English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Was it the balanced budget and $127 billion surplus?

Or the already used and developed Intelligence agencies of the U.S.?

Was it the relatively low cost of living for people of the middle-class?

Was it the fairly small amount of unemployment?

Was it the bursting-through-the-roof economy?

Which one is it? What was the mess?

2006-10-11 15:55:07 · 25 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Other - Politics & Government

25 answers



Clinton did preside over a booming economy. Some Republicans think he was just riding on the coattails of what Reagan and Bush put togehter, but that's BS. No one has coattails that are 8 years long. But things WERE starting to coast into recession when Bill left office. George didn't allow things to coast into recession: he got out and pushed!



Intelligence agencies underwent a long, slow change after the Cold War. The enemies moved from Russia and East Germany to Afghanistan and Iraq, and we couldn't just pick up and move our spies. It takes time to develop a spy network. Clinton got it started, but he didn't finish it. Bush has apparently done nothing to improve the situation: under his watch, all they've done is reorganize a half-dozen times.



I'm with you on this one.



That was on its way up. But as one other respondent said, it's hard to draw direct links between government action and economic downturns or recoveries.



See previous answers.



The main one was the 'stain' that Clinton had put on the Office of the President by allowing himself to be hounded by rabid Republicans and their Attack Dog Ken Star. In my opinion, the real stain of the Clinton impeachment was the amount of time and money that was spent trying to dig up ANY dirt on Clinton. Ken Star spent 50 million dollars and two years trying to find ANYTHING on Clinton. By comparison, the 9/11 Commission spent two million and four months. Shows where our priorities are, doesn't it?

2006-10-11 16:25:03 · answer #1 · answered by Chredon 5 · 1 0

You are right. There was a huge surplus and it was wiped out in by Bush's second term. Unemployment hit is ALL time lowest point in history -2% with Clinton and it is at nearly 4.6% now (it is not at a low as another post said). It is at it's lowest for the Bush admistration. Bill was not riding the Reagan wave.....who by the way cut funding in schools and more small businesses folded up and closed during the Reagan years. Come on people - some of you aren't even old enough to remember how bad the economy was then (during Reagan - unless you were one of the rich).

2006-10-11 16:21:28 · answer #2 · answered by MrsMike 4 · 1 0

1. There was a surplus, but the Congress (Republican at the time) makes the budget. If you recall the government shut down for days for this agreement. Think Newt Gingrich and Bob Dole.

2. The cost of living was the same with the exception of gas prices a month ago.

3. Unemployment is less now.

4. Clinton economy was based on the dot.com inflation of the ecomony that evenutally crashed. Additionally, he had falsified financial statement from Enron and Worldcom (if you recall). We were already heading into recession before Clinton left the office. Common knowledge. See New York Times.

5. The mess was the fact that he made a broken deal with North Korea, failed to confront terrorism (The Cole, The WTC)

2006-10-11 15:59:24 · answer #3 · answered by MEL T 7 · 4 2

Actually Justin_Anderson11, Bush Sr. had a chance to take out Mr. Hussein during the gulf war. A sniper had his targets on him and you know what? Bush Sr. said "NO" Who missed that chance?

Clinton had tried to get Osama, but that is one crafty little turd. Clinton destroyed several Al-qaida camps trying to get him.

Yes, the economy was good. It was also fixing to hit a slump, but Bush Jr. did nothing to curb it while it was still in its infancy and then really had a mess after 9/11. And bush still hasn't helped much, cutting "taxes" has only made inflation higher which is costing us more than we're actually "saving."

Did Clinton make a personal mistake? You bet, but it did not affect his presidency one bit. He did what he had to do and he did what A famous person once said "Limited government is the best government" He didn't feel like he had to have his fingers in the proverbial pie so to speak.

2006-10-11 16:13:16 · answer #4 · answered by angry_elfboy 3 · 1 0

He hasn't finished a great job of it, yet Clinton decimated our intelligence gathering skills and did no longer do a single element to even ward off the efforts of al Qaeda, even whilst they bombed the international commerce center in 1993. the various solutions in basic terms prepare how stupid and blind a number of his supporters are. in basic terms verify out the various responses approximately troops no longer death in a remote places land (ever pay attention of Haiti, Somalia, and so on. - on the grounds that a e book would be too complicated for you, attempt renting the movie Black Hawk Down), financial prosperity (in case you had the slightest wisdom of economics, you will understand that it became some great reward of the Reagan administration that he became in place of work for), or this being a conflict for oil (This one is very almost too stupid to remark on - extra high priced oil ideas are attainable now that the cost is so intense, so the cost of conflict would be severely extra beneficial than arising those ideas, which includes coal or oil shale, making this argument thoroughly ridiculous). No ask your self Slick Willie became in a position to tug the wool sufficient of the country's eyes with retards like maximum of you obtainable.

2016-12-26 16:51:17 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Messes from sex party's, and marijuana ashes left behind by Willie Nelson, not to mention lost integrity of the office of Presidency brought about by his inability to be honest and forthright.

You get your information from your party, and I get mine from my party, the truth may reside some place in the middle.

I was told that the Anthrax release after 911 had been created by our own country originally, and given to Saddam Insane by Bill Clinton prior to the incident as a gesture of friendship, weather it is true, or not, whom is to know what to believe, no one ever speaks of the truth, only misconceptions brought about by lies.

Truth is we survived the Clinton years, and for that I am grateful.

2006-10-11 16:29:45 · answer #6 · answered by Thoughtfull 4 · 0 0

The lie that the outgoing staff messed with the fridges and the keyboards (which they didn;t do)

Perhaps he wanted to put morality back into the White House, and send immoralty to Congress, where it belongs

2006-10-11 16:11:01 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

1. he handed us a country in a recession.
2. he disseminated our military
3. he did nothing to stop terrorism
4. Jobs became their sharp decline in his administration
5. He did nothing for education
6. He sold our secret technology to a communist country
7. he was up on charges of rape
8. He lied to grand jury
9. He lied to the American public
10. he was impeached
we won't even go into the Gore and Hillary crap we had to endure with this administration.

2006-10-11 16:03:14 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

Bill did have the best economy there's no argument there.
Bush has the worst of everything.Thanks to this over priced war(Bush's mess) and his lack of political knowledge.

2006-10-11 16:04:38 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

Yea, it was dat mess with the politicians and of age woman. Bush got DC back where it belongs, old dudes and under age male pages.hehehehehe

2006-10-11 16:01:06 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

fedest.com, questions and answers