GOP threatens to "go nuclear" on DOJ appointees if Obama releases Bush torture memos:

[Plow]

Checkmate:

Plow makes these statements:

What is recent history? 10 years? 20 years? 30 years? most liberal compared to whom? Did he make a legitimate list of qualities and compare them with the qualities of a different administration? He did not.

Sure, ignore the massive tax cuts for the poor and lower middle class, ignore the big low market investment (education, scientific research, health care), the extensive globalization, the actual balancing of the budget, saving medicare, shit like saving Mexico's financial ass, huge huge hueeeeeeg environmental action, etc. etc.

You know, the shit he got done with literally *ZERO* republican votes.


And I guess we're also ignoring the globalization and other international economic actions (NAFTA anyone?), actually attempting to do something productive like end wars with peaceful resolution, getting on NK's "good side" (for a time at least) by actually offering more help rather than simply threatening to take it away, again, saving Mexico's financial ass, etc. The international liberalism came down largely to the economic globalization.

In proposing a plan to cut the deficit, Clinton submitted a budget that would cut the deficit by $500 billion over five years by reducing $255 billion of spending and raising taxes on the wealthiest 1.2% of Americans.[26] It also imposed a new energy tax on all Americans and subjected about a quarter of those receiving Social Security payments to higher taxes on their benefits.[27]

Republican Congressional leaders launched an aggressive opposition against the bill, claiming that the tax increase would only make matters worse. Republicans were united in this opposition, as it were, and every Republican in both houses of Congress voted against the proposal. In fact, it took Vice President Gore's tie-breaking vote in the Senate to pass the bill.[28] After extensive lobbying by the Clinton Administration, the House narrowly voted in favor of the bill by a vote of 218 to 216.[29] The budget package expanded the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) as relief to low-income families. It reduced the amount they paid in federal income and Federal Insurance Contributions Act tax (FICA), providing $21 billion in relief for 15 million low-income families. Improved economic conditions and policies served to encourage investors in the bond market, leading to a decline in long-term interest rates. The bill contributed to dramatic decline of the budget deficit in the years following its enactment–in 1998, for the first time since 1969, the nation achieved a budget surplus.[30] The surplus money was used to pay down the national debt, which had risen to $5.4 trillion by 1997. The economy continued to grow, and in February 2000 it broke the record for the longest uninterrupted economic expansion in U.S. history—lasting ten years.[31] In the year 2000, the nation was on track to be debt free for the first time since 1835.

The worst statement yet. Did he prove this? Did he compare the "progress" the clinton administration made with all other forms of progress of every other administration? He did not.

Economic growth: longest consecutive period in American history

Homeownership: Highest ever recorded

New jobs: Most ever under any president

Inflation: 1/4 as high as average income rise

Unemployment: Lowest since Kennedy

Unemployment among black: Lowest ever

" among Hispanic: Lowest ever

Surplus: Largest ever

Decrease in debt: Largest ever

And he has the guts to say:

That other people have to debunk that claims he never proved were true in the first place!

Is that not a charlatan?

urite, I've not given any examples of anything, you are an impregnable pillar of logic and reason.


Did you want me to pull a you and copypasta 5000 articles or what? Oh wait, I even did a bit of that for you.

I guess I forgot to add a RAH RAH?

Oh, and as for what is recent? I'd say last 50-60 years ish.

[Rhinox]

I can name quite a few people that where more Liberal in their economic policies. Including a few republicans.

[Rhinox]

Yeah all those black and mexican guys that started Microsoft and Intel.

He came in and enacted specific plans to reduce the deficit.

quick wiki:




His liberal economic brilliance was seriously beyond amazing.

wat. the .com bubble had nothing to do with microsoft or intel. It had to do with Online stores selling shit cheap and trying to make up the losses in volume. which failed miserably. as for blacks and hispanics what exactly do you think happens when the economy is in a bubble? Jobs are created. What do you think happens when that bubble bursts? the 2001 recession happens.

[Plow]

The point is it was all happening before that, the .com explosion was 98+, at which point we already had the surplus.

[Beckwin]

clinton did do a lot of good things domestically, however, he also made welfare cuts (packaged as reforms) that hurt some of the demographic he may have helped in other ways. Internationally, Clinton wasn't very "liberal" or leftist at all. Clinton also instituted DADT- hardly a liberal policy.

so while clinton did do some liberally-minded tinkering with the system, it's also hard to say that he's the most liberal president in recent times. Or rather, saying that would be meaningless because if you look at the 30 years before obama, you see that all but 12 years were under GOP stewardship... so really, who are you comparing to? When it comes to liberal/progressive administrations in modern history, I think the candle goes to FDR, despite his inexcuseable detainment of Japanese-Americans.

[Plow]

I can name quite a few people that where more Liberal in their economic policies. Including a few republicans.

Only really in the slight opening of markets, as concessions to GoP, was he at all conservative, in terms of the people first strategy and social liberal ideals (fix the bottom, narrow the gap, environmental regulation, heal care) he was extremely liberal.

Even in the conglomeration bill he was going to veto if it didn't get a fair bit of consumer (particularly for the poor) protection/benefit added in.

[Plow]

clinton did do a lot of good things domestically, however, he also made welfare cuts (packaged as reforms) that hurt some of the demographic he may have helped in other ways.

The republican welfare reforms Clinton signed were a good thing. They promoted the move out of poverty, and after 2 vetos they ended up keeping the most important core things (food stamps and medicaid) available to anyone that needs them.

Internationally, Clinton wasn't very "liberal" or leftist at all.

He was almost (well, actually literally at a couple points) liberal to a fault in foreign policy, not wanting to take military action, which ended up costing a lot of lives. His policy was largely to not get involved unless absolutely necessary for the sake of protecting human rights.

His international economic action used the idea of promoting a smooth international economy to push for better regulation of labor and environmental issues worldwide.

He did what needed to be done with Iraq without full scale war.

Clinton also instituted DADT- hardly a liberal policy.

... Prior to DADT, it was flat out no gays. DADT kept the "no blatant gay shit" clause, but, theoretically at least, prevented "investigation," harassment, etc.

You can say it's unreasonable to argue that gay people being openly gay could be a disruption, but DADT only limited the kind of shit that people have legitimate concerns about, similar to the reasons co-ed bunking is largely disallowed.

so while clinton did do some liberally-minded tinkering with the system, it's also hard to say that he's the most liberal president in recent times. Or rather, saying that would be meaningless because if you look at the 30 years before obama, you see that all but 12 years were under GOP stewardship... so really, who are you comparing to? When it comes to liberal/progressive administrations in modern history, I think the candle goes to FDR, despite his inexcuseable detainment of Japanese-Americans.

I'd put FDR and Clinton right about in the same level of "liberal-ness", but FDR was able to accomplish more liberal policy overall due to the situation, Clinton had to fight tooth and nail for everything. Their foreign policy (economically, at least) was extremely similar.

You have to remember, when FDR did something that helped the poor... that wasn't helping everyone in the theoretical sense of economic consumerism, that was literally helping everyone right then and there.

[Beckwin]

Welfare-to-Work has been a horribly executed program, and his other cuts weren't all that great either. Welfare cuts are a populist issue because, even though compared to our major expenditures don't even register, it appeals to even the lower rungs of the middle class because people like to feel better than other people and cutting something framed as a "wasteful handout" is politically advantageous. Zinn has been referred to already, but he does a nice alternative look at the Clinton welfare "reform".

Clinton's sanctioning of Iraq resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths. It's not liberal policy to deny trade/goods to a population; it runs rather counter to internationalist ideas. Again, perhaps the word neoliberal needs to be applied? Otherwise, Clinton certainly made interventions, and just because they were handled efficiently/effectively doesn't make them liberal or leftist in nature. Importantly, Clinton didn't really change any of the status quo foreign policy for dealing with Latin/South America, and other areas- this highlights his degree of complicity with America's neoconservative foreign policy of the last 50 or so years.

You can argue for Clinton being just as or more liberal than FDR, but your argument of situation engenders that you can only argue that point in a speculative nature. The fact is that FDR enacted major welfare programs, drastically altered the tax scale, engaged in massive public works projects, and certainly initiated a lot of new ground for gov't economic regulation. Clinton: not so much. He did try to launch a healthcare program, which is commendable and scores him some lefty points, but it's not really enough to compare with FDR.

[Plow]

You have to realize, though, that Clinton's welfare cuts didn't simply disappear into the surplus-- it was largely reallocated to educational and community works projects.

The problem is that for the welfare-to-work system to work, there have to be jobs available and "out of poverty" has to actually mean something, beyond "over x amount of income." The Workforce Investment act was huge, the consumerist policies overall extremely effective-- and then it was all undone when Bush took over.

As far as Iraq, it had gotten to the point where the collective international community knew that denial of investigation could not be allowed. It's not like Bush where we made up a bunch of bullshit about how he had to be hiding something super-duper well, it was an issue of direct defiance of international agreement. There's no question he had to be disarmed-- and at that time he was not. It's a tremendous difference from the neoconservative push for democracy by force, it was a strong declaration of support for democracy, alongside enforcement of U.N. policy.