Should Clinton be giving his speech at the Republican convention?

[mondale84]

most right-wing president of the last 50 years

Granted amnesty to over 3 million immigrants, traded arms for hostages, raised taxes eleven times, and nearly tripled the federal deficit among other things...

Doesn't sound like a conservative record to me.

He doesn't have to be conservative to be right-wing...Bush was right-wing, but not really fiscally conservative...

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Oh, I was trolling, but Clinton isn't worthy of the admiration he gets at all.

I've never been crazy about Clinton which all seasoned posters probably know. But I'm not going to vilify him either.

The truth is, 1990s were conservative years and Clinton would either adapt to some degree on never get elected. His kind of Democrat was the best we, the liberals, could get during this decade.

[AmericanNation]

We've seen that today's Republicans would rather let the country default than raise taxes in a deal with Democrats, even though taxes are lower now. And I find it curious that Republicans like to act as if Iran is a greater threat than the Soviet Union, and as if Iran's behavior is more outside acceptable norms than was Soviet behavior.

We've seen that democrats would rather let the country default rather than cut spending to offset debt limit increases.  Republicans completely have the high ground on that issue.  Nice try :-)


MAD isn't something the Iranians operate under, so yea they ARE.IN.FACT. different.  They could act more like the Russians pretty easily, but wishful thinking isn't reality like most leftists pretend.  Also, Letting a regional power with expansionist aspirations, gain nuclear weapons is pretty unacceptable.  I'm a geopolitical centrist on the Iranian issue.            

Do you reside in any degree of reality... seriously if this is the quality of GOP posting to expect for the next 3 months, I'm out.

I would laugh, but I'm disappointed.  I'll give you credit that you made I good choice by walking away instead of making some belligerent comment like most people with emotional reactions.  The "Do you reside in any degree of reality..." was baseless and belligerent, but I'll excuse that part because I'm a forgiving person.

[Maxwell]

most right-wing president of the last 50 years

Granted amnesty to over 3 million immigrants, traded arms for hostages, raised taxes eleven times, and nearly tripled the federal deficit among other things...

Doesn't sound like a conservative record to me.

He doesn't have to be conservative to be right-wing...Bush was right-wing, but not really fiscally conservative...

fair enough.

[ajb]

We've seen that today's Republicans would rather let the country default than raise taxes in a deal with Democrats, even though taxes are lower now. And I find it curious that Republicans like to act as if Iran is a greater threat than the Soviet Union, and as if Iran's behavior is more outside acceptable norms than was Soviet behavior.

We've seen that democrats would rather let the country default rather than cut spending to offset debt limit increases.  Republicans completely have the high ground on that issue.  Nice try :-)


MAD isn't something the Iranians operate under, so yea they ARE.IN.FACT. different.  They could act more like the Russians pretty easily, but wishful thinking isn't reality like most leftists pretend.  Also, Letting a regional power with expansionist aspirations, gain nuclear weapons is pretty unacceptable.  I'm a geopolitical centrist on the Iranian issue.            

Do you reside in any degree of reality... seriously if this is the quality of GOP posting to expect for the next 3 months, I'm out.

I would laugh, but I'm disappointed.  I'll give you credit that you made I good choice by walking away instead of making some belligerent comment like most people with emotional reactions.  The "Do you reside in any degree of reality..." was baseless and belligerent, but I'll excuse that part because I'm a forgiving person.

Why is refusing to raise taxes higher moral ground than refusing to cut spending?
And on Iran, let's be clear that the US is not the target of Iran's nuclear program. Israel is, and they're the ones wDestruction need to worry about Mutually-Assured Destruction. And they already have more nuclear weapons than Ian ever will, plus the US to keep going when they're done. So MAD works quite effectively against Iran. As the Iranians know full well, and which is part of their strategic interest in developing nuclear weapons.

[AmericanNation]

1) Why is refusing to raise taxes higher moral ground than refusing to cut spending?

2) And on Iran, let's be clear that the US is not the target of Iran's nuclear program. Israel is, and they're the ones wDestruction need to worry about Mutually-Assured Destruction. And they already have more nuclear weapons than Ian ever will, plus the US to keep going when they're done. So MAD works quite effectively against Iran. As the Iranians know full well, and which is part of their strategic interest in developing nuclear weapons.

1) because spending is "the" problem, not a lack of taxing.  That is a sufficient answer, but also:
a) raising taxes in a recession/quasi-recession is never a good idea     
b) higher taxes are damaging to the economy, which will intern reduce government revenues.
c) unemployment is a problem and jacking taxes on small businesses is perhaps the dumbest thing you could do with regard to unemployment/ job creation.
d) raising taxes doesn't guarantee any bit of the debt problem will be resolved due to reasons (a.,b., c., and the habit of growing spending faster than revenue, etc, etc.), whereas cutting spending actually moves you toward a solution of the debt problem. 
e) philosophically, principally, ideologically, and scientifically taxes are currently too high as it is.  GDP Growth and job creation long term is more important than short term revenues, so if anything taxes should be lowered.  Spending should be cut as much as possible to make up the difference with a gradual trend toward a balanced budget in 8 years or so.  That is the best/only plan for economic growth/ health I've seen.       

2) Israel is extremely vulnerable to Nuclear attack.  The entire country could be destroyed (literally) pretty easily.  Israel does not have the capability to destroy Iran.  Iran is a massive super fortress.  Especially in the event of a massive Iranian first strike, the Israeli response might do a lot of damage, but it wouldn't "destroy" Iran.  So MAD isn't even possible.  The US would have to pledge to Nuke Iran after they wipe Israel off the map.  I don't know that Obama would do that.  Maybe, maybe not, which isn't "assuring."  Even if he would, I don't know how crazy the Iranians are.  Maybe they mean some of what they say and they don't care about "mutual destruction."  I doubt it, but I'm not going to place nuclear war bets based on doubt.             

[ajb]

Everything you say about taxing vs. spending rests on the assumption that government spending is always worse than tax cuts. And yet taxes are already the lowest they've been since the depression. And when you look at the federal budget, the realistic options for balancing are tax increases, defense cuts, or reductions in Medicare or  Social Security for those already receiving benefits. Cuts in those areas would be economically devastating, too.
On Iran, maybe you're not sure how Obama would respond to a nuclear attack on Israel. I suspect Iran has fewer doubts. And to be clear, that's ironic understatement.

[AmericanNation]

Everything you say about taxing vs. spending rests on the assumption that government spending is always worse than tax cuts. And yet taxes are already the lowest they've been since the depression. And when you look at the federal budget, the realistic options for balancing are tax increases, defense cuts, or reductions in Medicare or  Social Security for those already receiving benefits. Cuts in those areas would be economically devastating, too.
On Iran, maybe you're not sure how Obama would respond to a nuclear attack on Israel. I suspect Iran has fewer doubts. And to be clear, that's ironic understatement.

government spending is always worse than tax cuts
Well there are a few instances theoretically possible where that wouldn't be true.  Given the current makeup of the federal government and the current priorities of that government and/or the democrat party with regard to spending it is reasonable to treat that assumption as almost always true.  I mean if General Patton was running some kind of military hunta where the bureaucracy was replaced with a group of super capable--militantly efficient administrators... than perhaps some spending would be equally as efficient as a tax cut.  Even then it would be hard to be better than a wash.     

taxes are already the lowest they've been since the depression  
That isn't exactly true but even if it is, that isn't a reason for higher taxes.  I think you should try and raise the most revenue you can without damaging the economy.  Top income rates shouldn't be higher than 25% because you start causing real damage as you go above that and revenues increase at a declining rate as well.  If you want a progressive code from that point down, I'd listen to the ideas.     

And when you look at the federal budget, the realistic options for balancing are tax increases, defense cuts, or reductions in Medicare or  Social Security for those already receiving benefits.[/u]

Actually reforming the systems for people not already receiving benefits does a great deal.  Grow the economy and you can work toward balancing the budget.  You can get close in 8 to 10 years, which is all we NEED to do.  If we don't do that the only other ways out involve a lot of pain.     

Cuts in those areas would be economically devastating, too
no they wouldn't.  People with 15+ years to plan for a reduction in benefits can plan for a reduction in benefits. 

I suspect Iran has fewer doubts
ok, great! I'm glad you suspect things. 

[Brittain33]

It's pretty well accepted that in most cases, when our economy has slack, giving $1 in cash to a poor person will generate more economic activity than cutting taxes $1 for a rich person. Poor people spend what they get right away and do so locally, which puts that $1 in someone else's hands, and then someone else's. Meanwhile, if there are no good investment opportunities because we're in a recession and the poor and middle classes have no money to spend, that rich person's dollar won't go to magically create jobs, but will be parked in a non-productive investment or fuel a pointless bubble.

[AmericanNation]

It's pretty well accepted that in most cases, when our economy has slack, giving $1 in cash to a poor person will generate more economic activity than cutting taxes $1 for a rich person. Poor people spend what they get right away and do so locally, which puts that $1 in someone else's hands, and then someone else's. Meanwhile, if there are no good investment opportunities because we're in a recession and the poor and middle classes have no money to spend, that rich person's dollar won't go to magically create jobs, but will be parked in a non-productive investment or fuel a pointless bubble.

Sure, but there is a difference between "giving" a dollar and "taking" a dollar. 

[Brittain33]

It's pretty well accepted that in most cases, when our economy has slack, giving $1 in cash to a poor person will generate more economic activity than cutting taxes $1 for a rich person. Poor people spend what they get right away and do so locally, which puts that $1 in someone else's hands, and then someone else's. Meanwhile, if there are no good investment opportunities because we're in a recession and the poor and middle classes have no money to spend, that rich person's dollar won't go to magically create jobs, but will be parked in a non-productive investment or fuel a pointless bubble.

Sure, but there is a difference between "giving" a dollar and "taking" a dollar.  

In your religion, possibly. Economically, we wouldn't have dollars if the government didn't make them and create the conditions where they have value and where people like Romney can create tax havens, tax arbitrage, and secret bank accounts. This is why people go over into goldbuggery, after all.

[AmericanNation]

It's pretty well accepted that in most cases, when our economy has slack, giving $1 in cash to a poor person will generate more economic activity than cutting taxes $1 for a rich person. Poor people spend what they get right away and do so locally, which puts that $1 in someone else's hands, and then someone else's. Meanwhile, if there are no good investment opportunities because we're in a recession and the poor and middle classes have no money to spend, that rich person's dollar won't go to magically create jobs, but will be parked in a non-productive investment or fuel a pointless bubble.

Sure, but there is a difference between "giving" a dollar and "taking" a dollar.  

In your religion, possibly. Economically, we wouldn't have dollars if the government didn't make them and create the conditions where they have value and where people like Romney can create tax havens, tax arbitrage, and secret bank accounts. This is why people go over into goldbuggery, after all.

My religion?  You think there isn't a difference between someone handing you a dollar in exchange for nothing and someone compelling you by force to "give" a dollar?   

[JoeBlow]

Clinton was a personal embarrasement to me ... I thought he was the dumbest president we ever had.

If you remember the TV election debates, he hardly had a word to say about issues ... but the other two candidates were so visceral and aggressive with the debate, that everyone got turned off. Clinton wasn't even a contender until then. After the TV debates however, people saw Clinton being a polite (but dumb) good sport and thought he was a nice guy ... which is how the idiot skated into being President. Nice guy image. Liberals and women habitually vote for the handsome seemingly nice guys. Character judgement is not a highly prized asset with this voting segment.

He never had any intelligent answer either. "Did you smoke pot?" I don't condone pot, but had he said yes honestly, I could have had some respect. His answer was like what a 4 year old's answer would be when caught with a hand in the cookie jar. Then the same lame type of infantile answer regarding his sexual episode: "did you have sex?" ... "well, er what's your definition of sex?"

Posted by Joe
Supporter of the 2012 pressidential Election Car Shade / Indiegogo campaign project.

[mondale84]

Clinton was a personal embarrasement to me ... I thought he was the dumbest president we ever had.

If you remember the TV election debates, he hardly had a word to say about issues ... but the other two candidates were so visceral and aggressive with the debate, that everyone got turned off. Clinton wasn't even a contender until then. After the TV debates however, people saw Clinton being a polite (but dumb) good sport and thought he was a nice guy ... which is how the idiot skated into being President. Nice guy image. Liberals and women habitually vote for the handsome seemingly nice guys. Character judgement is not a highly prized asset with this voting segment.

He never had any intelligent answer either. "Did you smoke pot?" I don't condone pot, but had he said yes honestly, I could have had some respect. His answer was like what a 4 year old's answer would be when caught with a hand in the cookie jar. Then the same lame type of infantile answer regarding his sexual episode: "did you have sex?" ... "well, er what's your definition of sex?"

Posted by Joe
Supporter of the 2012 pressidential Election Car Shade / Indiegogo campaign project.

How was he a PERSONAL embarrassment to you? Did you ever hear W in debates? You're another right wing troll, just what this Forum needs...

[AmericanNation]

How was he a PERSONAL embarrassment to you? Did you ever hear W in debates? You're another right wing troll, just what this Forum needs...

W won every debate with Gore and Kerry, so I bet you really mean "I didn't like the way he sounded on TV."  Which of course has little to do with being dumb.   

[Politico]

Clinton was a good president who could have used a more aggressive foreign policy, especially with regards to terrorism. His wife is making up for his shortcomings in that realm. In hindsight, repealing Glass-Steagall was a mistake, but it seemed like a good idea at the time. His dedication to law enforcement and welfare reform easily makes up for his mistakes in 1993-1994. Not the best president, but infinitely better than Bush II and Obama.

Obviously Clinton's personal escapades were a disgrace to himself and his daughter (maybe Hillary, but who knows if they had an agreement; none of our business, really). With that said, the Starr/Gingrich witch hunt was a national disgrace.

[Politico]

BTW, it is in Clinton's political interests for Obama to lose. Otherwise, his wife has no chance of ever becoming president (Democrats are not going to win three terms in a row, and she'll be too old in 2020). Do not be surprised if Clinton's speech ends up doing about as much good for Obama as this one did for Dukakis:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5FpRg3Tf9Y

[Rhodie]

It's pretty well accepted that in most cases, when our economy has slack, giving $1 in cash to a poor person will generate more economic activity than cutting taxes $1 for a rich person. Poor people spend what they get right away and do so locally, which puts that $1 in someone else's hands, and then someone else's. Meanwhile, if there are no good investment opportunities because we're in a recession and the poor and middle classes have no money to spend, that rich person's dollar won't go to magically create jobs, but will be parked in a non-productive investment or fuel a pointless bubble.

Ah but cutting taxes for both rich and poor is the best solution of all. A double whammy in the face of an economic recession.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

No.  Clinton always has been and probably always will be a Democrat, and no matter how much bad blood he may have with Pres. Obama, he will probably vote for him anyway.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

BTW, it is in Clinton's political interests for Obama to lose. Otherwise, his wife has no chance of ever becoming president (Democrats are not going to win three terms in a row, and she'll be too old in 2020). Do not be surprised if Clinton's speech ends up doing about as much good for Obama as this one did for Dukakis:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5FpRg3Tf9Y

Everything seems to indicate that Hillary is not planning on running in 2016, no matter what happens this election.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

Only if Sarah Palin gives the keynote at the DNC

[Brittain33]

The economy is likely to recover slowly over the next four years to a tolerable rate of unemployment so it's better for Hillary to run for an open seat than to run against Romney taking credit for the recovery.

[Middle-aged Europe]

Granted amnesty to over 3 million immigrants, traded arms for hostages, raised taxes eleven times, and nearly tripled the federal deficit among other things...

Doesn't sound like a conservative record to me.

The notion that "trading arms for hostages" could be defined as something "right-wing" or "left-wing" is pretty hilarious IMO.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

BTW, it is in Clinton's political interests for Obama to lose. Otherwise, his wife has no chance of ever becoming president (Democrats are not going to win three terms in a row, and she'll be too old in 2020). Do not be surprised if Clinton's speech ends up doing about as much good for Obama as this one did for Dukakis:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5FpRg3Tf9Y

Everything seems to indicate that Hillary is not planning on running in 2016, no matter what happens this election.

I totally agree.  She would be 69 by Election Day 2016 and 73 by Election Day 2020, and although Reagan was 69 when he was elected, one of the main criticisms of him in the 1980 campaign is that many people thought he was too old to be President.