Bill Clinton on the problem economy we are living with

[SillyAmerican]

Bill Clinton's comments from a speech given in Indianapolis, IN on April 26th:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Do you agree with President Clinton? Will this be the issue that's at the heart of this election cycle? If so, which of the presidential candidates do you think would do the best job of addressing this problem, and why?

[Derpist]

He's entirely correct. Too bad he's probably the one man in the world most responsible for that fact.

Maybe it takes a Clinton to clean after a Clinton, but I am skeptical for obvious reasons.

[Dr. Arch]

I agree, and from the two plausible candidates left, I believe HRC is best suited for the job, naturally.

[SillyAmerican]

Maybe it takes a Clinton to clean after a Clinton, but I am skeptical for obvious reasons.

What are those obvious reasons? And again, who do you think would do well on this issue, and why?

I agree, and from the two plausible candidates left, I believe HRC is best suited for the job, naturally.

Why naturally? What makes you think Hillary will do the best to get the economy going?

[RaphaelDLG]

To BC I say: 

No sh**t, Sherlock.  F**k you for enabling the Democratic party's push toward deregulation/not doing anything substantive about equality of opportunity and equitable economic growth for the purpose of "fiscal responsibility."

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

To BC I say: 

No sh**t, Sherlock.  F**k you for enabling the Democratic party's push toward deregulation/not doing anything substantive about equality of opportunity and equitable economic growth for the purpose of "fiscal responsibility."

Pretty much this. Big ones are welfare reform and financial deregulation. Of course there's no shortage of other right-wing stuff from the Clinton administration.

[136or142]

He's entirely correct. Too bad he's probably the one man in the world most responsible for that fact.

Maybe it takes a Clinton to clean after a Clinton, but I am skeptical for obvious reasons.

Bull***, Satan Ronnie is far more responsible.

[Dr. Arch]

Maybe it takes a Clinton to clean after a Clinton, but I am skeptical for obvious reasons.

What are those obvious reasons? And again, who do you think would do well on this issue, and why?

I agree, and from the two plausible candidates left, I believe HRC is best suited for the job, naturally.

Why naturally? What makes you think Hillary will do the best to get the economy going?

Because the last time we had a Clinton in the White House, the economy did remarkably well, for everyone. HRC is experienced and will surely follow along the same path. What does Donald Trump have on her other than his bombastic and verbose rhetoric that appeals to people who are easily swayed by simple solutions with no substance? That is why it is a natural assertion. If the GOP were running a more competent, experienced, and serious candidate, then we could talk about OPTIONS. Right now, we don't have any. It's either Cruz, let's just shut the government down and make the public lose billions of dollars, or Trump (see above) on the other side. So when faced with that choice, of course HRC is the go-to choice.

[Meclazine for Israel]

Who was better economically? Obama or Bill Clinton?

[RaphaelDLG]

Who was better economically? Obama or Bill Clinton?

Obama, by far.  Obama is a neoliberal that has deeply disappointed me and looked out for big corporations/finance way too much, but he's objectively WAY better than BC.

Obama Pros:
- The stimulus was not big enough but many Presidents wouldn't have done it/gotten it done and it was badly needed.
- Dodd-Frank sucked and didn't really fix many fundamental problems but at least it was a minor step in the right direction
- He kind of tried to get an infrastructure bill passed; though he failed I was actually pretty happy with his effort.
- Appointed Yellen

Obama Cons:
- The bailout was handled really, really badly/was basically just consequence-free for WS CEOs, managers, reckless firms, etc and didn't fix any systemic problems with economy
- No infrastructure bill
- Did not stop the problems of expanding economic inequality or even inequality of opportunity

Clinton Pros:
- More responsible with his dollar than, say, GWB - didn't spend on anything stupid.  Balanced the budget, he/Gore were planning on doing good things with it and of course Bush blew it

Clinton Cons:
- Accelerated deregulation that devastated America and ruined millions of lives in 07-08
- Took credit for an economic boom that he mostly had nothing to do with/was the result of technological advances
- Continued the entrenchment of Reaganite/Friedmanite structures that result in economic inequality or economic inequality of opportunity

[RaphaelDLG]

Because the last time we had a Clinton in the White House, the economy did remarkably well, for everyone. HRC is experienced and will surely follow along the same path. What does Donald Trump have on her other than his bombastic and verbose rhetoric that appeals to people who are easily swayed by simple solutions with no substance? That is why it is a natural assertion. If the GOP were running a more competent, experienced, and serious candidate, then we could talk about OPTIONS. Right now, we don't have any. It's either Cruz, let's just shut the government down and make the public lose billions of dollars, or Trump (see above) on the other side. So when faced with that choice, of course HRC is the go-to choice.

In general the way the American voter (perhaps not you) assigns credit for the economy to the sitting President is dumb/simplistic.

Fiscal stimulus and fiscal austerity can have short-term consequences, but most of the ways the President impacts the economy are played out in the long term, i.e., appointing a good, bad, or horrible fed chair, deregulating the market, not investing in the future via infrastructure, healthcare, education, etc.

[Torie]

Indeed. Stagnating standards of living, and the erosion thereof for some, is what is fueling the anger. It is mostly with folks who make a bit too much money, to be living mostly on transfer payments. And since that is going to be the way it is for quite awhile (there really are no short term fixes that would work, certainly not protectionism), the anger will be with us for quite awhile unless folks just start getting used to it, and accept it, as their expectations erode.

[libertpaulian]

I can't wait for Trump to use that line in attack ads.