief
Before his streaming eyes.


"O Oysters," said the Carpenter,
"You've had a pleasant run!
Shall we be trotting home again?'
But answer came there none--
And this was scarcely odd, because
They'd eaten every one.

[bernicewilliams]

4. Another thread title that is an outright LIE

Clinton's exact quote was:

"It did take a Clinton to clean (up) after the first Bush, and I think it might take a second one to clean up after the second Bush,"

But the OP just had to choose a better soundbite. To say that Clinton thinks that it may be necessary to clean up after Bush's act is not just a good title thread, because it leaves the possibility that Clinton does not categorigally say that nobody else can clean up his act.

The point is to make people believe that Clinton is telling you that she and only she can do a good job.
Instead, Clinton says what every candidate says: that she is the best candidate you could pick.

Shame on the distorted title.

http://news.aol.com/story/_a/clinton-says-shell-clean-up-after-bush/n20080131223409990003?ecid=RSS0001

[City Lights]

10. Aren't we touchy this morning.

:rofl:

Most thinking people know exactly what the OP and HRC meant.

[Bread and Circus]

13. Ok, thank you. But even with your quote the inference is the same...

and that is that Bill Clinton cleaned up after Bush I when a lot of the times he just extended his policies, enacted some into law, and furthered the cause of an economy largely slanted toward the corporations and away from the people.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

15. and it reminds us that another Bush followed Clinton

so it provides the unpleasant warning that if you elect a Clinton, you will get a Bush next.

[City Lights]

18. LOL!

Waiting in the wings...Count Jebula and George P. :scared:

[Bread and Circus]

20. Not to mention, is Sen. Clinton implying we are going to get another Republican Congress?

If we follow her logic that we are somehow going to re-enact the feats of the 90's.

A lot of us don't want that.

[DrDan]

5. I think it is a great line - and one that will drive the reich-wingers nuts

[Bluerthanblue]

6. I didn't like the line- all it appeals to is the worst in us- she had many very good

moments last night.

to me, that was not one of them.

One thing that has always put me off of * (there are many to choose from) was the way he used cute little word games to do little other than fuel resentment or incite agression.

"your either with us, or with the terrarists"

"wanted dead or alive"

"bring em on"

etc.

I also don't care much for pre-packaged media bits. Like "green-collar jobs", or "American Town Meeting" -
I'd rather hear the details of what is planned, than be sucked in by pretty word packets.

Especially those which appeal to the cruder aspects of me. Like revenge, anger, vindictiveness, pride.

I don't know what was really meant by the comment- I think is was a zinger diss. It appeals to the anger and rankor- but doesn't really help us much.

That's just my own view. Hillary had much better to offer than this line.


peace~

[sunonmars]

8. That line is everywhere today, its all i've heard from people

Its doing enormous vote value for her.

[Bread and Circus]

17. Well, then it's up to the Obama campaign to dissect it and let people know what really

happened.

If Sen. Clinton wants to run on her husband's record. Then fine. Let's talk about it. The bubble of the 90's was great while it lasted and Clinton can claim some credit for his stewardship but in a lot of ways, he fucked up big time and skewed the balance of the economy away from the average person and toward corporate interests.

NAFTA
China trade fast track
Deregulation of the telecom and banking industry
Real wage stagnation for 80% of Americans
Increased wealth disparity between the rich and the rest

The bubble of the 90's came and went but the bad stuff I just listed above is still with us.

[rodeodance]

48. you don't get it --the one-liner is the WORD!!--nothing else matters.

[KittyWampus]

14. Successful line for Clinton. However, Bill Clinton enabled the corruption to remain and strenghten

in some ways, he encouraged it:

sweeping Iran/Contra under rug
keeping Greenspan
giving even MORE money to military

[Imagevision]

16. "It takes a Clinton to clean up after a Bush"- great line & the Dem's fall for it without

considering the fact that the purpose of any Bush is to promote big biz only to allow the next Dem prez to work at; "undoing all the damage the previous administration has done" W was hired to do a job and for the neocons/big biz he has performed magnificently. And now all Americans can revel in the changes (repair) the next Democratic president will make, & years ago the country was doing too well too fast economically and big biz stepped in to slow this down and after Bush, well... progress lately seem to be wishful thinking as Mobil today announces record oil profits of 40+ billion.

Repug-Dem, does it really make any difference? repukes fuck things up so the Dem's can come in and clean up afterwards. (good cop/bad cop?

[stillcool]

23. Covering up.

like Iran/Contra. Imagine what might have been if that party got busted up.

[Bread and Circus]

33. I forgot about that one.

[Imagevision]

26. And of course it'll take Jeb Bush to continue the BS beat after Hillary?

[Spider Jerusalem]

27. So, am I NOT the only person who wanted to puke on hearing that, then?

[Occam Bandage]

28. It's a *really* old line; she's used it many times before. It's a good line, though. If

you're interested in previous uses:

http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2007/12/hrc_tells_npr_t.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/11/19/snap-hillary-says-it-ta_n_73340.html
http://voteforhillaryonline.blogspot.com/2007/11/hillary-it-takes-clinton-to-clean-up.html

[DrFunkenstein]

29. It Takes a Dynasty to Clean Up a Dynasty...But What About Democracy?

I feel like we are the ones getting cleaned out.

[rodeodance]

46. overblown rhetoric put out by RW who are upset that Jeb can't run.

[Catherine Vincent]

35. Seems like Obama supporters are the only ones that doesn't like

Clinton's play of the day. :)

[mitchum]

36. It takes a Clinton to COVER UP after a Bush

[Armstead]

40. It was more than "gave strong support" to NAFTA

Bill Clinton did everything he could to ram through NAFTA, over the objections of many in his own party and labor and progressive groups.

[rodeodance]

42. Great one-liner.

[Unsane]

49. JEB in 2012: "it takes a Bush to clean up after a Clinton!"

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

:crazy: