Hillary Clinton

[sirthought]

I'm not a Bush apologist but I really don't think arguing what Euros thought of him really helps your cause, because I'm fairly certain they don't hold our current President in high regard either.

It's necessary when explaining what challenges Clinton faced when going to so many other countries. It was vital and necessary work. People here were questioning her achievements. I believe she did good work overall in repairing relationships with many countries.

[maketewahXalum]

And yet enjoyed a 61% approval rating for his second term. Last time we had a surplus, I believe.

One thing that always drives me nuts is references to the “surplus” that Clinton had.

There never was a surplus.

A surplus means you take in more than you put out – in this case that would mean the revenue from taxes are greater than the money spent. That hasn’t happened since 1957. Under Clinton, there was a projected surplus. That’s pretty different from a real surplus.
A lot of the income during that time that enabled the high tax revenue that was used to project a surplus was not based on real income. There were plenty of internet and telecom companies that really never had a chance of success, but the IPOs and stock prices of these companies just kept going up and up. People paid a lot of taxes because they were doing so well in the market, but it was just a matter of time before everything crashed. There were also some really corrupt companies like Enron and WorldCom (run by big Democrat backers) that added to the problem. A big component of this projected surplus was based on companies like this continuing to increase in value – which was a fraud.

When the bubble burst at the end of Clinton’s term, all those losses carried forward to the next years and reduced tax revenues received in those years. As a result, the “projected surplus” never happened.

[XU 87]

It's necessary when explaining what challenges Clinton faced when going to so many other countries. It was vital and necessary work. People here were questioning her achievements. I believe she did good work overall in repairing relationships with many countries.

I just asked this question. What relationships did she repair? The "reset" with Russia didn't work so well. And note to future presidents- giving some stupid slogan to your enemies does not make them like you more or change the way they do things. It does make your enemies think you're weak though.

[PM Thor]

I actually think the US foreign policy is pretty damn good. We had hawks trying to get the US involved in Syria, back to Iraq, the Ukraine, on and on. I think the idea of finally severing the cord that is US involvement ain't a bad thing. Let these other places solve their own damn problems, or in the least, make the local, regional powers (like NATO, Saudi Arabia, Hell even China) take the lead. Why in the Hell are we always the ones who have to step in?

Israeli relations to the US getting worse? Oh well. Take care of your own backyard problems. Venezuela? You mean the marginalized country in South America?

Who cares if the rest of the world is a "mess"? Why is the US always expected to clean up everyone elses' "mess"? Yep, I sound like an isolationist. So be it.

[XU 87]

Things that happen in the world can and do affect you, me or other people in this country. For example, it's not a good thing for the US if Iraq is taken over by terrorists. Since we still drive cars and turn on light bulbs, and refuse to build pipelines or drill for oil in an unpopulated portion of a state where only caribou roam, it's not a good thing for the US for the middle east to be in such a mess.

[bobbiemcgee]

One thing that always drives me nuts is references to the “surplus” that Clinton had.

There never was a surplus.

A surplus means you take in more than you put out – in this case that would mean the revenue from taxes are greater than the money spent. That hasn’t happened since 1957. Under Clinton, there was a projected surplus. That’s pretty different from a real surplus.
A lot of the income during that time that enabled the high tax revenue that was used to project a surplus was not based on real income. There were plenty of internet and telecom companies that really never had a chance of success, but the IPOs and stock prices of these companies just kept going up and up. People paid a lot of taxes because they were doing so well in the market, but it was just a matter of time before everything crashed. There were also some really corrupt companies like Enron and WorldCom (run by big Democrat backers) that added to the problem. A big component of this projected surplus was based on companies like this continuing to increase in value – which was a fraud.

When the bubble burst at the end of Clinton’s term, all those losses carried forward to the next years and reduced tax revenues received in those years. As a result, the “projected surplus” never happened.

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the...under-clinton/

[paulxu]

And I'm not aware of a single thing she's ever accomplished. Seriously.

She got Waggy to start a thread singularly devoted to her.

Most people would run screaming from that "accomplishment".

Or if you were one of the architects of that massive screw up, you can appear today as an "expert" on the news programs

One thing that always drives me nuts is references to the “surplus” that Clinton had. There never was a surplus.

I'm pretty sure if you check the records, Clinton left an actual surplus in the year after (if not in) his last year. It was promptly wasted on an ill advised tax cut and 2 unfunded wars. Most of us would probably use a surplus to pay off our debt, before we tried either of those options to increase the debt itself.

[bobbiemcgee]

I actually think the US foreign policy is pretty damn good. We had hawks trying to get the US involved in Syria, back to Iraq, the Ukraine, on and on. I think the idea of finally severing the cord that is US involvement ain't a bad thing. Let these other places solve their own damn problems, or in the least, make the local, regional powers (like NATO, Saudi Arabia, Hell even China) take the lead. Why in the Hell are we always the ones who have to step in?

Israeli relations to the US getting worse? Oh well. Take care of your own backyard problems. Venezuela? You mean the marginalized country in South America?

Who cares if the rest of the world is a "mess"? Why is the US always expected to clean up everyone elses' "mess"? Yep, I sound like an isolationist. So be it.

I agree. We don't need to be the World's Policemen. Putin laughing? Who cares? WTF would you do? Attack Russia? Ukraine's gonna fight it out with the Russians? Go ahead, we'll sell you the arms. Israel in a Middle East war? I like their chances. They got our planes. Tell the Europeans they need to freeze and not buy the Ruskie's natural gas? Sure.

[PM Thor]

Things that happen in the world can and do affect you, me or other people in this country. For example, it's not a good thing for the US if Iraq is taken over by terrorists. Since we still drive cars and turn on light bulbs, and refuse to build pipelines or drill for oil in an unpopulated portion of a state where only caribou roam, it's not a good thing for the US for the middle east to be in such a mess.

That's all well and good, and I never said it didn't affect the US. But again, why are we the ones tasked with solving the worlds problems? If every country out there knows that the US will get involved in the hot spots around the globe, what is their motivation to step up too? A bit of "step back" by the US might just be the motivation needed for other countries (or groups of countries) to get involved.

The US is the leading oil and gas producer in the world http://www.theguardian.com/business/...a-saudi-arabia and we really don't have just cause to be the leading country throughout the entire globe. Yeah, it's bad if Iraq is thrown into a civil war, but guess what? That was going to happen whenever the US left, to not see that eventuality happen is just naïve.

[Mel Cooley XU'81]