Were we too trusting of government during Clinton?

[Ksec]

Ive been thinking. During our reign in the nineties were we as gullible and trusting of the Presidency as the repubs are today with the bush machine?
Im trying to be fair here. Were we blank checks and yes machines for Clinton? Did we trust him to always do the right thing and did we enable him to do some things that werent good for us. ie NAFTA, welfare reform, corporate whoring,etc. ?

edit. we can debate whether welfare reform was good or not. I tend to believe we went too far.

[movonne]

1. I think the reason we were trusting is because most everything was

good for us..He did not take our rights away,our Social Security,Medicare,etc.. Also we had a surplus of money...

[MannyGoldstein]

2. Yup. We Were.

I shudder to say this, but, in some ways we're better off with Bush than Clinton and the DLCers. At least with Bush the evil is obvious. With Clinton, we had a wolf in sheep's clothing. Clinton and the DLCers relentlessly pursued low wage policies and doing whatever was necessary to put a few shekels in their pockets - and most of us just took a nap while it was happening.

[Fredda Weinberg]

3. Income inequality narrowed under Clinton e/m

[Wilms]

4. Link, please. n/t

[Fredda Weinberg]

9. How's this?

Once again all Americans are sharing in the New Economy's growth. From 1993 to 1998, U.S. families have enjoyed double-digit gains in real income - with the bottom fifth's growing at least as fast as the top-fifth's. Similarly, workers' pay increased steadily in the 1990s, ending a downward trend that began in the mid-1980s. From 1993 to 1999, real average hourly wages began rebounding toward their pre-1980s level.

These numbers clearly show that income inequality is no longer widening, if current trends continue, should begin shrinking.

http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=125&subsecID=164&contentID=956

[TahitiNut]

13. The Gini Index tells another story.

While economic inequality narrowed among minorities, it continued to increase overall if only at a slower rate. Clearly, the greatest damage by far occurred at the end of the Bush/Quayle years and at the beginning of the Clinton/Gore years. After a brief rebound, it continued to deteriorate.

[Selatius]

18. That's horrific performance for the US. It's disgraceful.

We can do far better than that. Look at how badly the Black community has been neglected. We ended legal segregation in America's institutions, but we never ended economic segregation.

[TahitiNut]

22. At long last, a DUer who reads this as seriously as I do.

If there's any more succinct portrayal of the moral bankruptcy of this country's economic system, I've yet to see it. It's appalling to me. When I say that the Bushoilini avowal of an "ownership society" is a return to the antebellum days of plantation economics, this is what I'm talking about. The very real evil of Hitler's Germany was the enslavement of minorities in slave labor camps and their regressive economic disenfranchisement for the entire time the fascists were in power. When human labor is treated as a commodity, with importing and exporting according to to the rules of greed and predation, its disposal and incineration isn't far in the future.

[Selatius]

14. Umm, correct me if wrong, but I think PPI is a DLC outfit n/t

[TahitiNut]

23. It is. One glance at the tabs at the top right of the web page makes it ..

... obvious. Isn't it interesting that such "institutes" are so tightly coupled to political ideologies these days?

"The Democratic Leadership Council, and its affiliated think tank the Progressive Policy Institute, have been catalysts for modernizing politics and government. From their political analysis and policy innovations has emerged a progressive alternative to the worn-out dogmas of traditional liberalism and conservatism. The core principles and ideas of this "Third Way" movement are set forth in The New Progressive Declaration: A Political Philosophy for the Information Age."

http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=87&subsecID=205&contentID=895

[Libby2]

28. Oh please ! Get real !

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

5. I haven't trusted "government" since 1963.

That was the year they packed us poor dumbass marines to go to someplace called Laos. Fortunately, they called that little venture into colonialism off..for a few years.

As for Clinton, as some have said, "He was the best Republican president we've had since Lincoln."

[Ksec]

8. I also want to say I was one of those trusting people

I trusted him to do the right thing so I enabled the poor choices. "Maybe" Clinton thought NAFTA WAS a good thing for all of us but then maybe he was just trying to appease the other side .
Theres that trust thing again.

Im not bashing Clinton here. He did a lot of good things. IMO he was overall, a good President who got caught up trying to please the other side so he adopted some of their bad issues as his own.

[AX10]

6. No. The only threat to us during the 90's was the right wing.

They stole the election in 2000 and now they are in charge.

[meganmonkey]

7. I wasn't

I didn't protest the way I do now, but between sanctions in Iraq, NAFTA, giving up on health care, pandering top corps in various ways, I was never as enamored with him as most of the people around me.

[Todd B]

20. Don't forget DOMA..

Perhaps the precursor to the FMA which President Clinton was instrumental in passing.

In general I don't trust many politicians because most of them are too concerned with their own self image and importance rather then getting things done to benefit Americans (like health care, education, etc).

[TahitiNut]

10. As an independent, I think (yellow dog) Democrats were so busy ...

... defending him against concocted and fraudulent attacks that they failed to pay attention to the torpedoing of National Health Care, the hyperbolic War on (some) Drugs, cutting gays adrift in the military, the shredding of the social safety net of welfare, the DMCA and Telecom Act, and a whole shelf of hushpuppies to the corporatist right. I often think the attacks (including impeachment) on Clinton were both a smokescreen to conceal thefts from the public cookie jar and a "Cry Wolf" charade to deafen the public to the upcoming Fascist swing to the far right. The fiscal responsibility shown was very impermanent and the "ownership industry" made out like the pirates they are.

[journalist3072]

11. I don't think so, and here's why

You had very many Democrats who were upset with Clinton for passing welfare reform.

Even Marian Wright Edelman, longtime friends of Bill & Hillary, spoke out against it.

Labor Secy Robert Reich wasn't happy with it.

And of course, you had Dems upset about NAFTA.

So I don't think so.

[Selatius]

12. I wasn't. Remember NAFTA, the Telecommunications Act of 1996, etc?

Who was that rich-ass bastard who was wanted for tax evasion who got pardoned by Clinton at the end of his last term? Mark Rich? Anyone remember that?

And how many of you honestly believe the Oklahoma City Bombing was the work of one man? How many of you believed the hostage situation down at Waco could've been handled better so that so many innocent people would not have died?

[radio4progressives]

15. we absolutely were... we partied, played music and danced in the streets

because we thought we had seen the end of the Reagan Bush regime.

meanwhile, Clinton was making deals with them.

[sandnsea]

16. Some yes,some no

I'm inclined to say no because of the huge fight over welfare reform amongst Democrats and the fact that I remember the protests over the Iraq bombings and even Kosovo. We did not walk in lockstep the way Republicans do, but rank and file Democrats were a bit too trusting of Clinton. OTOH, it was hard not to be considering that what he was doing was working economically. But we sure did lose in Congress, which should have been a wakeup call and it just wasn't.

[shance]

17. Looking back, I think we were pretty detached, cynical,

and focused on our own selfish pleasures. We were also not as supportive of Clinton when he was being attacked I think and we were overly critical of him I think, but didn't provide or seek solutions that we sorely need. I think we didn't think very much in the eighties or nineties and now we are being forced to. We are still struggling a bit with this to a degree, but I think the positive of these past six years is how it is forcing us to think and expand.


I think we went through a complacent two decades (certainly the eighties were ALL about denial the truth of what was going on) and we became less involved in participating in actions that would promote more social consciousness and awareness of creating a more egalitarian world. Perhaps that is why the corporations have such a stranglehold on us now. While we were sleeping they were passing laws and promoting more lobbying.

[G_j]

19. I wasn't

Iraq sanctions and bombing, WTO, NAFTA, welfare reform, the SOA, etc. etc.....then the final indignity of leading people to believe he might pardon Leonard Peltier and instead pardoning some two-bit sleaze-bags.
:-(

of course, compared to Bush you might as well call them the 'good old days'. Bush is by far the worst, most criminal pResident in US history.

[rucky]

21. THIS is why the Freeps always bring the discussion back to Clinton.

"Well Clinton did it, too."

True or not, our kneejerk reaction to start making excuses for Clinton's dalliances makes it look like that's what Freepers are doing re: Bush. And that makes the unconsciable defense of the murdering bastard somehow seem ok - like a trivial partisan game. Like two wrongs somehow make a right.

When they attack Clinton, immediately take the partisanship out of the arguement and say: If he did that, it was wrong - just like what Bush is doing is wrong. You can also throw it back in their face after you don't take the Clenis bait and say - "so you're ok with lying to Congress/spying on Americans/taking bribes/etc as long as everybody's doing it?"

You defend Clinton, you lose the high-ground. Even if it's unjustified, nobody got swiftboated worse than Bubba. He's damaged goods.

[MannyGoldstein]

25. A Clean Conscience

Fortunately, it's justified - so we can all disavow the Clintons with a clean conscience.

Lucky us.

[Libby2]

29. I would give my right arm to have Clinton back in office

Lucky us, indeed.

[rucky]

30. But if we really wanted to treat ourselves, we'd bring in

Conyers or Kucinich or Boxer... or the ghost of Paul Wellstone.

Just saying, we CAN do better.

[Selatius]

35. I agree. I'd rather have an FDR on economic policy than another Clinton.

And I'd rather have a Gandhi on foreign policy and social policy. We don't need warmongers and greed-soaked souls tricking and exploiting foreign labor or launching wars for private gain.

I'm just saying.

[Ksec]

24. I was politically naieve then

I actually made the mistake of overtrusting them to do the right thing for the people. Sometimes I think , well there are two sides here. Ours and theres, or supply siders and the side that sticks up for the normal Joe. The Repubs prop up supply siders with trickle down drivel. The Dems believe in bottoms up . Money given to the poor will eventually make it into the supply siders pockets. Money given to supply siders doesnt always trickle down which makes an economy like we have today where corps are rolling in profit while we are worse off than ever. Im rambling.

Anyway, I am not as politically naieve anymore thanks to sites like DU. Ive learned loads here.

[Mutley]

26. Yes. Though Clinton was not as bad.

[depakid]

27. He sure did us right on media reform

:sarcasm:

and on environmental regulation... oops excuse me- after 8 years, he finally enacted a some substantial regs on Arsenic and forest protection- that Bush could fiarly easily overturn.

He great on energy, too. We didn't have any energy crises or widespread market manipulation, did we.

And banking and securities regulation. Another winner.

[Geek_Girl]

31. I Believe I did

Clinton did some really bad things in my opinion.
He Perputated the line of Iraq having WMD's and continuing sanctions against Iraq.
Deregulating the media.
Not pushing for tighter accounting practices and strengthening the SEC.

He was a great president for big business and the stock market sored. But I really do believe that his presidency perpetuated the mess we are in now.

[jonnyblitz]

32. HELL no..how naive to think just because a Democrat is running

the show, everything is just fine, ESPECIALLY when it comes to foreign affairs and fucking with other countries to make them bow to our needs for resources and cheap labor. the most horrid trade policies passed under Clinton.

maybe partisan, STEPFORD DEMS who think in simplistic binaries (DEMS - ALWAYS PURE AND GOOD, GOP-BAD)thought things were good without paying attention, but informed people knew better.

[Ksec]

34. Stepford Dems huh?

Why I oughta..

Try Decaf next time.

[springhill]

33. Yes.....

Looking back at some of the policies he implimented and his support (by his silence on the lying criminals in charge) of this administration, I think we always didn't see what was happening. Of course, the things that happened during his Presidency was much more subtle that the in-your-face crap this cabal produces daily.