View Single Post
Old 03-31-2008, 10:06 AM   #32 (permalink)
mixedmedia
has all her shots.
 
mixedmedia's Avatar
 
Location: Florida
Quote:
Originally Posted by host
I agree with you, mixedmedia, but my priority is bringing federal spending under control. I see only one slim hope of any of the three candidates doing that.

Whatever your differences are with Clinton, the facts are that Obama offers no hope....in his rhetoric or in his proposals, to cut the size of the rate of increase of the national debt.

In 1992, the national debt was rising by $350 billion per year, the economy was contracting....conditions extremely similar to the conditions now, except total debt then was $4.4 trillion, and now it's $9.4 trillion.

The husband of Hillary Clinton won the presidential election that year, and a few months later, proposed, pushed through the legislature, and signed a bill with tax increases that overwhelmingly burdened the wealthiest folks.

Not one republican in the house voted for that bill. Clinton's husband went on to be president for 8 years, reducing federal borrowing down to a low of just $18 billion in the budget year ended 9/30/00. He presided over dramatic reductions in non-defense federal employment, to the lowest actual numbers of personnel since 1960.

If the dollar exchange rate continues it's decline, if the massive federal borrowing, at a record $700 billion in this fiscal year, aggravated by borrowing $150 billion to attempt buy votes in an election year via the tax rebate stimulus package, can be publicized as a crisis issue.....

....wouldn't it make sense for the Clintons to point to Bill's '90s debt trend reversal accomplishment, as an appeal to super delegates to vote for Hillary in the interest of attempting to reverse the country's fiscal crisis?

It is a crisis...maybe nobody can reverse it in time....but there is no sign that Obama has the experience or commitment to do what Bill did, as quickly as he did it....or.....at all. Hillary is not stupid.....she was there, when her husband had to deal with similar economic conditions, as we are not dealing with, today.

What has Obama done, what does he offer? We're down to maybe our last chance to keep our currency from turning into toilet paper....maybe it is too late to even reverse the decline. Is it a responsible thing to take a chance on Obama? If Hillary moves closer in numbers after the next three primaries, I would be willing to help make an appeal like the one I've made in this post.

All of Obama's good intentions....domestic programs, tax cuts for the middle class, etc... along with his proposal to beef up US ground forces by 92,000 additional troops, sound great....on paper. He's never been in the position that Bill Clinton has been in....coming into a presidency with hopelessly high deficit trend, a no growth economy, hamstrung by a tax policy written by republicans, for the benefit of the rich, at the expense of federal revenue.

If you were a business owner in a dire financial situation, as we in the US are now, and were in 1992..... which team could you justify hiring, to your investors, partners, or board of directors? Would you hire the inexperienced team Obama, or the proven financial crisis managers.... demonstrated results achieved, in a prior assignment in a company just like yours...the Clintons?

If you stayed close....and you have to continue to campaign to find out if you can....and you were team Clinton, and you and other Obama supporters could put aside your support for Obama so you could be as openminded as possible about it, and the economy got worse in the meantime, as it most likely will..... can you consider that team Clinton will at least attempt a pitch like this one, to the super delegates and to the country? What do they have to lose, in trying?
I see your point.
But:
1. I'm not at all comfortable with voting for Bill Clinton de facto through his wife. That's a discomfiting thought for multiple reasons.
2. Hillary Clinton's stance on economic issues are virtually indistinguishable from Barack Obama's. As is the case with Bill Clinton's campaign stances in 1992 and most other recent democratic nominees for president. Tax cuts for the middle class, tax hikes on the wealthy, invest in education, technology, etc., etc. With unique exceptions like the current housing crisis, which Barack and Hillary are (again) nearly aligned on.
3. There was little indication going into his presidency that Bill Clinton's policies would be as successful as they were and rational economists (not ideological naysayers) admit that Bill Clinton was not the only phenomena responsible for the economic recovery.
4. A president is only as good as his/her administration.
5. As for the war issue, I am not a supporter of immediate withdrawal from Iraq. But if that is an issue for you, then of course you know Clinton has not stated a deadline for troop removal while Obama has. I'm not sure how that is supposed to make a case for Clinton.

Listen, I am not totally romanced by either of these two, but when I read their stances on the many issues out there, Obama's simply match my own more closely. But truthfully, there's really not that much difference between them. That's why I'm pretty suspicious about this 'vicious battle' within the Democratic party. I think it's been perpetrated by the media - and, as is true so often with saturation, it is self-fulfilling. Therefore I don't trust anything that's being said out there. From the Rev. Wright 'scandal' to this recent Leahy bullshit..which is actually this:

Quote:
The Vermont Democrat says there is no way that Senator Clinton is going to win enough delegates to get the nomination. Leahy told Vermont Public Radio in an interview Wednesday that Clinton ought to withdraw and should be backing Senator Barack Obama. But Leahy said that's obviously a decision only Clinton can make.
Sounds like an off-hand comment that got picked up and runned with. Dontcha think? I fucking hate the news.
__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

Last edited by mixedmedia; 03-31-2008 at 10:10 AM..
mixedmedia is offline  
 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360