|
|
Friday, February 22, 2008
Comments:
The thing that I think a lot of people miss about politics is that it takes a much longer time than people realize to cause effects in policy, economy, and hell pretty much anything in the world. While, yes, W has pretty much squandered all of the global sympathy that one day afforded the US, as well as the budget surplus Clinton presided over, I can't help but believe that our last democratic president was a lot less responsible for our economic success than most dems like to proclaim.
Yes, he chose to keep Greenspan on for another few years, yes he did a lot of great things on a global scale in the realm of peace-talks and whathaveyou and yes (and I think most importantly right now) he deployed troops conservatively in places where outside intervention was important (not necessary) while staying out of places in similar situations that would have pissed off the wrong people (Chechnya).
Meanwhile, in terms of the economy which you pointed out, and granted I'm not a political/economic analyst, but it would seem that that sort of thing, economic boosts that is, not economic fuck-ups is largely out of a president's control and rather rests on the shoulders of people more directly involved and to a lesser, but still important, extent on the previous presidents. While I'm by no means right-leaning, I feel that Bush Sr.'s much demonized tax hikes, mini-war, & etc. contributed more to our budget surplus of later years than most would care to admit. I don't think that this was his intention, mind you, because no politician, I feel, is that forward-thinking, but it was a major factor in the economy of Clinton's presidency.
While I think W will be somewhat reviled, and deservedly so, for a long time to come, there are some equally revile presidents who have initiated some great changes in the long-run (and not even just moving all of the goddamn Indians into camps) that most just won't accept because we think so short-sightedly.
Post a Comment
Yes, he chose to keep Greenspan on for another few years, yes he did a lot of great things on a global scale in the realm of peace-talks and whathaveyou and yes (and I think most importantly right now) he deployed troops conservatively in places where outside intervention was important (not necessary) while staying out of places in similar situations that would have pissed off the wrong people (Chechnya).
Meanwhile, in terms of the economy which you pointed out, and granted I'm not a political/economic analyst, but it would seem that that sort of thing, economic boosts that is, not economic fuck-ups is largely out of a president's control and rather rests on the shoulders of people more directly involved and to a lesser, but still important, extent on the previous presidents. While I'm by no means right-leaning, I feel that Bush Sr.'s much demonized tax hikes, mini-war, & etc. contributed more to our budget surplus of later years than most would care to admit. I don't think that this was his intention, mind you, because no politician, I feel, is that forward-thinking, but it was a major factor in the economy of Clinton's presidency.
While I think W will be somewhat reviled, and deservedly so, for a long time to come, there are some equally revile presidents who have initiated some great changes in the long-run (and not even just moving all of the goddamn Indians into camps) that most just won't accept because we think so short-sightedly.
|
|
I was walking to the drug store to stop what has now been officially labeled as orange alert for my non-stop nose, and I passed by an affluent SoHo resident who had a suitcase that said:
"When Clinton lied, nobody died."
This made me think of an argument that I had with a neighbor over the merits of Bill Clinton compared to the other presidents. My statement, as bold as it is, was that Clinton was one of the best presidents this country has ever seen. My neighbor did not agree with me on this statement. I brought up many points, the main one being that the US had never seen a time of growth and prosperity quite like that brought from under the watchful eye of Bill. I guess it wasn't that prosperous if your name was mom and pop since he did usher in a great time for the corporate vultures to swoop in and eat away at private enterprise, but hey, that's what New York was made for right?
Anyways, he tried to say that the economy has been just as good under the regime of Gee W. This got me all worked up but I wasn't about to explain the fallacies that resided deep under the shiny layers of his statement to someone who actually though George Bush was a good president.
Yes, the economy did well for a while and the markets hit record highs, but it was mainly due to the major financial institutions of the world lending trillions of vaporous dollars that did not have any kind of collateral to people who wanted to buy housing that was beyond their means. After people bought luxurious houses that they normally could have never afforded to purchase a few years prior and pumped their remaining cash into buying things they did not need (why do you think the non-housing market also did so well? Hmm...), the market started to do a natural cyclic decline, which any junior analyst should have been able to see coming. When the market started to dip south, suddenly everyone started defaulting their mortgages and money was torrentially hemorrhaged by almost every bank, which directly led to the sharp drop in every money market and stock market in the world. Wall Street even had enact rule 80b to stabilize the markets and close. Not only has Bush been in the office during Sub-primeapalooze, Bush has also seen two of the biggest drops in Dow Jones history, in September of 2001 after 9/11 (which some people believe he orchestrated) and again in February of 2007 because of fear in the Chinese market.
Of course most people might not agree with all of this, but the only glaring mistake that I can see Bill Clinton ever made was Hillary. I mean seriously, he must have inhaled and had on beer goggles for that one.
REDRUM !!!
To sum it up, I really couldn't have been the only one to see this. Could I?