• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Bill Clinton: Romney had a "sterling" business career [W:29]

My post is intended to show that based on the history of American presidency, being a successful businessman has yet to translate into being a successful president. Two of the 3 presidents with major business careers (Harding, GW Bush) rank amongst the 10 worst presidents - while GHW Bush was voted out of office after only 1 term.

Unlike Obama, GW Bush inherited a relatively good economy with budget surpluses - if Bush had left the economy in the same shape that Clinton left it to him, John McCain would probably be the president.
 
Last edited:
Are you saying Romney doesnt change his stance depending on the time of day?
No, that was my first post in this thread. It would require multiple posts for me to have said that wouldn't it? I dislike Romney less than President Obama but I would never vote for him. Good luck trying to find a pro-Romney post from me anywhere on this website.

Nice attempt at misdirection from your false statement about President Obama which was:
he´s not an etchasketch that changes his stances depending on the time of day and who he has in front of him.
Like most liberals on this website, your partisan hypocrisy knows no bounds.
 
My post is intended to show that based on the history of American presidency, being a successful businessman has yet to translate into being a successful president. Two of the 3 presidents with major business careers (Harding, GW Bush) rank amongst the 10 worst presidents - while GHW Bush was voted out of office after only 1 term.

Unlike Obama, GW Bush inherited a relatively good economy with budget surpluses - if Bush had left the economy in the same shape that Clinton left it to him, John McCain would probably be the president.

Talk about being all over the place. Just connnect any old dots it would seem.

The last surplus was during Eisenhower. Show us the year that the National Debt went down under Clinton. Clinton left Bush a Recession. The Housing Bubble blew the economy in 2008. The Housing Bubble was a joint effort. It began in 1998. Your notion that only the two Bushes and Harding where "businessmen" is absurd. Anyone who ever ran a farm ran a business.

And again, Harding was an excellent Steward of the economy. That he didn't win the beauty contest doesn't mean ****.
 
Talk about being all over the place. Just connnect any old dots it would seem.

The last surplus was during Eisenhower. Show us the year that the National Debt went down under Clinton. Clinton left Bush a Recession.

Why is it conservatives love to distort and lie about facts that are easy to look up?

Bush took over on January 21st 2001. That quarter... the economy grew 2.4%. The quarter before that it was only 0.3% and the quarter before that it was 8!%. Considering a recession is only called when there are TWO STRAIGHT quarters of negative growth, how on earth can you claim that Clinton left Bush a recession be remotely true? In fact technically the US never entered recession because there was never 2 back to back quarters of negative growth.

The Housing Bubble blew the economy in 2008.

2007 ..

The Housing Bubble was a joint effort. It began in 1998.

Actually started long before that, but the final nail in the coffin came when Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act was signed in 1999... ohh.. and it was a GOP controlled congress, and the act was proposed by 3 GOPers. While it was Clinton who signed the law, and many Dems supported it.. the fact remains it was GOP policy.

Repealing Glass-Segal was one the single biggest mistake the GOP ever did, but dare they admit that? of course not, it is Clinton's fault and the Dems!

Your notion that only the two Bushes and Harding where "businessmen" is absurd. Anyone who ever ran a farm ran a business.

Ya a farm with slaves!

As for what Clinton stated.. it is factual. Romney was successful.. he earned bucket loads of money... at a high price for the average American though. Now you can admire him for his business success with Bain and ignore how he got that success, or you can discus how he got that success and if it was something we all should aspire too... pissing on people and taking jobs overseas for a fast buck.
 
.
Actually started long before that, but the final nail in the coffin came when Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act was signed in 1999... ohh.. and it was a GOP controlled congress, and the act was proposed by 3 GOPers. While it was Clinton who signed the law, and many Dems supported it.. the fact remains it was GOP policy.

Repealing Glass-Segal was one the single biggest mistake the GOP ever did, but dare they admit that? of course not, it is Clinton's fault and the Dems!

.....

Frankly, the rest of your post was just too foolish, as it makes more of these sweeping arguments that have already been debated in multiple threads. We get it already "Blame Bush".

But the above. The repeal was initiated by Robert Ruben, and pushed by Clinton and Ruben. Ruben was Clinton's Treasury Secretary. It was done to enable the merger of Travelers and CitiBank to form CitiGroup, with Ruben serving on the Board of CitiGroup after he left government.

The Bubble started in '98 as that was when Andrew Cuomo made the deal with multiple lenders that Fannie and Freddie would underwrite their sub-primes so as to enable the Administration to claim a "victory" against housing loan discrimination. FF grew 5-fold under Clinton.

I blame Bush for not doing more to stop the continued growth of Housing inflation once he was in office. But the horse was long out of the barn by then regardless.
 
My post is intended to show that based on the history of American presidency, being a successful businessman has yet to translate into being a successful president. Two of the 3 presidents with major business careers (Harding, GW Bush) rank amongst the 10 worst presidents - while GHW Bush was voted out of office after only 1 term.

Unlike Obama, GW Bush inherited a relatively good economy with budget surpluses - if Bush had left the economy in the same shape that Clinton left it to him, John McCain would probably be the president.

Don't forget Hoover.
 
800px-Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Vote_1999.jpg
Repealing Glass-Segal was one the single biggest mistake the GOP ever did, but dare they admit that? of course not, it is Clinton's fault and the Dems!

STOP BEING WRONG, PETE!!!

File:Gramm-Leach-Bliley Vote 1999.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bi-partisan vote that passed the Senate 90 to 8 with 2 not voting and passed the House with 362 to 57 with 15 not voting.

BOTH parties were responsible for that particular atrocity.
 
View attachment 67128673

STOP BEING WRONG, PETE!!!

File:Gramm-Leach-Bliley Vote 1999.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bi-partisan vote that passed the Senate 90 to 8 with 2 not voting and passed the House with 362 to 57 with 15 not voting.

BOTH parties were responsible for that particular atrocity.

Don't start getting into facts. The libtards will hate you ...... Oooops. Too late. Never mind. :roll:

Lib****s. As I noted earlier. It was done to enable the largest merger in US banking history. It was a Ruben-Clinton initiative. Citigroup.

Look it up, and then stop being so god damn stupid and partisan about what happened.
 
PeteEU says:
Bush took over on January 21st 2001. That quarter... the economy grew 2.4%. The quarter before that it was only 0.3% and the quarter before that it was 8!%. Considering a recession is only called when there are TWO STRAIGHT quarters of negative growth, how on earth can you claim that Clinton left Bush a recession be remotely true? In fact technically the US never entered recession because there was never 2 back to back quarters of negative growth.

United States GDP - real growth rate - Economy

1.079% growth in all of 2001. Looks like slow to neagtive growth to me.

GDP United States
VERY slow growth in 2000---dotcom crash definitely had an impact.

Using the traditional wisdom answer and the strict one there was no recession. The growth was pretty anemic and was as close to stagnated growth as you really want to come. Similar to what we are seeing now but with a great deal less unemployment and higher participation numbers.
 
PeteEU says:

United States GDP - real growth rate - Economy

1.079% growth in all of 2001. Looks like slow to neagtive growth to me.

GDP United States
VERY slow growth in 2000---dotcom crash definitely had an impact.

Using the traditional wisdom answer and the strict one there was no recession. The growth was pretty anemic and was as close to stagnated growth as you really want to come. Similar to what we are seeing now but with a great deal less unemployment and higher participation numbers.

Slow growth does not mean a recession...
 
View attachment 67128673

STOP BEING WRONG, PETE!!!

File:Gramm-Leach-Bliley Vote 1999.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bi-partisan vote that passed the Senate 90 to 8 with 2 not voting and passed the House with 362 to 57 with 15 not voting.

BOTH parties were responsible for that particular atrocity.

And as I said, the Dems voted for the POS legislation and Clinton signed it.. does not change the FACTS.. you know what a fact is? It was 3 GOPers who were behind the legislation.
 
Frankly, the rest of your post was just too foolish, as it makes more of these sweeping arguments that have already been debated in multiple threads. We get it already "Blame Bush".

Where did I say blame Bush?

But the above. The repeal was initiated by Robert Ruben, and pushed by Clinton and Ruben. Ruben was Clinton's Treasury Secretary. It was done to enable the merger of Travelers and CitiBank to form CitiGroup, with Ruben serving on the Board of CitiGroup after he left government.

And again so what? The GOP was in power in Congress and Ruben could do jack**** without their help. That it fit in their highly flawed idea of as little regulation as possible, only meant that the GOP was all over the proposal right?

The Bubble started in '98 as that was when Andrew Cuomo made the deal with multiple lenders that Fannie and Freddie would underwrite their sub-primes so as to enable the Administration to claim a "victory" against housing loan discrimination. FF grew 5-fold under Clinton.

And again more horse**** from the right. Fannie and Freddie had very very little to with the sub-prime mortgage crisis. It was the private run banks who gave out loans that not even Fannie and Freddie would under right because the loans did not meet the requirements. It was that part of the unregulated private mortgage market that caused the crash. That Fannie and Freddie was then caught in the backlash, is only because of the economy tanking and the first people to loose their jobs often being the lower middle class, a key part of Fannie and Freddie's "customer base".

It is typical of you conservative types to blame Fannie and Freddie because you hate the fact that the US has such an organisation.. despite I would wager a lot of you conservative types would not own your own house if it was not for Fannie and Freddie! And the fact that if it was not for Fannie and Freddie, then house ownership in the US would be that of the privileged... plus with Fannie and Freddie, your friends in the banking industry have a nice place to move risk off their books onto the US taxpayer... /clap!

I blame Bush for not doing more to stop the continued growth of Housing inflation once he was in office. But the horse was long out of the barn by then regardless.

At least we agree on something...and yet you still cant admit that it was GOP policy that lead to the horse bolting from the barn in the first place. GOP policy has been to deregulate as much as possible and that was done and the private sector went nuts... which then crashed the economy.
 
Are you saying Romney doesnt change his stance depending on the time of day?

Interesting question. Perhaps you could tell me what Obama's stance on FISA, Gitmo, the Bush Iraq withdrawal schedule, gay marriage, lobbyists in the White House, an individual health insurance mandate, or Presidential Signing Statements is? I seem to have forgotten what time of day it is :).
 
and the beat rolls on...

...MAUREEN DOWD...

ON Friday night, the nation’s capital was under a tornado watch. And that was the best thing that happened to the White House all week.

As the president was being slapped by Mitt Romney for being too weak on national security, he was being rapped by a Times editorial for being too aggressive on national security.

A Times article by Jo Becker and Scott Shane revealed that the liberal law professor who campaigned against torture and the Iraq war now personally makes the final decisions on the “kill list,” targets for drone strikes. “A unilateral campaign of death is untenable,” the editorial asserted.

On Thursday, Bill Clinton once more telegraphed that he considers Obama a lightweight who should not have bested his wife. Bluntly contradicting the Obama campaign theme that Romney is a heartless corporate raider, Clinton told CNN that the Republican’s record at Bain was “sterling.” ...

On Friday, an ugly job market report led to the stock market’s worst day of the year. As the recovery flat-lined, the president conceded to a crowd at a Honeywell factory in Golden Valley, Minn., that “our economy is still facing some serious headwinds” and getting sucked further into Europe’s sinkhole. In depressing imagery for the start of the summer campaign, cable channels carried the red Dow arrow pointing down while Obama spoke; the Dow wiped out all of its 2012 gains.

The president who started off with such dazzle now seems incapable of stimulating either the economy or the voters. His campaign is offering Obama 2012 car magnets for a donation of $10; cat collars reading “I Meow for Michelle” for $12; an Obama grill spatula for $40, and discounted hoodies and T-shirts. How the mighty have fallen.

Once glowing, his press is now burning. “To a very real degree, 2008’s candidate of hope stands poised to become 2012’s candidate of fear,” John Heilemann wrote in New York magazine, noting that because Obama feels he can’t run on his record, his campaign will resort to nuking Romney....

The legendary speaker who drew campaign crowds in the tens of thousands and inspired a dispirited nation ended up nonchalantly delegating to a pork-happy Congress, disdaining the bully pulpit, neglecting to do any L.B.J.-style grunt work with Congress and the American public, and ceding control of his narrative...

The president had lofty dreams of playing the great convener and conciliator. But at a fund-raiser in Minneapolis, he admitted he’s just another combatant in a capital full of Hatfields and McCoys. No compromises, just nihilism....

On CNBC on Friday, Romney complained that Obama has “been more focused on his perspective of his historic legislative achievements than he has been focused on getting people back to work.”...

As Maraniss recounts, Obama said he liked reading Hemingway because of Papa’s “integrity of grasping for those times, those visions, that are ones of true magnificence and profundity.”

Cook told Maraniss that she thought Obama’s desire to “play out a superhero life” was “a very strong archetype in his personality." But superheroes and mythic figures must boldly lead....

In some ways, he’s still finding himself, too absorbed to see what’s not working. But the White House is a very hard place to go on a vision quest, especially with a storm brewing.
 
And as I said, the Dems voted for the POS legislation and Clinton signed it.. does not change the FACTS.. you know what a fact is? It was 3 GOPers who were behind the legislation.

Actually started long before that, but the final nail in the coffin came when Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act was signed in 1999... ohh.. and it was a GOP controlled congress, and the act was proposed by 3 GOPers. While it was Clinton who signed the law, and many Dems supported it.. the fact remains it was GOP policy.

It was a bi-partisan policy. Stop with the party system blame game.
 
And again more horse**** from the right. Fannie and Freddie had very very little to with the sub-prime mortgage crisis. It was the private run banks who gave out loans that not even Fannie and Freddie would under right because the loans did not meet the requirements.

F&F underwrote some $7 trillion in mortgages from 2001 to 2007 and made or underwrote 80% of the market in 2007. Very little? Only if you believe fed bureaucrats trying desperately to play CYA.
 
Obama is my brand of liberal. Not completely to the left, willing to fall back on some of the more radical beliefs and most importantly: he´s not an etchasketch that changes his stances depending on the time of day and who he has in front of him.

Is Gitmo closed yet? He's kept one promise since elected (healthcare), so your kind of liberal maintains republican policies.

Sent from my blasted phone.
 
And as I said, the Dems voted for the POS legislation and Clinton signed it.. does not change the FACTS.. you know what a fact is? It was 3 GOPers who were behind the legislation.
Perhaps you are just unfamiliar with how our system works. 3 GOPers in congress can accomplish nothing without the support of others legislators. If what they came up with was a bad idea, then the other 532 members could easily shoot it down or just ignore it altogether. Outside of naming airports or other equally pressing agenda items, nothing sails through congress with the type of super majority support that Gramm-Leach did. I can grant you that it might have been a horrible law, but you ignoring the complicity of democrats in congress and a democratic president is just blind partisanship.
 
I guess we can add one more name to the list of prominent Democrats who have now in one way or another signaled their opposition to the decision to go after Romney's career at Bain.




:D gotta wonder how pissed off the White House was when they saw this.


Awesome... so the asshole who signed NAFTA into law exporting our jobs is praising a guy who dissected the remaining companies that didn't leave to loot their pensions. Peas in a pod.
 
Perhaps you are just unfamiliar with how our system works. 3 GOPers in congress can accomplish nothing without the support of others legislators. If what they came up with was a bad idea, then the other 532 members could easily shoot it down or just ignore it altogether. Outside of naming airports or other equally pressing agenda items, nothing sails through congress with the type of super majority support that Gramm-Leach did. I can grant you that it might have been a horrible law, but you ignoring the complicity of democrats in congress and a democratic president is just blind partisanship.
That is assuming that those who voted for it knew the consequences of the law, had total foresight into the effects. You are excusing those who really did know what the law would do (the writers) by arguing for shared blame. This was a law for and by investment bankers and the idea that all who passed it on share equally in the results is wrong headed.
 
That is assuming that those who voted for it knew the consequences of the law, had total foresight into the effects. You are excusing those who really did know what the law would do (the writers) by arguing for shared blame. This was a law for and by investment bankers and the idea that all who passed it on share equally in the results is wrong headed.

Keep drinking that liberal kool-aid while ignoring the numbers of Democrats that supported the bill just like you ignore the Obama results today.
 
Do you dream this stuff up in your sleep or something? He hasn't kept any promise except health care? Really?

PolitiFact | The Obameter: Tracking Obama's Campaign Promises

Slightly liberal? Since Obama has kept most of his promises according to Politifact which is debatable, please explain why his economic results are such a disaster? Could that mean his economic policies were a disaster and keeping them weren't the answer to our problems? If you generated the results Obama has generated three years after taking a job you wouldn't have that job today.
 
Keep drinking that liberal kool-aid while ignoring the numbers of Democrats that supported the bill just like you ignore the Obama results today.
I did not ignore who passed it, you can't read.
 
I did not ignore who passed it, you can't read.

Yet you blame Republicans for the bill Clinton signed and got overwhelming Democrat support. What has the GOP done to hurt you and your family? Let me know what your share of the Obama debt is to you and your family? You still in school?
 
Back
Top Bottom