Bill Clinton -vs- George W. Bush

[BigPapaVol]

Clinton is one of my favs.

Would have been different without massive congressional shift induced by his first two years of silliness.

 

[Coach Grizz]

I'm going with the first black president Bill Clinton!! Lol

 

[rjd970]

Would have been different without massive congressional shift induced by his first two years of silliness.

Clinton because of this ^

 

[MG1968]

Clinton after 1994

Bush before 2003

 

[rjd970]

It wasn't so much Clinton had a repub congress that helped, it was more the fact that it wasn't so divided. The moderates just aren't there anymore.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Clinton.

pro troll, imo

Gotta step up your game to get to his level

 

[dreVol]

Would have been different without massive congressional shift induced by his first two years of silliness.

and the dot com boom and real estate bubble.

 

[sjt18]

The Clinton years were better.

The better question is, which one of those presidents had a better congress?

True. His first two years are a clear indication of where he was headed had the 94 revolution not occurred.

Newt Gingrich should get as much if not more credit for those years as Clinton. In fact... that is exactly the case I expect him to make if he gets the nomination.

 

[sjt18]

and the dot com boom and real estate bubble.

Absolutely. Those were factors. He, and we, benefited directly from a housing boom that has caused the recent problems.

The Y2K scare also helped by shoving ALOT of capital investment into 98 and 99 that would have been spent between 2000 and 2005. I was with a major retail corporation at the time. They spent 3 years worth of capital in one year for fear their whole system would come crashing down.

 

[VOLatile]

It wasn't so much Clinton had a repub congress that helped, it was more the fact that it wasn't so divided. The moderates just aren't there anymore.

Yes. The Republicans in Congress now are annoyingly divisive compared to the 90's.

 

[sjt18]

Yes. The Republicans in Congress now are annoyingly divisive compared to the 90's.

You don't remember the 90's very well if you think this... but interesting that you blame the GOP for being divisive for refusing to roll over (every time anyway) for the Dems.

It is divisive I suppose to be grown up enough to say that a gov't that is BROKE cannot continue to grow its budget by 5-8% per year (somewhere between 200-400% greater than the economy is growing)... right?

If so... more power to the divisive.

 

[sjt18]

It wasn't so much Clinton had a repub congress that helped, it was more the fact that it wasn't so divided. The moderates just aren't there anymore.

Clinton was more or less "moderate". He became somewhat conservative in some economic aspects- ie his strong dollar policy, regulatory restraint, and general good will toward the private sector. The Congress who helped him succeed was decidedly conservative. This is what you get with just a "right of center" government... it would be much better still with a clearly conservative governing coalition.

The difference between then and now... is liberals and particularly the diehard Progressive in the WH. I doubt you will EVER hear him utter "The era of big gov't is over".

 

[n_huffhines]

It wasn't so much Clinton had a repub congress that helped, it was more the fact that it wasn't so divided. The moderates just aren't there anymore.

Completely disagree. I think both parties look more like each other than they ever have. They may be divided over political power, but they're simply 2 sides of the same coin. Bush or Obama in office, it doesn't matter. We have bailouts, croney capitalism, the PATRIOT Act, wars, out of control spending, etc.

The rhetoric is different, the results are the same.

 

[KiffinKiller]

Completely disagree. I think both parties look more like each other than they ever have. They may be divided over political power, but they're simply 2 sides of the same coin. Bush or Obama in office, it doesn't matter. We have bailouts, croney capitalism, the PATRIOT Act, wars, out of control spending, etc.

The rhetoric is different, the results are the same.

no no. democrats are evil

 

[WA_Vol]

Clinton

 

[RespectTradition]

no no. democrats are evil

Democans = Republicrats = evil

 

[BigPapaVol]

Completely disagree. I think both parties look more like each other than they ever have. They may be divided over political power, but they're simply 2 sides of the same coin. Bush or Obama in office, it doesn't matter. We have bailouts, croney capitalism, the PATRIOT Act, wars, out of control spending, etc.

The rhetoric is different, the results are the same.

Generally right. A little over the top with media fodder, but they're all of the vote buying mode today.

 

[BigPapaVol]

Yes. The Republicans in Congress now are annoyingly divisive compared to the 90's.

LawGator level of absurd.

 

[KiffinKiller]

Democans = Republicrats = evil

that's what I meant. My facetiousness (is that a word?) loses some effect when typed out.

 

[mdrew27]

Bush was awesome.

 

[KiffinKiller]

Bush was awesome for Bush.

 

[RespectTradition]

Bush was awesome.

Are you high or being facetious?

 

[Gramps]

True. His first two years are a clear indication of where he was headed had the 94 revolution not occurred.

Newt Gingrich should get as much if not more credit for those years as Clinton. In fact... that is exactly the case I expect him to make if he gets the nomination.

I don't think Newt wants to talk a lot about those years. He was a disaster as speaker. The GOP congress turned against him and he wasn't going to be able to remain speaker of the house. Newt stepped down as speaker and resigned from congress.

 

[KiffinKiller]

who names their child Newt?

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Newt Gingrich should get as much if not more credit for those years as Clinton. In fact... that is exactly the case I expect him to make if he gets the nomination.

That is going to be interesting if he plays that card.

:zeitung_lesen: