Bill Clinton

[Zeus]

Prove to me you ain't Clinton 2: The Return.

Clinton delivered a surplus of 560 billion dollars. The USA could do with Clinton 2: The Return.

I think this is a result of me not being very clear over the last 11 years. So let me bold this and put it in such a way that there's no ambiguities over what I'm saying:

NO POLITICIAN DESERVES ANY CREDIT FOR ANY ECONOMIC RESULTS DURING HIS PRESIDENCY. THE POLITICIANS DON'T DECIDE WHAT GOES ON IN THE ECONOMY, THE ECONOMISTS DO.

Clinton just rode the wave of the upswing in the economic cycle. He quite literally did NOTHING in office. It was so blatant that in a card game called Illuminati, which is a parody on economics and politics around the world, the Clinton card had the ability to switch sides at will. All the guy did for 8 years was ride the fence with incredible skill. He took whatever side caused the least waves be it the conservative or liberal side. He was a plug, plain and simple.

[Zeus]

Agreed. I don't get the hatred for Clinton.

He was a waste of skin and bones that did nothing for anyone (except his friends and businessman backers) and was popular because of what other people did. All he did was sit up there look pretty and take credit for doing fucking nothing. He is the epitome of what you DON'T want in a politician

[SineSwiper]

I think this is a result of me not being very clear over the last 11 years. So let me bold this and put it in such a way that there's no ambiguities over what I'm saying:

NO POLITICIAN DESERVES ANY CREDIT FOR ANY ECONOMIC RESULTS DURING HIS PRESIDENCY. THE POLITICIANS DON'T DECIDE WHAT GOES ON IN THE ECONOMY, THE ECONOMISTS DO.

Yes, and unfortunately, I haven't been very clear about a point on this for the 11 years, as well. Let me make sure that people get the message:

THE ECONOMY AND THE GOVERNMENT BUDGET ARE TWO DIFFERENT FUCKING THINGS! IF YOU FIX THE ECONOMY, IT DOES NOTHING TO THE GOVERNMENT BUDGET, AND IF YOU FIX THE BUDGET, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ECONOMY!

Also, I have to disagree on your point of politicians and economists. Right now, we are dealing with a shitty economy that is that way because of deregulation. Guess what? Congress voted for this deregulation. Politicians decided what goes on in the economy. And you know what? Politicians are deciding that in order to fix the economy, they need to bailout the banks.

Of course, this is also an exception to the rule I just stated above, but for the most part, it's correct.

[bovine]

NO POLITICIAN DESERVES ANY CREDIT FOR ANY ECONOMIC RESULTS DURING HIS PRESIDENCY. THE POLITICIANS DON'T DECIDE WHAT GOES ON IN THE ECONOMY, THE ECONOMISTS DO.

Well that's not entirely true. Especially not true enough to enlarge and bold up that text. Take Hong Kong for example. Their stock market was plummeting and their economy was on the brink of going straight to shit, but they were saved by a healthy investment into their markets by the government. This was decided by the government, and was only the product of some very unique conditions. Firstly the government was in charge of selling land, and they were not allowed to spend the money that they got from these land sales due to some conditions left from the handing over of Hong Kong to China. This stock market fiasco happened around the same time as the government was finally allowed to get their hands on the (amazingly substantial) funds, so they were able to channel this money into the stock market and eventually actually make a profit off of it when they later sold it all (in three planned and very publicly notified times). The economy was saved due to the government. I give them credit..... whomever they were.

*EDIT*

You can also see that the government sets many of the conditions that the economy must work in. International tariffs and national taxes, trade and business regulations are all set by the government. Minimum wages, overtime laws, and the other regulations that the government is in charge of sets the tone for the economic situation in a country. Although many of these are passed into laws very gradually, they are still regulations that effect the economy. You can't really say any of these were the direct doings of a specific politician, but they are all actions that the government takes that effect the economy.

[Zeus]

I think this is a result of me not being very clear over the last 11 years. So let me bold this and put it in such a way that there's no ambiguities over what I'm saying:

NO POLITICIAN DESERVES ANY CREDIT FOR ANY ECONOMIC RESULTS DURING HIS PRESIDENCY. THE POLITICIANS DON'T DECIDE WHAT GOES ON IN THE ECONOMY, THE ECONOMISTS DO.

Yes, and unfortunately, I haven't been very clear about a point on this for the 11 years, as well. Let me make sure that people get the message:

THE ECONOMY AND THE GOVERNMENT BUDGET ARE TWO DIFFERENT FUCKING THINGS! IF YOU FIX THE ECONOMY, IT DOES NOTHING TO THE GOVERNMENT BUDGET, AND IF YOU FIX THE BUDGET, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ECONOMY!

Also, I have to disagree on your point of politicians and economists. Right now, we are dealing with a shitty economy that is that way because of deregulation. Guess what? Congress voted for this deregulation. Politicians decided what goes on in the economy. And you know what? Politicians are deciding that in order to fix the economy, they need to bailout the banks.

Of course, this is also an exception to the rule I just stated above, but for the most part, it's correct.

I do agree on the first point as well. Clinton's popularity was due to the fact the economy was kicking ass and taking names for everyone. The economy and the gov't budget are different things I shouldn't have implied they were.

Politicians ain't deciding to bail out the banks. They didn't sit back and say "shit, we need to give those banks some money, that's how we can fix it". They HAVE to bail out the banks. The last time they didn't it took 10 years for the economy to recover. It happens all the time just not at this scale.

[SineSwiper]

He was a waste of skin and bones that did nothing for anyone (except his friends and businessman backers) and was popular because of what other people did. All he did was sit up there look pretty and take credit for doing fucking nothing. He is the epitome of what you DON'T want in a politician

See, I think that way of Hillary Clinton, but not Bill. Hillary can't take a shit without getting a poll on it to make sure that it's the majority opinion.

I can't say that Clinton was solely responsible for a lot of things or anything (but what president is?). However, he did bring about:

FMLA
Don't Ask, Don't Tell
NAFTA (where's that sucking sound of jobs, Perot?)
EITC
Tax cuts to the 90%, raised taxes to the rich
Line Item Veto (which was unfortunately knocked down by SCOTUS)
Ginsberg and Breyer (without them, we would surely not have abortion legal)

Sure, he's done some things I've not proud of: DMCA (unable to veto and bound by WIPO treaties), Brady Bill, Telecomm Act, Defense of Marriage Act (unable to veto). But, a lot of that isn't really his fault, and many of some of the not-so-good bills were from the Republican-controlled Congress.