Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Bill Clinton on The Debt

Posted 1 year ago on Sept. 6, 2012, 6:06 a.m. EST by ZenDog (20555) from South Burlington, VT
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

People ask me all the time how we delivered four surplus budgets. What new ideas did we bring? I always give a one-word answer:

A.R.I.T.H.M.E.T.I.C.

.

Remember, Republican economic policies quadrupled the debt before I took office and doubled it after I left. We simply can’t afford to double-down on trickle-down.

66 Comments

66 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 1 year ago

More than any other speaker at either convention, Bill gave more substance than rhetoric. I have never been a Clinton fan but how could people not respect someone who informs, lays it out on he table for public view. He doesn't hide his position from debate, rather he invites it. He didn't need to say republicans suck like the previous speaker, he said everything he needed to in substance. I have to respect that.

[-] 4 points by ZenDog (20555) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

I really want to see the fact check results of some of his statements.

If they hold up - and I bet they will - it is a very sound repudiation of repelican policy.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 1 year ago

What President Clinton forgot to mention is that congress, especially the House controls the spending appropriations.

Democrats controlled the House of Representatives for 46 years, from 1948 to 1994.

Two years after Clinton was elected in 1992 the Republicans took a majority in the House and Senate for the first time since 1948. They passed 9 out of ten items in their "Contract with America" That is when the budget started to decrease and balance. Clinton also signed into law in 1997 a capital gains tax cut bringing the rate from 28% to 20%. The budget began to run as a surplus in 1998.

The Democrats took over both the House and the Senate in 2006.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20555) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

While many Republicans have warned that President Barack Obama's plan to raise taxes on wealthy Americans would hurt the fragile economy, Obama fired back in a Twitter town hall on July 6, 2011, that he's only proposing to return the top tax rate to the level it was raised to under President Bill Clinton, when job growth subsequently soared.

Said Obama: "If wealthy individuals are willing to simply go back to the rates that existed back in the 1990s when rich people were doing very well -- it’s not like they were poor -- and by the way, that’s when we saw the highest job growth rates, and that’s when we saw the highest -- the greatest reduction in poverty, and that’s when we saw businesses very profitable -- if the wealthiest among us -- and I include myself in this category -- are willing to give up a little bit more, then we can solve this problem. It does not take a lot. As for Obama's claim that in the years after the Clinton tax increase, job rates soared, the numbers back him up. Employment rates grew a healthy clip through the mid 1990s after Clinton's tax hike, according to the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics. And it's also true that jobs didn't grow as quickly after the Bush tax cuts were enacted.

.

NOTE:

raising taxes on the 1% doesn't hurt job growth - the numbers are very clear. Its a repelican lie.

And with the economy in the tank they refuse to raise taxes on the one percent to pay down the debt.

the fucking scumbags

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 1 year ago

President Obama and a Democrat majority in the House and Senate chose to extend the cuts for two more years rather than let them expire when they were supposed to.

Why would they do that?

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20555) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

Why?

because the scumbag repelicans managed to hijack the message and tailor it to one of two options - extend tax cuts for everyone, or let them all lapse. They were not willing to let the Bushite tax cuts for one percenters end unless all tax cuts came to an end.

  • Additionally, a new poll released Monday by the conservative group Crossroads GPS found that, when presented with only two options, 65 percent of likely voters would prefer to extend the cuts and only 29 percent would allow them to expire.

  • Which points to the messaging danger Democrats face. If Republicans are able to successfully portray the debate as one between extending the tax cuts for everyone or not extending them at all, they've forced Democrats to argue on their terms. Even though extending the cuts for everyone is relatively less popular than extending them only for the middle class, failing to extend any of the cuts would be far less popular than both other options.

[-] 2 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 1 year ago

That is a load of bull.

The Democrats had a wide majority. All they needed to do was let them expire. There was nothing the Republicans could really do.

[-] -1 points by ZenDog (20555) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

Sure, true enough. the dems could let the tax breaks expire -

for everyone

Which of course, would have reduced the amount of disposable - ? - income in the average consumer's pocket. Not exactly what you want to do in a period of economic stagnation - unless the intent is to cease the flow of currency nationwide.

Is that your idea?

I mean, because if it is, I dunno - it may have merit. D. Suzuki has pointed out that economic growth cannot be sustained indefinitely. Is that your point?

Because I don't think it is.

I think you are just another foolish shill - one intent on over looking the fact that the dems needed one or two repelicans at least if they were to craft legislation that changed the tax formulation. They couldn't get there, all they could get was renewal of the bushite tax breaks as they were.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Excellent point. And spot on Zen. We COULD NOT let them all expire in the middle of the bush great recession.

And so the Dems had to cave in to conservative policy again! Really it is the people fault. We should have protested against the wealthy tax cut extension.

But we were lazy and expected Pres Obama to do everything for us!

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Because repubs held middle class tax cuts hostage unless the dems allowed the 1% tax cuts be extended as well.

Don't you remember?

The best we could do is extend the wealthy tax cuts only 2 years so that we could finally end them now.

If we must we will let the middle class cuts expire with the wealthy cuts and then re-introduce ONLY middle class tax cuts and dare repubs to vote against.

I think they did the best they could against the 1% tool republicans.

[-] 2 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 1 year ago

The Democrats has 54% of the House and 57% of the Senate.

Nancy Pelosi controlled the House

Harry Reid and Joe Biden controlled the Senate.

Do you remember?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

traitorous republican mis use, overuse of the filibuster. remember?

Historic abuse of the filibuster to stop everything they could. Remember?

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

That was what I was saying in 09 when they did it too. Fuckin scumbags.

[-] 0 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 1 year ago

It's more than that. It's a bar for public discourse that we should all strive for.

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

Clinton isn't the President. Obama is. Let's not forget:

NDAA

No prosecutions of wall street crimes

Drone strikes in Pakistan out numbering Bush

Guantanamo still open

No recovery

No prosecution of torture

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

he has dropped bombs in 6 countries.

5 in the last 12 months alone.

[-] -2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

No one cares dude. And that is the main reason we are failing as a country, the people simply dont care.

Bush achieved what he set out to do....totally desensatize the country to attacking nations even if unprovoked.

Welcome to a nation at perpetual war and a population that is too wrapped up in talking points to see the big picture. The worse it gets, the more they cling to the lies.

[-] -1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

Well said. It's very sad to see.

I will always care. Maybe I can change a few minds. Even if that means getting cussed out by Obama and Romney supporters at rallies. I will hold my "end war" signs proudly.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Anti dem partisan campaigning.!

correction: Let's remember:

  • No new indef detentions under this Pres! (only your boy Bushes leftovers)

  • Few prosecutions, not enough, left to states, fed law weak as a result of republican weakening of fin regulation @ 1% request..

  • Drone strikes must end ! reduced US military killings from 1 Million+ to thousands.

  • Attempted Gitmo closings republicans obstructed.

  • Definite recovery! Weak because of republican traitorous obstruction.

  • Ended US torture, Closed secret CIA prisons, Ended extraordinary rendition, re defined waterboarding back to torture. Stopped all indefinite detention.

Just so we are being honest and not just spewing anti dem partisan campaign republican talking points.

Peace. good luck in all your good efforts.

[-] 3 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

I'm against injustice no matter where it exists. How about you?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Sure!

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

Then do you support Obama's appeal to reinstate the indefinite detention provision of the NDAA?

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago
  • I do not support the appeal to reinstate!

  • I do not believe it is a sincere effort to defend the law (they have offered no witnesses, and no evidence)

  • I do not support the 2002 republican created policy of indefinite detention,

  • I do not support the 2011 republican written NDAA law.

  • I support Pres Obamas refusal to use it! (NO new detainees under Obama)

  • I support his call to not include it.

  • I support his statement he would veto it.

  • Once it was buried in a veto proof military budget I support his effort to move the power into the office of the president so that he could eliminate it's use with the executive signing statement...

  • Which I also support.

  • I support his attempts to try and eliminate all of Bushes remaining indefinitely detainees.

  • I support his desire and attempts to close gitmo (where Bushes leftover detainees are kept) Which Repubs have obstructed.

Do YOU support these actions/positions/efforts?

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

"I support his statement he would veto it."

Doesn't that contradict his move to reinstate indefinite detention?

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Why didn't you answer my question?

I gave you a thoughtful, respectful, thorough response. I've been honest I'd hoped you could return the gesture. What did you think of my answer to your question.? I do not support the appeal! Do you? You didn't even give me that much respect!

I suppose we disagree. but the problem with the world is that we treat each other so poorly, when we don't agree. Not cool!

Please give me the common courtesy I gave you.

And the answer to your rhetorical question is Obviously it is contradictory! So what?

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

I ask one question and you expect me to answer 11? Not a matter of respect, a matter of wasting my time.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

One!? You didn't answer any! You didn't even give your position on your own questions. is this a conversation or an interrogation?

"waste of time"? no reason to be rude. especially since all you gotta due is cut paste give quick y/n to each one. Maybe you just can't stand that I've made such excellent points.

This Pres WILL get rid of the repub NDAA, Patriot act, warrentless wiretaps and more! You know your repubs will never get rid of these violations because they wrote them!

[-] 0 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

Obama will never undo any of those locks placed on our freedoms. Signing off.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

"delusional" insults only betray the weakness of your position.

Did I say he would? My bad. I meant WE will! Once we stop whining and howling at the moon, we will get together grow this movement, protest, pressure, agitate all pols for all the changes we need.

There is NOTHING the people united cannot accomplish.

[-] 0 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

VQ, my sincerest apology for the insult. Removed.

[-] 1 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 1 year ago

Yeah Zen, I watched his speech last night in its entirety. Although Elizabeth Warren's speech was excellent, I thought Clinton's was nothing short of astounding! He gave the audience just enough detail to prove his points, but not so much as to lose them in abstraction. He always kept them on their toes and in rapt attention.

The Repubs had Reagan as their "Great Communicator". The Dems have Clinton as their "Greater Communicator".

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

He went long but it was good to hear someone effectively defending the Obama administration, and laying the blame for our problems where it belongs.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20555) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

He seemed to heap praise on bipartisanship -

Though I often disagree with Republicans, I never learned to hate them

Bipartisanship has been dead for quite some time. It's time to wake up

[-] 3 points by nazihunter (660) 1 year ago

Did you watch the RNC? Almost every speaker brought up bipartisanship! What a crock. The party that killed every vote and proved what a waste of our money they are.

[-] 0 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 1 year ago

I wonder if Bill would ever consider becoming an informal advisor to Obama. The two of them together might be a pretty formidable team.

[-] 1 points by marvelpym (-184) 1 year ago

They do not like each other. Obama needs Bill for the election. Bill's ego loves Obama needing him. That's all this is.

[-] 1 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 1 year ago

Could be. That makes sense in a way. Too bad.

[-] 0 points by ZenDog (20555) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

that may be something of the role he is assuming now - I have no idea.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20555) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

breitbart . . .

Isn'T he severely factually impaired?

[-] 1 points by conservatroll (117) 1 year ago

I get SO TIRED of immediate dismissals based on the source. If it's not abc,cbs,nbc,,msnbc,nyt,wapo,latimes, it MUST BE A LIE.

Dumbocrats are DONE

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20555) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago
[-] 1 points by conservatroll (117) 1 year ago

So, can you name 5 credible newspeople today?

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20555) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

.

Most news magazines have credible reporters, the problem isn't the reporters so much as it is management, and market influences imposed either through the advertisers or through connections with management.

I'll bet even Fox has a few credible reporters - probably not many, and they probably will not be there long.

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

They should ask him about the repeal of Glass Steagall in the "Financial Modenization Act of 1999"

Lack of C.O.M.M.O.N. S.E.N.S.E.

Works for the banks.

Maybe he'd like to tell us more about the WMD's that he and Bush told us existed too.

or all those trade agreements that helped ship jobs overseas.

The RNC and DNC are a joke and they're not funny anymore.

[-] 0 points by ZenDog (20555) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

with the impeachment proceedings and everything else, I'm not at all surprised he signed it - not happy, but not surprised either. He may not have been paying any attention to it at all.

WMDs - when did he make such a claim? And what was the status of UN inspections when he said it?

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

he signed it in 1999 when he wasn't facing an election.

Nice try at making an excuse though.

In 1998 Clinton made claim of WMD's. Google it. It had a lot to do with the sanctions he supported and the bombs dropped on Iraq during his administration. Outkast even made a song about it. "Bombs over Baghdad"

What was the status of dead civilians from bombs and sanctions Clinton supported? The number is shocking. Bush numbers shocking. Madelin Albright said the number of dead civilians was "worth it" on 60 minutes.

Albright "the price is worth it" - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbIX1CP9qr4

Bush claimed it was for freedom. Politricks are corrupt.

Why make excuses for Clinton on these topics? He's not running for president. Expose the truth. I get when you make excuses for Obama because you're involved in his campaign... but Clinton isn't seeking election. What do you benefit when you make excuses and dismiss truth and voting records?

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20555) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago
[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

So we're on the same page then?

Why don't they have a little accountability and add the reinstatement to their platform?

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20555) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

you should read the article. It's rather interesting.

[-] 0 points by ZenDog (20555) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago
[-] 0 points by agkaiser (1299) from Fredericksburg, TX 1 year ago

Though far better than the alternatives, neither Clinton nor Obama are perfect. But they do perform their acts well enough. That seems to be what most Americans value. A politician that wants to win must give the audience the pleasure they seek. The dems seem to want to pleasure us, while the Tory traitor repus only want to fuck us!

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Or we could sign GATT and NAFTA to give us a short term boost with long term pain....Oh wait. We already did that.

Too bad no one mic checked him with allowing creation of derivatives and repealing Glass Steagall too.

Used to be a fan of his. OWS makes you realize he's just another shithead politician.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20555) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

So - how did that happen, exactly?

Mired in scandal, shock doctrine - what is that?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

More anti dem partisan campaigning.

GATT, NAFTA, Derivitive creation, repealing Glass Steagal All conservative policies.!

Leaving out that fact, provides cover for the party who created them & betrays your continual partisanship.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

The mascot defends corruption again.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Your are Lying. That is an untrue personal attack because you don't agree that we should identify correctly that all the policies (that I agree are bad) were republican policies.

Once again you need to lie to address my fair assertions. stick to the truth.

If you really believe that I am defending corruption just indicate where I am doing that. I will address it.

And please refrain from the demeaning "mascot" reference. It just betrays your weak arguments and is reminiscent of the schoolyard bullying tactics of your candidate Romney.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

More ignorant excuses for problems created by both parties.

Why did Clinton sign them? Sure they're conservative policies... here's the big question... why did he sign for them?

Glass Steagall repeal he signed even though it was his last year and was not facing re-election. What excuse will you make for that?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Dems have been more disappointed than republicans when they cave in to vote for conservative policies.

Why do they do it? You don't know? The country has moved right for more than 30 years!!! The left/progressive movement collapsed 30 years ago. And the dems gravitated right, betrayed progressive principles, and drank the Koolaid of corp cash.

I am more angry with dems.

I won't provide cover for repubs whose policies are at the center of all our problems.

We must replace pro 1% conservatives with pro 99% progressives, and with a resurrected progressive movement fulfill our responsibility and Protest, pressure, & agitate for progressive change that benefits the 99%

But we should not serve the party whose policies have created all our problems by neglecting to indicate their complicity in these problems.

I didn't say Bill was right to sign these laws. HE WAS WRONG! But it is unfair to pretend they were not conservative policies.

Peace.

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

They are conservative policies.... and you got to get rid of the republicans and democrats that support them.

No cover for either side. Expose the truth. Voting records will set you free.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

replace pro 1% conservatives with pro 99% progressives and Protest, pressure, & agitate for progressive change that helps the 99%.

Peace, & Solidarity!

[-] 0 points by NVPHIL (667) 1 year ago

I agree. We haven't had a worthy president since I was born (1981) I keep hoping people will wake up and realize how corrupt both parties are. Vote independent otherwise you're giving our country away to the rich.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

We can stop hoping people will wake up, and wake them up. Growing this movement, putting our bodies on the street, getting friends, family, strangers to join us. Find the 45% who never vote and get them to join OWS and agitate for the money out of politics, and election reform we need to recreate the system.

There is nothing the people united can't accomplish!

Peace, & good luck in all your good efforts.

[-] 1 points by NVPHIL (667) 1 year ago

You're right. When we get money out of politics the races will be more idea based and without the monetary motivator you will attract people who want to run for office who are willing to give of themselves to accomplish what they believe in. Mmaybe even pay the politicians based upon the median income of the country.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

They can certainly take pay cuts and share the benefits everyone else uses.

That isn't so big, but Money out of politics, election/campaign reform will be difficult to accomplish but once we do we will get our govt back and do a great deal more.