Sure, the 90's were great, but can Bill Clinton really take credit for that?

Question

I mean, a chimp in a banna suit could have run the country just as well during that time. I'd like to see how Clinton would have faired as president after 9/11. Or Gore. What would have he done differently.

Answer 1

Clinton Inherited a good economy and the republican congress kept him in line. It would have been a disaster if he had gotten what he wanted.

Answer 2

Look putting all things aside about Bill Clinton he must not have been too bad. First of all the American people elected him for two terms. The economy was booming, jobs, plenty of money everything was really great. You would never have seen how Clinton would have faired after 9/11 because in the constitution it says a president can only serve for two terms, which is a total of 8 years. Clinton and his staff blew it, they had several chances to take out Osama Bin Laden and they missed out on both chances. Put aside his infidelity, Clinton really was a good president, who really cared for the common people, not like Bush who only seems to care about the rich and very influent.

Answer 3

Hypotheticals are very hard to answer, especially in a political context. I imagine that Clinton or Gore would have actually handled things very similarly as Bush did, not to say that they would have gone into Iraq and the middle east with force like that, but they would have listened to their administration as Bush did. When it comes down to presidential decisions, presidents keep a circle of individuals, be they experts or businessmen, to give them opinions and possible options. I think a better question would be "What would Gore or Clinton's cabinet and administration have done in the face of 9/11. You would get a more concise answer.

Answer 4

Well, we currently have a chimp in a banana suit and he's not doing too well. I mean, Clinton just about got rid of our deficit while in office. That ain't too shabby. And, to guess what Clinton or Gore might have done is moot since they are no longer in office. What is more important is wondering what the next President will do should something like this happen again.

Answer 5

No, the '90s were so good economically because of what Reagan did. Policies, contrary to political belief, do not take effect overnight; they take several months or even years, and the effects often can't be seen for several more years. Clinton did a lot to totally wreck what Reagan did during the '80s, but very little to actually help it along.

You'll notice, perhaps, that the early '80s were not so great in regard to the economy? Everyone blamed Reagan for it then. But again, policies don't take effect immediately. By the end of the decade, the economy was roaring; all it took was a little patience and a lot of hard work to fix what past administrations had screwed up so thoroughly. Similarly, everyone's blaming President Bush for the state of the economy just after he took office; that was Clinton's policies finally showing their effects, but I haven't seen much of a push to get rid of those policies.

Answer 6

I'll answer with one question! Can you remember the last president that brought the deficit down to zero? It was no monkey! I don't believe we would be at war today with Iraq! I believe little Bush is just doing what his dad would not do years ago! We got the best president money could buy!

Answer 7

No one cared if the US was at war or invading another country because people had jobs and money! Life was good! If the Clinton's come back into power, all jobs outsourced and lost will come back and the deficit will vanish! I'm waiting for that golden period to come back! I and so does America need the Clinton's back!

Answer 8

Why do we keep running into deficits and big wars under Republicans (e.g the war on terror or the cold war)?