He did and as an ex U.S president is doing more for the poor than George W & his father have ever done.
2006-12-26 00:44:54 · 19 answers · asked by Chris L 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Yes Monica. Slick Willy is great isn't he.
2006-12-26 00:48:41 · answer #1 · answered by Bill G 6 · 2⤊ 4⤋
Bill Clinton was intelligent, competent and had the good fortune to have been president during one of the most prosperous periods in U.S. history. Whether he can take credit for the prosperity is debatable, but generally he was a positive force in both international and domestic politics.
I also liked Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, and I like Ronald Reagan's personality.
2006-12-26 09:06:34 · answer #2 · answered by DavidNH 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
He managed your tax dollars extremely effectively. He left office, and the American people with a fiscal surplus that was supposed to make Social Security solvent for another 20 to 40 years. His successor gave his cronies all the surplus then raided the treasury for another trillion dollars. Halliburtin and the rest of the swine emptied the public treasury and left the next two generations to pay off the fiasco. We need quite a succession of Bill Clintons to fix the mess that Bush has made.
2006-12-26 08:56:02 · answer #3 · answered by Rja 5 · 4⤊ 1⤋
I was born during LBJ.
I spent 8 years criticizing Clinton.
I thought long and hard on this one about a year ago.
Best president in my lifetime...
Bill Clinton.
Economy. Peace. Development. Prosperity. Sustained Growth. Foreign Policy. National Security.
There are still many things he enacted that I did not like (Telecommunications Act of 1996) but collectively a very good resume.
2006-12-26 08:52:26 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
It is impossible to determine that. It is recent information against that of many decades ago. I think he is classified among the best ones. Good arguments in his favor are the public debt he left and the exterior relations. It is very good to work for the poor but with programs oriented more on helping them to produce something in exchange for economic assistance. This will produce better and more useful citizens.
2006-12-26 09:03:29 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
You will get no argument from me. He stabilized the economy and expended it, passed welfare reform, reduced the size of government and left the country in good shape, it didn't take long for George Bush with his warlord mentality and supply side economics's to turn it around in favor of the rich. I don't know what your life time is but I go back in memory to Eisenhower and I think Bill Clinton was better then better then all the rest since Ike.
2006-12-26 08:55:20 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
Yes!!! Its just a shame all the good he did has been ruined by an incompetent, simpering, stubborn, idiot by the name of Dumbya. The next Democratic administration will have to spend most of their time just undoing all the harm Dumbya has done.
2006-12-26 11:39:56 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Each president is formed by the times in which he serves. Clinton had very little domestic or world conflict to face in his time so his mettle was never tested to any extremes. He was able to raise taxes in a time of economic boom that started under the great years of tax reduction under Reagan. Clinton was largely a placeholder. Carter was in a similalar role following Nixon and Ford, but managed to see the world through rose colored glasses and pulled the plug on stability in the Middle East by undermining the Shah of Iran. This led directly to the current world crisis - with millions of deaths since that event. His support of Afghan fighters agains USSR was noble and yet it led to massive world damage. The US Agriculture embargo of grain to Russia led directly to the Brazilian entry to the large agriculture market which required them to destroy rain forests in massive swaths over the next 30 years. Poverty and death flow in the wake of Jimmy Carter's efforts. The BEST president? It was Nixon. It was a hard thing to do to extract USA from Vietnam, yet he did that while opening the doors for trade and diplomacy with China. Neither an easy task. He opened doors for a few decades to follow of peace and prosperity - but never got to taste his victory because of an ill placed sense of loyalty to his staff. His name is now forever invoked for political gain of the likes of Carter and Clinton whose legacy is mainly PR and not substanial results. Reagan is a close second. JFK is third on my list but he, too was unable to extend his vision. Because of Vietnam, LBJ will in my book always rate even below Jimmy Carter .. but the massive press somehow conitinues to equate Nixon with Vietnam failures. They are wrong. I am right. What can I say?
2006-12-26 09:33:47 · answer #8 · answered by Me3TV 2 · 0⤊ 3⤋
I respectfully disagree, and I believe history will bear out that he was one of the worst.
You have probably heard that Bill is desperately trying to invent his legacy to showcase at his Presidential Library, and even he is having a rough time coming up with something that will stand the test of time.
History will probably show that Bill was just along for the ride, and didn't really make any lasting contributions.
2006-12-26 08:49:48 · answer #9 · answered by Albert H 4 · 2⤊ 5⤋
depending on your age, i mean if you were born in the eighties, you don't have alot to choose from, Clinton was a good president.
2006-12-26 08:48:30 · answer #10 · answered by the rooster 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
No I would have to say Jimmy Carter was the best President . I was born in 1960,JFK would run a close 2nd,I never did like LBJ.
2006-12-26 08:47:34 · answer #11 · answered by Dfirefox 6 · 2⤊ 4⤋