2006-07-17 09:15:17 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
We weren't at war during the Clinton years, unemployment was lower, the stock market was higher, and the deficit was erased.
2006-07-17 09:18:41 · answer #1 · answered by Mr Clean 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think it depends on your point of view. If you are a member of the religious right and are obsessed with Clinton's s-x life you would never say Clinton. However, his morality is between him, his wife and his conscience. As far as the country went, all of the other countries that were our allies were our ALLIES. There was no snickering behind his back like they do with Bush. Our economy was stable and we had a much smaller national debt. And we didn't borrow money from China because he lowered taxes and wanted to give everyone back some money. Did you know that GWB did that? At this point China almost owns us. A good part of the national debt is owed to the Chinese in Hong Kong. We are in the toilet financially but I will guarantee you that all of the neocons on this site will be ranting about Clinton and how much better it is now because they have no clue about reality. They are just sheep and follow whatever they are told - Sad
2006-07-17 16:25:00 · answer #2 · answered by olderandwiser 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Financially I think for some, but worse for others. During the Clinton years is when the big governement and millionaire push to eliminate the middle class started. I know people will talk about Dot com, but the outsourcing of jobs started under Clinton. It was China then as it is India now. I think the pussification of America started under Clinton with all the PC crap. We don't want to offend anyone so we will make it immoral to use our freedom of speach.
However Bush has done nothing to stop it, or turn it around. He has actually helped it grow, with his energry policy, the one that says the rich can afford the gas who cares about the people that work.
We weren't at war under Clinton, but Al Queda attacked us several times without retribution, and they planned 9/11 during the Clinton years.
However most presidents are not considered great until long after they leave office. Reagan was different, people loved him because he was entertaining.
2006-07-17 16:23:34 · answer #3 · answered by Bill S 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Depends on how you look at it. On one hand, we've simplified a lot of things for businesses under the Bush administration and set the stage for the strongest economy the world has ever seen. On the other hand, Clinton inherited a windfall economy of several years of technological expansion and peace. Bush got the screw in 2001 and after the economy went back into recession. So ask yourself this question: Were we better off after al-Qaeda attacked us or before? Then ask yourself what are we going to do to stop terrorism from hurting our economy again?
The president isn't our king, you know? There are more factors to economic strength than just the executive branch chief.
2006-07-17 16:23:27 · answer #4 · answered by creton4 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Clinton chose to look the other way when terrorists were blowing up the wtc (the first time) and blew up the U.S.S. Cole and killed several of our Navy guys. He also was confronted with North Korea starting their nuclear program and gave them a slap on the wrist. And some of you want to blame everything on President Bush?!!! Amazing...
2006-07-17 16:22:54 · answer #5 · answered by coco 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I voted for Bush, and I was happier under Clinton.
2006-07-17 16:18:23 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Obviously. Gas was lower, no war, no defecit, lower unemployment, pretty much the good life. Sure, he had his bad points, but he wasn't as bad as Bush. Unemployment, defecit growing, high oil, we're at war, the people who attacked us are still at large with nobody even concerned where they are, and all the while, Bush can only complain about gay rights and why he should be able to wiretap our houses. The question is a no-brainer.
2006-07-17 17:26:48 · answer #7 · answered by Huey Freeman 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Definitely Clinton. He knew what he was doing, and he had diplomatic flair.
Bush is a mad cowboy. I can't believe anybody would be so STUPID as to blame the problems Bush is facing on Clinton.
That's like blaming WWII on Hoover.
2006-07-17 16:31:13 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Clinton years. Look how bad it is now, 8 years of Bush has brought us close to WWIII.
2006-07-17 16:18:49 · answer #9 · answered by hardcoco 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Country ran better when Clinton was in because he was to busy saving his own asss and the country took care of its self
2006-07-17 16:18:36 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋