I debate on a couple of sites, and whenever many of the guys there are backed into a corner about some of the bad moves made by thier guy, the next thing you here was "well, Clinton was bad"- I would like to start on a debate not on Clintons character, but rather on his policies, and if they harmed or helped the economy, nation etc. I am new to this debate page and I like the way the moderators keep these things on topic, I would really like to see what legislation he personally sponsored or supported that was good or bad to be debated rationally!

Clinton undermined the economy by letting nafta thru, so yes he did hurt us, and it will continue to hurt us as the economy only gets worse

The one off the top of my head that helped a certain minority in this country was the first thing he signed into law as commander and chief of our armed forces; the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy.

Some of Clinton's policies were okay but NAFTA is hurting our economy

"January 1, 2002 was the eighth anniversary of the implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement: NAFTA now has an extensive real life record. NAFTA's proponents promised the pact would create new benefits and gains in each of these areas. The promised benefits ­of 200,000 new U.S. jobs from NAFTA per year, higher wages in Mexico and a growing U.S. trade surplus with Mexico, environmental clean-up and improved health along the border ­have failed to materialize. However, after eight years, NAFTA fails to pass the most conservative test of all: a simple do-no-harm test. Under NAFTA, conditions not only have not improved, they have deteriorated in many areas"
----------------------------------
"Against strong opposition from within his own party, Mr Clinton pushed through a trade deal that created the North American Free Trade Area (NAFTA) between the USA, Canada and Mexico in 1995.

But he was forced to agree to "sideline" agreements incorporating labour and environmental standards.

Mr Clinton was never again able to gain "fast-track" authorisation from Congress, which would have given him the authority to negotiate further trade deals, and his plans for Latin American free trade zone soon faltered - as did his ambitions to launch the Pacific Century, using the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum (APEC) as the framework for a regional trade opening.

But he did negotiate an agreement with China in 1999 that cleared the way for its membership in the World Trade Organisation, and managed to persuade Congress to back that deal, encouraging the world's biggest country to continue its path of economic reform and integration in the world economy."
------------------------------------------------------

Above is from a two web sources.

Very true and it is going to get worse as more companies move to south america where there are no enviornmental laws and no osha, so that will equal more money leaving the US and worse enviornmental catastrophes. Why clinton didn't put this off like reagan and bush is beyond me, i guess it was his bridge into the future that cluttered his thinking, if he even gave this any thought at all, i don't see how they didn't see this was no good

One of my bigger problems with Clinton comes from when numerous members of my party (Newt in particular)repeatedly called on him for years to do something about Al Queda, to no avail. I saw the same dangers down the road, talked about Osama incessantly, but got the same complacent response from most everyone. No one seemed not to care about anything Clinton did as long as he was the face they associated with the economic prosperity somehow.

I thought it was a huge mistake to put our relationship with the Saudis over catching Bin Laden, when Sudan offered him to us on a silver platter.

I thought sending Jimmy Carter to appease North Korea's demands was a blunder and a half.

I am convinced that Clinton was the worst thing to ever happen to foreign policy in America.

From accepting illegal campaign contributions from a communist nation, to the don't ask, don't tell policy (that both sides saw as a cop out), to the felons he set free in his last days as Prez, what gets on my nerves the most is that all his crimes, blunders, and derelictions of duty were forgiven due to an economy that anyone familiar with economics will tell you had nothing to do with him.

Clinton got away with murder because people simplistically associated him with the prosperity that actually came from the emergence of cell phones, 401ks, and the internet.

The Good:
1. Stoppage of the ethnic cleansing in Kosavo.

The Bad:
1. Clinton's misuse of the first lady to head an effort to institute a socialist health care plan.
2. Clinton's inability to militarily remove a Mogadishu drug lord.
3. Clinton's acceptance of Chinese Campaign contributions.
4. NAFTA
5. WTO

Yeah the people he set free were the wrong people to pardon.

I agree, this is also for me something i don't get the economy clinton worked on is the economy we have now and the economy we will have in the years to come, i call it the undermined economy

I don't get the uproar over NAFTA- since all indicators show it had a net positive on the economy, though I understand that the textile jobs loss would be very personal to those who lost those jobs.

Exerpt from the new york times on the congressional report on nafta:

The report said that based on figures from the first four months of the year, Mexico would likely pass Japan to become the nation's No. 2 trading partner, behind Canada.

The report said tariff reductions and other market-opening steps would be phased in over the next 12 years, so it might be too early to assess the accord's full impact.

It said that the short-run effect was to increase U.S. gross domestic product by $13 billion last year, a small amount in an $8 trillion economy. Gains could increase to $40 billion a year in the long run, it said.

I understand that the gains were not what was advertised at first, but the net is positive. As a union activist I certainly understand that any loss of membership is bad, but like the report says, the net effect to the economy and job gains were positive. So beside the emotions that Clinton kinda sold out the unions on this one, what was the harm?

I do know from personal experiance that Clinton gave the housing market a real boost through his releasing of funds to fannie may, with very liberal loans to normally difficult to finance borrowers, and I believe that very much contributed to the economy. I think he used some very common sense ideas to basically not screw up the economy more than anything. I think the hot housing market had alot to do with the low unemployement numbers. Don't get me wrong, I think the dot com boom turned what would have been a good economy to a great economy, but I also attribute the good part to his very practical approach to it, and deficit reduction.

When 100's of companies, building, employing shipping things in the US move to an outside country how does that help our economy, it doesn't all that money is taken away from the US economy and spent elsewhere and leaves people jobless, there is no way that nafta or that other wto is going to help Americans build a better economy

Sniper that means that you think economic nationalism is more efficient than free trade. It has been long argued premise that more economic borders means less economic efficiency. NAFTA is a free trade movement. American consumers buy the cheapest products not the ones that say made in the USA. Our economy has thrived during the post world war ii era of freer trade. I fail to see convincing evidence that NAFTA has hurt the american economy.

Edited to correct the web name at the beginning of the post. All I can say is oops, i am sorry.

How is NAFTA good?

More than 525,094 U.S. workers have been certified as of December 31, 2002 under one special NAFTA unemployment program, NAFTA Transitional Adjustment Assistance (NAFTA TAA). These workers represent only a fraction of the total U.S. jobs lost due to NAFTA. The NAFTA TAA program provides job training and income support to workers who meet very narrow criteria. Only workers who know about and choose to apply for the program are even considered, and only certain types of workers in certain types of companies can qualify.

In a historic reversal, the U.S. has developed a trade deficit with Mexico since NAFTA. The $1.7 billion U.S. trade surplus with Mexico in 1993 has been transformed into an annual trade deficit of $25.0 billion in 2000. The U.S. trade deficit with Canada has increased from $10.8 to $44.9 billion over the same period.

Taken from: http://www.citizen.org/trade/forms/search_taa.cfm

From the Teamsters

It was doing fine XXXXXX until nafta started, maybe you should take a look around and see how many jobs and companies have left the US and then explain how all those people out of work and all that lost money is good for the economy

Personal attack removed - Jaime

Advanicing free trade around the world was an example of Clinton stepping to the middle of the populace and winning votes. Wouldn't we rather have trade deficits with Mexico and Canada with free trade agreements and relatively frieldnly governments than to continue running huge deficits with China which does not reciprocate trade and violates our intellectual property with widespread piracy?

Are you arguing that we need to engage in strong protectionism?

Here are some links from the other side of the aisle.
NAFTA Benefits Arizona (CATO institute)

Heritage Foundation: Economic benefits of NAFTA

I support the free trade aspect, but the loss of jobs has created a huge impact, especially for those on the lower end of the economic spectrum.
Job Loss Has Led To Downward Pressure

I deal with small manufacturing companies all the time that complain about NAFTA. They complain that companies are increasingly looking to Mexico for manufactured goods.

NAFTA has both negative and positive impacts. It is in the eye of the beholder to decide which outweighs which.

"Free Trade" is a term like "Utopia" - neither exist.

Standard products that employed thousands of people in one building in LIC leaving the US to move to mexico is not good, niether was the other huge companies that left

Come on, now! There is a vast array of arguments that could be presented saying that NAFTA was a good thing.

In your specific example of Standard products, there are countless aspects that can be considered 'good'.

First, Mexicans got jobs. That is good for them, no?

Not only is it good for Mexico, but for us in the States as well. The more prosperous Mexico is, the fewer Mexican citizens undermine our immigration policies. Good, no?

Next, the products likely got cheaper. That means that people pay less for the same product. Good, no?

I'm certainly not defending Clinton here. I did not/do not agree with many of his policies.

But there is a good aspect to everything, even if you have to go out of your way to find it.

Mike

One of the huge staple companies left and went to mexico also, do you see any of the staple companies being any cheaper, Johnson controls also left are they any cheaper. There are alot more, and the benefit isn't going to you the consumer or the mexicans making a whopping 5 cents an hour, but everyone thinks it's good and helping US, it is helping the US to be equal to mexico's economy, we might not get there in a year, but we are getting closer, and now that chile and singapore are involved we just grabbed second gear

Well, the whole Clinton debate so far has been really about his policy towards Globalization, which is part of the fabric of the entire economic debate, and is really only one part of Clintons policies. I see him as being very consensus attempting on some very tough issues, where niether crowd got what they wanted but both got a little, like on his enviromental issues, brady bill type stuff (which to the gun control crowd, any law regarding guns is to much IMO) and moral things like gays in the military etc. He did work on those issues, instead of just trying to impose one side of the arguments views.

Any other policies besides globalization that were bad policies? Can you be specific to his role in the implementation or creation of the policy?

The only foreign policy blunder i see as bad (besides terrorism) is the Somalia incident. He didn't bother to give out boys adequate support. That was the biggest mistake every leader can make when sending troops into an unstable environment that they are not familiar with. The Bush administration, or if you want to get specific, the Pentagon, was smart to have left a few dozen Apache helicopters in Iraq so that in case our boys get into a major firefight with insurgents, the Apaches can assist

CruisingRam: Clinton's attempt to institute a national (socialist) healthcare program. Clinton's acceptance of campaign contributions from the Chinese.

Those two are pretty big beefs for me.

CF- did you read the whole attempt at healthcare reform or are you just parroting the position of the insurance industry? Personally, I thought that taking on our health care fiasco was one of the bravest things he did during his presidency. Our health care system is a horrible mess and he did the unthinkable and actually adressed this issue LOL

I would rather have money donated to a president from China, that really doesn't threaten our freedom or country as much as the big business interests in this country.

OUCH!

CruisingRam - You said:

"I would rather have money donated to a president from China, that really doesn't threaten our freedom or cuntry as much as the big business interests in this country. "

Do you really believe that?


CruisingRam - You said:

CF- did you read the whole attempt at healthcare reform or are you just parroting the position of the insurance industry?

I don't need to read the legislation as I believe that government has no business legislating our "Free Market" system except when abuses occur (speaking of which, why hasn't Bill Gates uprooted Micro$oft and moved to friggin Inda - talk about an unfair shake). It is hard to argue that Health Care abuses go unchecked when you have an opportunity to sue for damages when abused and you can get health care insurance for yourself and your family for less than $150 a month.

Yes, I believe that corporate America is a far greater threat to our security and freedom in this country than any country or principality can ever be. China will need to invade us to really ever be a threat, or attack us in some way. Our military can repulse that. Big business is the single most dangerous threat to freedom in this country, and I guess it would be another thread to get into this! LOL

Our "free market" medical system doesn't work, plain and simple. It costs more per person in this country to implement (there is another thread on this also I guess) and is morally and ethicaly bankrupt, not to mention completely corrupt, more corrupt than any mafia, and killing more poeple per year certainly!

So far I have really not seen any real sweeping indictments of Clintons overal running of this country and his policies, which kind of goes to the real reason he was so easily elected and electable!

He really can't be called a conservative policy wise, nor really a liberal. Any real policies that were implemented that did any REAL harm? After all, he actually failed to implement health care reform, so that would be a policy failure that had no impact whatsoever on the nation, any more than the so-called China donations and it appears that NAFTA had an overal positive effect on the country, if a meager one so far.

Foreign Policy - Clinton's foreign policy sucked. Between North Korea and his approach to dealing with Jihadistan, to China, it sucked.

Reduction in national intelligence assets and efforts.

Escalante Steps National Monument, plus the rest of the massive land set-asides in the West.

These next two could be viewed either as policy failures, or as a failure to police his people. Janet Reno demonstrated that she shouldn't have been allowed to run a one woman(?) animal control department, yet Clinton gave her a pretty free rein.

Waco

Elian Gonzalez

Oh my God. That is insane. Corporate America is what has made America an Economic SuperPower

Corporate America is a double edged sword just like religion. To quote one author (I forget whom) "Why is it that you have a bill of rights that is discarded the minute you walk through your employers door?"- he was speaking mostly to the right to privacy. The Chinese can't legally spy on me as a private citizen, and the goverment will combat the Chinese with counter-espinoge if it can. A private corporation can and does spy on it's employees with total impugnity.

I realize this is getting a tad off topic, but if we sit and think that somehow the chinese are going to take way our freedoms while corporate america spys on us and kills us without recourse, then we will indeed lose our freedoms!

I definetely think Clinton is way overrated, although he did some good in his presidency.

The boom that Bubba got so much credit for started before clinton was sworn in and was due to Reagan's tax cuts in the 80's. While Clinton was shaking hands and accepting congratulations on his way out, the first signs of the recession were showing. Bush predicted in his 2000 campaign that there was going to be an economic recession, and 9/11 burst the bubble. In fact, during last couple of Clinton years he was promising us "$200 billion deficits as far as the eye can see" And it's not just Bush's country, the whole world is in a sluggish economy right now. If you really want to blame someone for the current economy, hit Greenspan over the head.

Clinton virtually ignored the '93 WTC attacks without conducting a special investigation and turned down numerous offers by Sudan to hand over bin laden. Dont forget the USS cole and embassy attacks. In response, Clinton lobbed a few missiles at Afghanistan and Sudan and killed a few rocks and tents.

Clinton struck the worst deal in 94 with North Korea and now we are faced with the current threat. We need to learn what happens when we give aid to a little Asian hitler like Kim Jong Il.

Clinton was completely ignorant of the corporate scandals going on during his administration. These occured WHILE he was in office and were brought to light under the Bush administration

Clinton opposed a higher budget for the military and cut our armed forces down, thinking that the Cold War was over and everyone loved us. He weakened the CIA, FBI, and INS to the point where they were struggling.

Clinton made us look weak by pulling us out of Somalia, encouraging OBL and Co. that a few casualties can beat the americans.

Both the country's and the world's problems were dumped into Junior's hands when he was sworn in, and I think he's done a good job so far, with a few exceptions.

Man, the old "clinton was just lucky for everything that happened in his 8 years as president, but the sixteen years the republicans were in and the economy sucked it was bad luck" argument eh? LOL

Hmmm, well, I could buy that argument.

Wait, what did Bush, before September 11th, do to combat terrorism? I mean, at least Clinton did SOMETHING and kept subs near the middle east just in case.

And he DID stop our embassies from getting attacked. All in all, I'd say he did a pretty good job.

Which embassies did he 'stop from being attacked'?

How many terroist plots have been foiled under Bush? How many Al-Queda members in the U.S. have been arrested under Bush? I can name 3 cells in 3 major cities along with an Ohio truck driver & a few others. Clinton only acted AFTER we were attacked. At least Bush, before 9/11, was planning on doing something to Al-Queda.

Clinton shot off a few cruise missiles and called it good after the Embassy bombings in Africa and i don't remember any action being taken after the USS Cole incident

Err, can I see a link to see what Bush did about terrorism BEFORE 9/11.

Actually, I'm not trying to prove you wrong on anything, I really just want to see what he did!!

Um.. Why are we debating this as if there is any contest?" Clinton knew the Taliban was harboring Bin Laden, but even after the 1st WTC, the USS Cole, the barracks bombing, the embassy bombings, and their attacks on us in Somalia, he was STILL unwilling to do his less popular duty of protecting us by uprooting them from Afghanistan.

And President Bush had months, Clinton had eight years of unanswered attacks. Clinton is the reason that the FBI was the only line of defense on 9/11. To keep a straight face and suggest that Clinton did anything but make perpetual blunders is a feat in and of itself

And to continually post without evidence and support is also quite a feat. Oh wait, no it's not. It's actually pretty easy to just throw stuff out there.

You are losing credibility with posts like these. PLEASE provide evidence to support your statements.

16 years? Could you point out which 16 years you're referring to, por favor. While you're at it, perchance you should compare the status and direction of the economy before a President took over, with the same when he left office. Now, I tend to agree somewhat that crediting or blaming the President for the state of the economy is overdone, although the Prez can have some positive and/or negative influence. The two best examples in recent times would be the tom-foolery of Carter followed by Reagan's inspiration. Clinton, on the whole, only had a mild effect (by Presidential standards, i.e. negligible) on the economy (excepting his trade policies), mostly because what he (she?) did want to do didn't happen, and beyond that he was indifferent. The great accounting scandals that erupted under Bush all were borne of the Clinton era, but not because of some evil Clinton scheme, rather because of neglect and Clinton setting a bad example of integrity.

For some twisted reason, you seem to have a real hard-on for corporations. Next time you take a flight anywhere, I suggest that you consider what our air transportation system would be like without all o' them there "evil" corporations.

Interesting defense of a type of corporation- considering that our airlines are one of the most corrupt businesses in the nation LOL- Ever read the news about the airlines? From American airlines to eastern airlines, that industry needs a major enema- mostly thanks to Reagans de-regulation. Not to mention many of the corporate wrongdoing- the day to day oversight has been shifted to thier home states to regulate- that is why the attorney general for Texas is prosecuting Enron as a state issue not Ashcroft as a federal issue. Enron is 100% Texas' duty to make sure it was not a criminal affair, and it's job to report it to the SEC- so therefore, Bush is mostly to blame for that blow up, and each of the other corporate mess' has been lack of oversight at the state level. Shifting the power to do this to the states has been a repub platform for some time, especially since Reagan.

I think Clintons attention to the deficit, putting cops on the street, job education and housing assistance did more for this nation than the entire sixteen years (1980-1992, 2000-next election) of republican sloganeering.

Cruising Ram, WOW!!!









I go away from the computer for a few days and look what you start saying!!!

Just because a country doesn't threaten our country physically (and China does), doesn't mean that economic damage can't be done. Please refer to the U.S.S.R and the cold war as a supporting argument.

When a country tries to sway our leader to be more favorable to them with a bribe to benefit three billion chinese (and also to Clinton's benefit of course - he did after all get re-elected), that is bad. Regardless of the problems occuring in corporate america, Clinton could have done the right thing and followed Mrs. Reagan's advice by "just saying no..." (not a reference to his "I didn't inhale" statement).

My phones are not bugged by private corporations, nor am I watched at home. The private corporation I work for pays me and by doing so, enables me to put food on the table for mah family. Private corporations enable me to properly clothe mah family. Private corporations enable me to put a roof over mah family's heads. The Chinese strangely enough, don't enable me to do any of the above...

So, I'm assuming by your response that you cannot produce anything that would suggest that Bush even started to do anything about terrorism (though I was asking someone else).

I was actually using this in defense of Clinton, not a persecution of Bush. Presidents, up until now, have always taken an out-of-sight, out-of-mind approach to terrorism. Clinton did what, at the time, we all wanted him to do. Stop the current attacks and focus on something else. At the time, he was under more heat for his sexual exploit than for his stance on terrorism. Nobody at that point cared about terrorism.

Bush didn't do anything to prevent terrorism either, and he was consistently following what every other president has done.

Which is why I don't buy the argument that Clintons policy on terrorist was a blunder.

Tell that to Reagan in 86 (Lybia). Only two other Presidents in office after Reagan, and Clinton was in office for 8 of the 12...



Everyone seemed to care about the Oklahoma City bombings...

Reagan only acted after he found out that American troops were attacked in Libya. Once it came into the public sight, so to speak. He proclaimed a (hardly preemptive) war on terror and that was that. Once we roll around a couple years its hardly an issue. Obviously Bush was feelin pretty cozy before 9/11.

And the oklahoma bombings. The terrorist man who was a member of the terrorist organization: the Branch Davidian religious sect. They did carry about 300 machine guns, assault rifles and other high-powered firearms.

http://www.cnn.com/2000/LAW/07/14/waco.ver...dict/index.html

And nobody seemed to care enough to chase after other possible "terrorist" run religious sects or to try and wage a war on terrorist religions. There was no public outcry for these organizations to be taken care of.

Who said anything about airlines? I said "transportation", which encompasses a whole lot more than simply airlines, who are merely one player in our transportation system, along with manufacturers, railroads, General Electric, the automakers, trucking firms, truck makers, shipping lines, civil construction firms, etc, etc....

However, I'll make it real simple for you: describe the organization you believe would be capable of and willing to build a 300 seat airliner that has a range of 7,000 miles. Explain why this organization of your would produce a superior airliner than a corporation.

Get a grip BH, neither McVeigh nor Nichols were Davidians, nor was there any proof that the Davidians themselves were terrorists. An apocalyptic cult to be sure, but unless you can point to a single act of terrorism performed by the Davidians, ya better retract and rethink.

The main policy Clinton based his presidency upon was to not say or think anything unless a poll indicated he should. He did not seem to have any convictions of his own. Presidency by polling is not very good leadership or policy. This is the main legacy of his. Clinton did not invent political polling but he used it to perfection for the greater glory of himself.

Since when was Koresh a terrorist? Pretty strong gun control response, I would say. He and many of his followers were burned alive.

Clinton's domestic policy- conservative. Cut spending. Thumbs up.
Clinton's foreign policy- a stall. Thumbs down.

I would prefer that to the current "I only pander to big business, the christian right and repubs" that we have now, but to be honest, I would prefer a balance of both. I appreciate a guy that listens to the polls, and does what he thinks best if he has the most information, without splitting the whole nation on the issues. We live in a representive republic, and therefore, the president is SUPPOSED TO represent all of us, not JUST the poeple that supported him in the election, and every president in my memory acknowledged this in thier inaugeration speech, it is the actions thereafter that spell if it really happened. The art of compramise is the cornerstone of our nation, not an elected monarch.

I wholly agree with Mrs. Pigpen and bikerdad that the oklahoma bombings were not a terrorist act, but a desperate act by an insane person.

My current thinking was misled by a previous post that stated:
"Nobody at that point cared about terrorism."
"Everyone seemed to care about the Oklahoma City bombings..."

And now that the bombings are not considered to be terrorist by any standard, my original quote of:

"Nobody at that point cared about terrorism" is still valid.

I don't know what standards you speak of, but terrorism from within is still terrorism. Just because he wasn't wearing a turban, or wasn't a Saudi national doesn't change the fact that it was still terrorism.

Here is the definition of terrorism:

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Oklahoma city bombing certainly qualifies...

Oh lets see..

Clinton:
rejected Sudan's offer to extradite Bin Laden,

appeased North Korea, increasing their appetite,

did nothing to uproot Al Queda after the 1st WTC attack, barracks bombing, USS Cole, embassy bombings, etc.

Let Saddam defy us and the UN for nearly a decade,

raised taxes more than anyone in history

shut down military bases and downsized the armed forces,

and went into Kosovo without UN approval, to remove a far less butcher than Saddam.