Why does H. Clinton receive such high marks on the economy?

[Skwmom]

Do people understand who is responsible for all of those closed factories and businesses? Do people realize that it was Clinton (both Bill and Hillary) and not just Bush who promoted free trade (a.k.a. enter into trade agreements where Americans didn't have a chance in heck of competing and foreign workers would be exploited). The effects of NAFTA and other trade agreements weren't felt immediately so maybe that is why some people don't connect the Clintons to jobs leaving America.

[JFKgirl]

1. Her economic stimulus package is bullshit

Top economists have looked at it and are already disgusted. Obama's plans puts money into the hands of those that need it the most and those that will most likely spend it immediately. Hillary knows nothing about economics.

[rodeodance]

16. Have you always been this bitter sounding??

[niceypoo]

39. "Top economists" said the same thing about Bill Clinton's economic plan

which raised taxes on the rich, cut taxes on the poor and cut spending. 22 million new jobs and, had Gore won and continued it, we would almost have the national debt paid off by now.

I do believe that tariffs need to be brought back though and talks of, 'stimulus' stopped because stimulus is another word for more borrowing.

[The_Casual_Observer]

2. While you at it, why don't you throw in 9/11 & Darfur just for the hell of it.

[Skwmom]

4. So are you saying that the Clintons pushing "free trade" did not

cause the loss of hundreds of thousands of American jobs? I don't think anyone has really explained it in straightforward terms to the American public. Clinton is responsible for NAFTA and other trade agreements which ending up shipping so many American jobs overseas. Just because the effect wasn't really felt UNTIL after he left office, doesn't mean he is any less responsible. H.Clinton has also pushed "free trade" a.k.a selling out of American jobs. This begs the question.

1. Were they just to stupid to know what they were doing
2. Or did they just not give a darn?

Wow, with experience like that.....

[The_Casual_Observer]

12. They weren't around to manage it for the last 8 years. However, in

your blind rage you have already decided how things would have turned out, so what's the point of this?

[Skwmom]

14. The point is that I am STUNNED that people think the Clintons have

been good for the American economy.

[The_Casual_Observer]

33. They were good for the economy while they could do something about the

economy. You probably can't understand that.

[bellasgrams]

22. I have heard Hillary say she doesn't agree with NAFTA

and it needs to be changed.

[Armstead]

24. That's just her superficial reply

She does not oppose the basic agenda behind NAFTA, which has been to sacrifice political sovergnty to the dictates of "the markets" and Big Global Capital.

[Skwmom]

28. Newsflash - just because Bill or Hillary Clinton says

something doesn't mean it's true. As others have noted, they are great liars.

[Dogmudgeon]

3. Oh, 22 million new jobs

Turning a half-trillion dollar deficit into a $180B surplus

Bringing peace to Ireland, Yugoslavia, the Mid-East (until Bush operatives told both sides he'd get them each better deals), and parts of Asia

Reducing crime

Reducing poverty for the first time in a decade and a half

Advancing the Head Start program

Increasing scientific research grants

And that's just off the top of my head.

Okay, I admit, a couple of them aren't strictly economic. But they're not bad.

--p!

[Armstead]

9. Aggressively supporting an economic system that is destructive

I'd suggest you look at what was happening with the fundamental underpinnings of the economy during the Clinton years.

Bush simply brought it out into the open.

[Dogmudgeon]

20. Like, what?

It was a tremendous era of prosperity. So good, in fact, that the super-left-wing talking point was that Clinton had "anesthetized us with prosperity". The fundamentals were strong -- the dollar was worth 1.50 Euros; now it is worth about one-third of that. The market capitalization of the USA is about half of what it was when Bush took office. In more stark terms, America is worth half of what it was under Clinton.

George Bush didn't "bring it out in the open". He destroyed it.

I can't understand all the Clinton-hating. Maybe it's because most of the Clinton-haters are affluent people who would have done okay in any economic weather.

--p!

[Armstead]

23. The Clintons were neo-liberals -- another word for GOP style free marketers

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4333840&mesg_id=4333840

William Greider in the interview linked above explains it in much more detail and much more artiulatly than I can.

Short answer though is that they supported the same agenda of privatization, defacto deregulation and other policies that have hollowed out the American economy, weakened the middle class and poor and enabled the frightening monopolization of corporations. They are acolytes of Alan Greenspan, who was an acolyte of Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman and the "Chicago School" of ultra free market economics.

It was a disaster that came to full fruition after Bush took over.

[Skwmom]

10. But how many of those NEW jobs were due to the phony

dot coms and the fact that money was pouring into business start-ups (even if they made no sense)?

I think a lot of our recent economic growth has been due to the phony run up in house prices. People cash out their equity (buying consumer goods) and the housing market boomed (but it really wasn't "real" economic growth). I'm beginning to wonder when is the last time that this country actually experienced real economic growth (and something that wasn't manufactured)?

[Dogmudgeon]

15. Dot-Com jobs: about a million

Incidentally, I was one of them. But that's life.

That leaves 21 million.

--p!

[Skwmom]

17. But I believe that is was more than just internet based companies

who had access to capital during that time (and a lot of those companies ended up not being so viable).

[Dogmudgeon]

27. That number was for all IT -- info technology

I might even be on the low side, but it's still in the right ballpark. It was widely quoted as "one million jobs".

There were certainly business failures under Clinton. That's par for the course. But people assume it was all NAFTA under Clinton, and it wasn't. "Capital formation" was strong, it was becoming more distributed, and people had more credit. This led to the Real Estate boom, but not because of Clinton's doing -- the Fed had a "go-go" money policy, and Clinton got flack for seeking a slow schedule of increases.

Most of the information on Clinton -- both Clintons -- online, is cherry-picked to be derogatory. That may be why the Internet supports Obama about 70/30, while the general population is closer to 50/50 -- or better. The Clinton era was NOT a bad time by any measure. He was a skilled manager and his good mood was infectious; hence the nickname "the Big Dog". The Clintons did a lot of things that the left would applaud, if the left press didn't have its own agenda.

Indeed, there were plenty of things to complain about. But the record in whole is seldom discussed online; only the negative is presented, and the benefits are glossed over if they are mentioned at all. The Clinton-bashing movement has given us a revisionist picture of history. For those concerned about lies, that's a productive lode right there.

--p!

[NJSecularist]

5. People think just because Bill had a good economy during his tenure

They think that the same thing will happen under Hillary's tenure.

[BootinUp]

8. I think her policies are sound and progressive

I make no predictions about the future economic state except to say it will be better with many of the policies she touts than not.

[Skwmom]

19. What is progressive about supporting trade agreements that

lead to:

1. The loss of hundreds of thousands of American jobs.
2. The exploitation of foreign workers.

Wow - it's amazing what passes for progressive these days.

On edit: Is that like George Bush's passionate conservatism?

[bellasgrams]

29. Skwmom-Listen to her, you'll learn of her ideas on correcting

the economy, like how she plans to add new jobs. She has actually spoken in great detail. She has some good plans. No one can fix this mess overnight. She'll have a lot to work on, Iraq and other quagmires, healthcare,jobs, she's spoken on all of them. It will take time, but she's a hardworker and won't spend all her time goofing off like our present goofball in chief.

[BootinUp]

30. Whos platform are you talking about?

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/middleclass/

[BootinUp]

32. Hillary on Inequality

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/inequality/

Hillary has a plan for America to restore a strong middle class in the face of globalization and the Bush administration’s concerns for the special interests.


The fruits of our modern global economy are showing up in the corporate bottom line, not in workers’ paychecks. CEOs have seen their pay go from 24 times the typical worker’s in 1965 to 262 times the typical worker’s in 2005. Last year, the share of national income going to corporate profits was the highest since 1929 – while the share going to the salaries of American workers was the lowest.

Globalization and economic policy dynamics are generating rising income inequality. In 2005, all income gains went to the top 10% of households, while the bottom 90% saw their income decline – despite the fact that worker productivity has increased for six years. In 1970, the top 1% of households held roughly 9% of our nation’s income. In 2005, they held 22% -- the highest level since 1929.

Harder for America’s middle-class and working-class families to make ends meet. Costs are up: health care premiums are up 87 percent since 2000. While productivity growth has gone up 18%, family incomes have gone down $1,300.

This Administration’s policies have fostered these economic outcomes.

Large corporate interests receive protection and benefits
No-bid contracts to Halliburton
Significant tax breaks to oil companies
Tax incentives to corporations shipping jobs overseas
A $1,000-per-patient subsidy to private Medicare plans
Every baby born today starts life with $29,000 of our national debt on his or her shoulders – the largest birth tax in our nation’s history.


We need a new vision of economic fairness and shared prosperity: The foundation of a strong economy is the investments we make in each other – in education, health care, clean energy and new technologies. Shared prosperity, which supports the hopes, dreams and aspirations of all our people, is the true measure of our economic success.

We can achieve these ideals – and this vision – by:

Leveling the playing field and reducing special breaks for big corporations. That means scaling back oil and gas subsidies; allowing Medicare to negotiate lower prices with big drug companies; and requiring big oil companies to either invest in alternative energy or pay into the Strategic Energy Fund to spur clean energy research and development.

Eliminating incentives for American companies to ship jobs and profits overseas. Specifically, the tax code rewards companies for offshoring jobs by enabling them to defer paying American taxes for as long as they hold the money abroad. The current policy puts companies that create jobs in America at a competitive disadvantage. We must pursue tax policies that reward the decision to create jobs in America, rather than abroad.

Reforming the governance of corporations and the financial sector. It is inconsistent with our values to allow CEO pay to skyrocket while workers’ wages and benefits are under threat. There needs to be greater public scrutiny of CEO pay, and more independence of Boards of Directors.

Restoring fiscal responsibility to government. That means balancing the budget; saving Social Security; reducing our dependence on foreign creditors (e.g. China); returning high-income tax rates to the 1990s levels; reforming the AMT; and ensuring that corporations pay their fair share of taxes.

Give every young person an opportunity to attend college, and ensure that education starts early in life and continues into adulthood. College should be made more affordable so that students of all backgrounds can attend. Also, every child should have ready access to high quality pre-K.

More support for community colleges and lifelong learning. We should expand regional skills alliances and other job training programs to ensure workers have the valuable skills they need.

Help working people earn enough to support their families and help them save for the future. That means simplifying and expanding the EITC; overhauling the unemployment insurance system; and making it easier for workers to join unions.

Ensure that every American has quality, affordable health care. It is intolerable that 45 million Americans are without health insurance, particularly considering that we are spending nearly $500 billion on the war in Iraq.

Make investments necessary for creating new jobs. New job sources are needed to preserve and expand the middle class. Investments in alternative energy can create new jobs for the 21st century; expanded access to broadband will bring opportunities to underserved/disadvantaged communities; the manufacturing base can be re-energized through creative partnerships; and innovation—with increased government support for R&D—will help us find and develop the jobs of tomorrow.

[Seeker30]

35. Well its more of a proven track record than Obama

[OHdem10]

6. It has been reported ad nauseam Hilary did not agree

with Nafta.

No matter what you say--the 90s were seen as a time of prosperity
and peace. The Working Class amd Poor did very well during
that time.

When Hilary speaks on the economy she speaks with authority.

[Skwmom]

11. It has been reported ad nausem that she did agree with NAFTA

and like Bill she has been a BIG free trader.

[rodeodance]

26. you are trying to reason with the blind-faith folks. good luck

[Armstead]

7. It baffles me too -- Clintonomics ws a fundamental restructuring for the worse

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4333840&mesg_id=4333840

A thread you might find of interest about this.

[Skwmom]

13. I think they need to put it in straightforward terms to the American

Public so they can make the connection.

[Dogmudgeon]

34. And that's why the hard-core left hates Clinton

Instead of spinning abstract theories that proved the entire economic world was corrupt except for leftist economists, Clinton actually grew the economy. One of the slogans among the Nader/Counterpunch left was that Clinton had "anesthetized us with prosperity".

Greider is not particularly objective about economics. He is a critic of the system; his analyses of disaster are often spot-on, but he has usually failed to account for positive economic news. When things are going well, he relies on the business cycle to make his case: "things will only get worse!" This all pre-dates Clinton; Greider has been reporting for about 30 years. He's, financially, a "bear". Clinton is (and this will get many titters I'm sure) a "bull". And bulls have little cache.

What Clinton critics and haters have never come to grips with is that he fostered one of the best economic eras in American history. The right says he wrecked Free Enterprise, and the left says he was a Dirty Capitalist. But lots of people got jobs, and better jobs, and saved more money, and had better credit. Any pundit who claims to speak for The People needs to understand that. The Clintons are goats to a big piece of the Inteligentsiya, but heroes to two generations of working Americans.

--p!

[Armstead]

36. It's not abstract theory -- and it's not "hate"

Gosh you Clintonistas love that word "hate."

I've been reading Greider for a long time. Yes his assesments are often downbeat -- but that is because he is analyzing a situation that is downbeat. BUT I don't believe is is simply a pessimist. He does acknowledge the positive side of things. But he is not a Pollyanna.

Your claim that the Clintons fostered one of the greatest economic eras is only partially true. First of all, the Clintons coincided with the emergence of new technology, which would have resulted in an explosion of economic activity no matter who was in charge.

And much of that boom was a bubble, as we learned as Clinton was leaving office. And the aftermath was bad because the boom itself was based on a lot of illusion. Remember all of the happy talk about how "the days of economic cycles are over" and that the economy would be on a continued upward path from then on....Gimme a break.

The Clintons presided over a period of unprecidented consolidation of the economy into the hands of a few monopolistic corporations. They also supported the system that was deliberatly designed to weaken or eliminate the ability of nations to establish their own laws and policies. The whole purpose of "free trade" was to assert complete domionance of "markets" (i.e. big global capital) over civil laws.

As for the right claiming that Clinton wrecked free enterprise, that's not quite true. In all of the Clinton bashing by conservatives over the years, the focus has mostly been on NON ECONOMIC issues. The right wing has claimed that Clinton is a womanizer, personally corrupt, a supporter of gays....etc. But they have seldom criticized him economically, except on the occasions when they lump him with all Democrats as a "socialist" in a meaningless way.

[rodeodance]

18. Have you seen her new Job-creating Green Economy plan?--I heard

the speech--
she's my woman--

[Skwmom]

21. I've been reading about the green economy for a while. Wow, I never

knew that was Clinton's invention.

[rodeodance]

25. She does not claim to have invented it. But you knew that didn't you!

[Iceburg]

38. Guess that's why Hillary got Bobby Kennedy JR's nod /nt

[denem]

31. You only have to listen to her.

She has a deep, sophisticated understanding on the subject. A moratorium on foreclosures, a freeze on subprime interest rate rises is exactly the way to go.

Throwing money at the electorate is like saying cash handouts could have stopped bank cloosures in the Great Depression.

[HughBeaumont]

37. Got me by the sackolios.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/GC01Df03.html
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/538674.cms
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/593175.cms

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhLBSLLIhUs
Hillary pushes for more h1-b visas and outsourcing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLNOSGM2jK4
Hillary Clinton's hypocrisy (part 1)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgdrh2Bc95M
Hillary Clinton's hypocrisy (part 2)

Anyone who has positions such as these . . . I'd be hard pressed to refer to them as a democrat. Sorry. Free Trade is part of the problem, not the solution. Free Trade has done nothing for the middle class, working class and working poor except make tons more money to people who do not need it.

Rah rah all day about lower prices for the consumer, but at what cost does it come? Many blue collar workers started losing their jobs in mass quantities starting with the Clinton Administration thanks in large part to NAFTA and under Bewsh, white collar workers were laid off by the thousands (I was one of them). Did NO one see The Big One by Michael Moore, filmed during the vaunted Clinton Administration? A free trader's a free trader no matter WHAT stripe.

Because of the personal experience of being fired and having more than my fair share of relatives who have been affected by free-trade bullshit, no politician who supports this moldy bill of Reaganite goods will EVER get my vote. And it makes me sick to NO end that people on this site actually SUPPORT free trade and job offshoring. That's UNconscionable and odious.

But hey, I guess we'll again try to win elections with the Dems we HAVE . . . not the Dems we NEED.

[jeffrey_X]

40. Obviously because she was physically in the white house in the 90's. LMFAO!

Don't you remember what "we" did back in the 90's??????????????????????????????????????