Poll Shows Public Places Clinton Among Best U.S. Presidents

He was very good at compromising to still keep things moving along (and usually in the right direction).

I fault him for moving the party too far to the right, but I was making big money during his presidency, he's my man.

A poll doesn't prove anything.
You confuse fact with opinion.

It is too soon to rank Clinton, Bush and Obama.

I agree. I also think many of the people polled probably could not even name half of our presidents.

I depends what your definition of 'is' is. WJC

I think it's interesting that the Dems revere the President who followed kicking and screaming the Republican principles Newt laid out for them! How quickly they forget...

The documentary that aired on PBS tonight suggests otherwise. It was Clinton's budget that spurred the economy in 1993.

I think Clinton had a pretty good understanding of economics, but you are not correct in saying that his budget spurred the economy in 1993. What did spur it was favorable demographics. The most important segment of the population is the 30 - 49 age group. They do a huge amount of consumer spending and buy more new homes and new cars than any other group. They are able to do so because they usually have more job security than very young people and very old people. Ask a building contractor how many homes he has built for adults in their late teens and early twenties? Ask him how many new homes he has built for people well into their retirement years? New home construction is crucial to the economy and, unfortunately, it is highly dependant upon favorable demographics.

How does all that relate to Clinton? Clinton had the luck to lead the country at a time when a very high percent of the population was in the 30 - 49 age group? Coolidge and Kennedy had the same type of luck. For most of his years in office Reagan also had favorable demographics. George W. Bush had favorable demographics until 2007, when the baby boom generation started retiring in large numbers. It is no coincidence that the recession officially started in December of that year. And it is no coincidence that demographers in the 1990s were predicting that those good times were sure to end around 2007.

FDR's presidency really illustrates how demographics can affect an economy. During his early years the demographics for him were terrible, but by the last few years they had improved a great deal. That, not coincidentally, is why the unemployment did not drop below 10% until 1941. From 1932 to 1938 he tried to use social spending to get the U.S. out of the Great Depression, but that did not work. Not once during that period did unemployment dip below 10%. I think it was still around 15% as late as 1940.

And the National Organization of (liberal) Woman? Never heard a peep out of them during the whole Monica Lewinsky deal. Imagine that.

Why would they weigh in on a relationship between consenting adults?

That would be a supercilious, Republican position.

Winnie, maybe because Monica Lewinski was a willing (and somewhat predatory) partner.

Against the law? Really? Can you cite that statute?

"The Code of Federal Regulations (Title 32, Chapter 1, Part 147) makes clear that sexual behavior is a security concern if it is "compulsive or addictive” and "self-destructive or high-risk." The regulations warn a person may lose a security clearance for "personal conduct or concealment of information that may increase an individual's vulnerability to coercion, exploitation, or duress, such as engaging in activities which, if known, may affect the person's personal, professional, or community standing or render the person susceptible to blackmail.” "

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/02/20/tale-two-presidents-honor-and-dishonor-in-oval-office/

Since I know at least one person here will attack the source of the above statement, here's a link to the CFR main page so you can look it up yourself:

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/cfr/

Reading those regulations, I find it interesting to note that a candidate for the presidency does not have to qualify for a top secret clearance with a special background investigation. If you looked at Clinton's history, he would probably never have been granted a top secret clearance if had wanted to work as a transcriber of foreign intelligence for the National Security Agency, CIA, or the military after he completed his education. Yet he could become the President of the United States. I think that is quite amazing!

More than likely, Obama and GWB wouldn't have qualified either through their admitted cocaine usage.

shows how gullible people are.

like those that believe clinton had a 'funds surplus'.

have asked this many many times, not once has anyone answered.

if there was a swurplus - why was there a 48% increase in federal debt (from just over 4T to 5.9T?

if there was a true 'surplus' there would have been no need to borrow at that insane level.

shows that it was alll accounting tricks and gimmicks.

and before anyone jumps - the article in on clinton - but to help you, before you tell me what i think - i also did not either bush.

I like Ike for the best President of the latter half of the 20th Century; but Clinton saw himself as the bridge to the 21st Century, and so far he's the best for this one.

I have mixed feelings about Clinton. Welfare reform was a good thing and he did make some good appointments: Ron Brown, for example, actually performed quite well as secretary of commerce, even though at first glance he did not appear qualified for the position. Strobe Talbott was also a good choice for a role in relations with the Soviets; he actually speaks Russian and really knows the history and culture. Dennis Ross also did quite well as a Middle East envoy. I also thought Richard Holbrooke handled himself well in trying to bring the warring parties in the former republic of Yugoslavia together to sign a peace treaty. Panetta was a pretty good chief of staff; he ended a lot of the nonsense that led to the Lewinsky affair. And Mike McCurry was an excellent press secretary. Also, Clinton lowered the capital gains tax rate, which really fueled investment in stocks.

Still, one cannot overlook things like his failure to do anything to prevent the genocide in Rwanda, the Lewinsky scandal, and the disgraceful pardon of Mark Rich. Also, Congress prevented Clinton from implementing some his dumber ideas, such as the imputed income tax. And, of course, he was quite late in recognizing that Bin Laden was very serious when he wrote a manifesto declaring war on America in the mid-90s.

look how the radical-right minority throws a hissy fit over the truth :P

As the poet William Smith said:

"Slick Willie style all in 'em... Getting jiggy with it!!"

Bill Clinton could balance the budget while getting a bj... Bush jr, couldn't even eat a pretzel without chocking. I love those news conferences with Obama and Clinton together... it gives me hope.

clinton was no closer to actually balancing a budget than either bush was.

he was simply better at claiming debt proceeds were revenue, and off-budget items didnt count. but his ability to decieve makes him no better, or worse, than the george before and after.

numbers don't lie (people obviously do)


;)

totally true chelsea,

and anyone that has the credit owed (debt) increase by almost 50%, and claims to have more revenue than spending - is a total liar!

explain the economic surpluses (that's plural, as in more than one) in the years 1998 - 2000 ?

lemme guess... didn't happen according to......?

explain how the debt increased dramatically, if the surplus was real?

you are listening to the spinners, and liars, and not looking at the numbers.

if any entity had more revenue than expense, their debt would never INcrease!

explain the debt increases in those years?

lemme guess, it did not happen according to ..... ?????

i have asked you about this several times - what now - you say all you see is "blah blah blah merka huicklle derka derka" or whatever that inane, immature, snide sounding thing you say when you are dfw?

maybe answer the question!

how does debt go up when 'cash in' exceeds 'cash out'?

put it all in one syllable words - just for you ...........

I asked you a question -- you dodged it with a question.

Which means you obviously cannot answer the question..

And I think we all knew how quickly those surpluses ran out on Bush's policies ;) That requires no splainin'

ah crap - i should have said "is more than" instead of "exceeds" that is 2 syllables - hope i did not confuse your brainwashed logic.

all that time wasted on dodging and insulting -- when you could just answer it.


It's better to admit when you're wrong, but displaying how wrong you are is far more entertaining for my readers, so thanks! ;)

i asked you a question first - how can there be a surplus, when the debt goes up?

answer my question, qaND THE ANSWER TO YOURS WILL BE SELF-EVIDENT - THERE was NO BUDGET SURPLUS!!!

IF THERE had BEEN - DEBT WOULD AT WORST, STAYED THE SAME.


YOU CAN ADD AND SUBTRACT I HOPE.....

I am wrong????


lololololololololol

YOU and many in the media (that we all know can not be trusted) claim there was a surplus - show me proof of that surplus!

when will you get it - when one side goes up (a surplus) the other MUST go down (debt).

but hey - believe the lies.

you have never once asked ahwt i asked - and if you read your own post - i asked you to prove it long ago.

buy hay there princess - you keep on writing fiction - as your own 'press' says - you are good at ciminal fiction - the claim he had a surplus is a perfect example of a crime, that is a lie.

You asked an illogical question as a means to deny that there were even surpluses.


There were. Two.

Question answered.

Unless you're saying that everyone is wrong but you -- but we know only loonies believe that way ;)


ps -- even though you're commenting every two seconds doesn't mean I'm going to respond any faster. I'm working.

i am so sorry - never answered what i asked.

have fun on your "clinton surplus myth" sites.. most of them are done in old-skool HTML so we already know the intellect behind those thought-lines isn't necessarily stellar...

No, I answered -- in the best way the question could be answered.

You asked a question that was entirely irrelevant.

If I were you..... I'd crack open a few books/websites that are written by credible sources....Maybe then you could form your questions in a way that can be answered in a relevant and factual manner ;)

illogical question ..................

debt goes up almost 50% ...... they claim revenue exceeds expenses - the two are directly connected.

you only borrow, when you dont have the money to pay the bills .....

at some point i will learn, that you can not be taught anything.

no matter how wrong you are, how snide or insulting you get ........

i just find it hard to accept that anyone is so brainwashed, that simple math is not able to explain truths to them.

my hope springs eternal.

your resistance to truth, is apparantly even deeper.

No, I've been taught pretty well.. that's why I'm not entertaining your silliness.

Again, you're only making things more entertaining for my readers.. so thanks.

Again... have fun playing on your shoddy blogs ... your argument is a nonissue.

Chelsea, what you don't seem to realize is that the government often makes "off-budget" expenditures. So, officially, any administration can have a budget surplus for two years and still see the national debt go up. Very often "emergency" spending is classified as an "off-budget" expenditure. I am sure that both Clinton and Bush used that gimmick. And Congress usually goes along with such trickery!

If you still do not believe that the national debt went up during the Clinton years, go to The Statistical Abstract of the United States of America or a good almanac and check for yourself.

Another example of trickery is spending cuts. Very often spending cuts are not real cuts; they are simply reductions in the rates of increased spending.

He did give good sax.

lol... i love your screen name....

*yawn*

crybaby.

Um, 9/11 occured on, well, 9/11... of 2001. That means that it happened on GWB's watch, not Clinton's. Eight months of planning occurred during the Bush presidency. Did prior planning take place during Clinton's presidency? Sure, it probably did, but how would the administration know that unless they had a complete police state that kept a close eye on everything and respected no one's privacy?

Bush actually had warning weeks in advance that a terrorist attack using airplanes was being planned and did nothing to prevent it. Chose to do nothing.

And Lewinsky never alleged abuse, she seemed quite satisfied with her encounter.

Nice try, Micky, but your train left reality station a long, long time ago.

"Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US" was a memo prepared by the CIA and given to the president on AUGUST 6, 2001. So yes, the strongest warning we had was ignored by President BILL CLINTON because he was in office on AUGUST 6, 2001.

No.

James, the election was held in November of 2000. Inauguration was held in January of 2001. This means that it was George W. Bush who was president from then until September 11th and beyond. That memo was prepared by the CIA and given to the Bush administration, as Bush's cabinet member Condeleeza Rice revealed.

I know. I was being sarcastic, thus the bold capitalized dates.

Clinton 2016!

this country does not need another clinton in office.

No more than this country needs another Bush in office.

During the Clinton regime when he was the politician figurehead lackey of corporate USA, ruling elites, etc. (as the majority of high-level politician scum have been for a lengthy period) I, as a working-poor class citizen of the USA experienced an increase in my general lifestyle, opportunities, higher wages and a sense that my economic life aspects wer on an upswing; especially as Clinton's term had a chance to affect the USA.

When the GW Bush thing entered the White House compound "things" in general, with time, grew worse.

What a CROCK!
He may have been charismatic, he may have been a nice guy, however, it was him and his administration, and a bi-partisan congress that repealed the Frank-Stegall Act, that sent this US, into a deep recession.
His borrowing and spending of the Social Security, that does not equate to a surplus, finished off all but bankrupting the Social Security fund.

He taxed and spent, spent and taxed, just as Bush spent, and Obama is STILL spending.

Sorry.
I don't rank him up there with the greats.
He may be a great guy.
But I still think his policies stunk!

I try to imagine a day when voters will grow up and realize that all politicians tax and spend. It is what they do and what they must do, as governments have to raise revenues through taxation to provide services on which they spend the money.

Tax and spend is not a policy to be supported or opposed. It is to the body politic as breathing is to the human body: natural, normal and necessary.