|
Post by Kizzume on Nov 19, 2007 2:16:02 GMT -5
I don't understand why the gay community respects Bill Clinton so much. He did more to hurt the gay community in one presidency than any other. He signed DOMA and pushed forth Dont Ask Don't Tell. How was that helping the gay community? Why did gay people like Bill Clinton?
|
|
|
Post by jq on Nov 19, 2007 2:20:10 GMT -5
The same reason a lot of people like slick willy. He is so charismatic and slick about things that he always comes off as the good guy. But he is the guy who signed Nafta, who denied permission to kill Bin Laden, and who backed down on his original gay policy when he sensed opposition. Having said that, I like him, because under him we weren't in war, our economy was great, and the government had a surplus. Maybe why gay people like him is that they tend to be a little bit liberal, and most moderately liberal people like him, if only for the three reasons I listed above.
|
|
|
Post by Kizzume on Nov 19, 2007 2:31:14 GMT -5
True, he certainly was president when the internet bubble was forming, and he definitely didn't start any wars, and he didn't spend tons of government money on things we didn't need, I'll give him that.
Man, that NAFTA thing....
|
|
|
Post by redstaterebel on Nov 19, 2007 7:27:29 GMT -5
The same reason a lot of people like slick willy. He is so charismatic and slick about things that he always comes off as the good guy. But he is the guy who signed Nafta, who denied permission to kill Bin Laden, and who backed down on his original gay policy when he sensed opposition. Having said that, I like him, because under him we weren't in war, our economy was great, and the government had a surplus. Maybe why gay people like him is that they tend to be a little bit liberal, and most moderately liberal people like him, if only for the three reasons I listed above. Your reasons for liking him are off the mark. War - there were several military conflicts of choice during his administration. Granted, not on the this scale - but still. Surplus & Economy - The budget was in surplus for 3 of his 8 years - which is nice. However, when one looks at the reasoning for it - the influx of revenue into the govt - i've yet to find someone report a policy of his that led to it. The influx was due largely to capital gains taxes on stock market gains - eg tech stocks. Which, of course, began their dramatic descent in March of 2000. Once those profits dried up, we were right back in the red. There is a phenom out there about crediting or blaming the president (any president) for the status of the economy without being able to point to any policy. Note how you mention DOMA as a detriment for Clinton. True, he signed it - but this was republican legislation - and Clinton gets the lion's share of the blame for it. With Reagan, we could point to the overhaul of the tax system. With FDR we could point to public works projects. I would be interesting in reading any about any specific pieces of legislation of the former president that someone liked? Especially in terms of gay and/or minority rights.
|
|
|
Post by Kizzume on Nov 19, 2007 19:22:38 GMT -5
You know, I really can't think of any off the top of my head. That's kind-of scary.
|
|
|
Post by jq on Nov 19, 2007 19:25:10 GMT -5
You know, I really can't think of any off the top of my head. That's kind-of scary. Well he got the infamous line item veto legislated....and then it got deemed "unconstitutional" by the supreme court..... But in all seriousness, let us not forget that he signed a major piece of legislation regarding welfare reform which played a part in surplus, he also signed the "minimum wage increase act" which helped the working poor, the "brady bill" which helped reduce gun violence, and he passed the "Violent Crime Control" bill. And it is worth noting that crime decreased pretty heavily under his presidency.
|
|
|
Post by Kizzume on Nov 19, 2007 19:32:25 GMT -5
Good point about the minimum wage and the violent crime bill. Yes, those were definitely good things. Not a very big list though It was certainly more than I could think of.
|
|
|
Post by jq on Nov 19, 2007 19:39:29 GMT -5
Do keep in mind though that he had a republican congress for at least a good chunk of his presidency and therefore wasn't able to necessarily get a lot of agendas pushed that he may otherwise have gone for.
|
|
|
Post by Kizzume on Nov 19, 2007 19:47:58 GMT -5
Yeah, but he DID have the power to veto, just like Bush does. He could have vetoed DOMA, NAAFTA, and DADT.
|
|
|
Post by redstaterebel on Nov 20, 2007 7:14:41 GMT -5
True that the crime legislation was good. And true that he could have vetoed the DOMA.
My point was that there is not a single piece of economic legislation which led to the good times of 95-99. I can't credit the former President or the Republican Congress for it. There is actually very little that the President/Congress can do to affect the economy. Taxes and Gov't spending are the two primary ones - which are often just tweaked a little.
The economy has a life of its own.
I
|
|
|
Post by Kizzume on Nov 20, 2007 13:45:48 GMT -5
I agree with you mostly, except for
In the case of Bush, where we're dealing with the sum of WELL over $800,000,000,000.00, it isn't really a "little". But I'm sure you agree with that because of THIS statement following:
It's the "OFTEN just tweaked a little".
I'm glad I read that finally.
Yes, I agree with you. The economy has a life of its own, and it can be killed or severely damaged by a president that makes extremely poor decisions during important times.
|
|
|
Post by redstaterebel on Nov 23, 2007 7:27:27 GMT -5
During economic slow downs - such as 2000 - I think tax relief is exactly the right move. Either way - reduce taxes, or increase gov't spending - causes deficit problems.
At some point we have to pay for it though.
|
|
|
Post by Kizzume on Nov 23, 2007 11:17:55 GMT -5
In 2000 it didn't seem like a bad idea. After March 2003 it was an insane thing to do.
|
|
|
Post by redstaterebel on Nov 24, 2007 7:07:18 GMT -5
03 or 04 - I would agree that the recovery was pretty well on its way.
Recall though - 02 was ugly. The stock market - as an established leading indicator - the Dow in march of 00 was around 11k. It got all the way down to around 7,500 in 02 (its roughly 13k today).
That 7500 was a combination of 9/11 sucking roughly $1 trillion out of the economy and we were still seething from the Enron, Worldcom, tech stock collapses.
Raising individual income taxes though - reduces our net take home pay - with high gas prices, heating oil, rising heath costs, etc - tough time for a tax hike.
|
|
|
Post by Kizzume on Nov 24, 2007 13:07:04 GMT -5
The thing is, the people who felt the tax breaks the most were rich people. Those who didn't make very much didn't see very much improvements in their tax returns. Sure, it affected everyone, just not very much. I saw, what was it--like $35 more than I would have normally. Raising individual income taxes to the pre-tax-break-period would primarily be a burden to the rich. Primarily. When we spend more, we NEED to tax more. When we spend less, we NEED to tax less.
What would hurt people the most right now is if gas prices started to really skyrocket--it would bring the price of everything up.
|
|