Author Topic: Bill Clinton Says Republicans Blocked Corporate Reform Efforts (Read 959 times)

Karnak · « **Reply #15 on:** July 28, 2002, 03:31:27 AM »

There is no way in hell the Republicans would have voted for this reform bill a month ago.

However the WorldCom bankruptcy put them in the same place that the 9-11 attack put the Democrats.

When 9-11 happened the Democrats had to support a bunch of police powers bills that the Republicans had been drooling over for some time, but that Democrats would never vote for in normal circumstances. 9-11 forced them to vote for the bills or get voted out of office.

The recent spate of corporate screwups put the Rupublicans in the position of having to support corporate reform ideas that the Democrats had been drooling over, but that Republicans would never vote for in normal circumstances. The corparate scandals forced them to vote for the bill or get voted out of office.

As to the "this party is to blame, no, that party is to blame" crap, its all BS. Both parties try to take credit for good economies and both try to blame the other for poor economies and they're both lying. Reagan wasn't responsible for the Savings & Loan scandals, Bush Sr. wasn't responsible for the recession 12 years ago, Clinton wasn't responisble for the malfeasence of CEOs and Bush Jr. isn't responsible for the current recession. Anybody who claims any of that BS is a blind partisan and can have their opinion on the subject safely dismissed.

The only individual that I can absolutely lay blame fro some of this recession is Osama bin Laden.

lord dolf vader · « **Reply #16 on:** July 28, 2002, 04:49:38 AM »

when will the party in power become resposible? just when?

since they arent now.

Karnak · « **Reply #17 on:** July 28, 2002, 06:01:35 AM »

lord dolf vader,

I don't think that any party can be responsible for the economy. The economy is too complex and independant to ever be pinned down like that.

The Fed has more of an effect than both political parties together and, at least under Greenspan, the parties have had little effect on the Fed.

This isn't a matter of taking responsibility for something instead of shirking ones duty, it is about something that is simply out of any one groups power to have enough effect in order to be responsible for it.

Toad · « **Reply #18 on:** July 28, 2002, 06:57:02 AM »

Karnak's got it right. Well said.

lord dolf vader · « **Reply #19 on:** July 28, 2002, 08:02:08 AM »

sorry sounds to me like basicaly your sayin two things . if there is a problem with the ecomomy it was caused and started by clinton.

but when faced with the question "ok when will you have it fixed"

you have the answer that no one it resposible for it. the fed has a lot of effect bla bla . I say bullcrap, your guy is scarin the hell out of america and the world causeing the economy to dump. its that simple . you think that a loose cannon talkin war day and night with a iq of 70 in the whitehouse has nothing to do with it your crazy.

Sounds like typical conservative republican crap.

Bring back the blojob gettin economy fixin people you hate

Sikboy · « **Reply #20 on:** July 28, 2002, 08:35:59 AM »

-Sikboy

Toad · « **Reply #21 on:** July 28, 2002, 09:24:12 AM »

No, he's saying just ONE thing:

Quote

I don't think that any party can be responsible for the economy. The economy is too complex and independant to ever be pinned down like that.

..and what's "scaring the hell" out of America is the realization that we are now and always have been basically undefended against terrorism. It's just now starting to sink in and people haven't figured out how to deal with the realization yet. But we will; other nations have adapted already. You just have to come to terms with the fact that every day of life is a gift. But that's the major problem with the economy right now. People are scared and uncertain; so, they aren't spending much. Yes, there's other factors , but all those factors are adding to the basic fear, uncertaintly and doubt initially generated on Sept. 11.

As far as "talking war".. yes, they are. You can ignore something or you can deal with it. Usually dealing with it in the near term is better than dealing with it much later. IMO.

I assume you're referring to Iraq. Hypothetical question:

Would you rather deal with Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs BEFORE or AFTER those weapons are completed and supplied to terrorists like Bin Laden and actually used against a US city?

Because if you think it will never happen........

Kieran · « **Reply #22 on:** July 28, 2002, 09:51:12 AM »

What Karnak said. Capitalism in America isn't dictated by the administration, so crediting one administration or blaming another in such a sweeping fashion is very inaccurate.

Now, you might have an admin call for change in the operation, call for investigation, etc., but they cannot directly force the economy one way or another...

...now you might argue Bush is scaring everyone with talk of war, but then again, we didn't attack ourselves on 9/11. There will be more attacks, and the time has come to get proactive. War may be scary to business, but so is having our major cities attacked. If it is a choice between the two, I choose proactive war, economy be damned.

midnight Target · « **Reply #23 on:** July 28, 2002, 10:05:03 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sikboy

-Sikboy

That "Clinton Fly" never fails does it?

Toad · « **Reply #24 on:** July 28, 2002, 12:20:16 PM »

Well, I heard he really didn't use a fly. Had all his trousers made with a simple open slit in the front from his waistband to the crotch. Maybe just a rumor though.

Kieran · « **Reply #25 on:** July 28, 2002, 12:41:10 PM »

Never mind.

Kieran · « **Reply #26 on:** July 28, 2002, 12:50:25 PM »

On second thought, don't answer that. If you really are here to simply stir up a response, I think I'll recuse myself from any thread with your name on it. I thought you wanted to discuss topics. Flamers and pot stirrers are a dime a dozen.

10Bears · « **Reply #27 on:** July 28, 2002, 03:05:19 PM »

Hey all

Out of respect for the conservatives on this board I try not to bash Bush too much but when you guys trash Clinton, I figure that’s like crossing swords.

During the 1987 state of the Union address, President Reagan told Americans his administration created 10 million new jobs.. Was he lying?.. well no because of government funded research and development, new trade agreements, opening up new markets and funding for entrepreneurs which in turn hired more workers. That’s a fact you can go look it up. That coupled with the administration hiring a Fed chairman who controls the rate banks can charge so folks can get the loans for a new business. The more balanced the budget the lower the interest rates are The economy doesn’t happen in a vacuum. It’s not just a coincidence Reagan and Clinton’s economy were good. Having a good economy does a number of things.
* lowers crime -- people are working more, no need to rob the liquor store
* lowers drug abuse -- Can’t go to work loaded.
* lower teenage pregnancy -- same as above, no time to be pregnant.
* raises education -- more money for collage, the more people you have educated, the better society is as a whole.

from Toad:
Quote
So Bush managed to take us from expansion into recession with only two months in office?????

April 1999 Dick Chenny as head of Helliburton, gos to OPEC meeting in middle east to argue for slowing down oil production. The effect of this doesn’t happen until the summer of 2000 with higher fuel prices.
Early summer 2000 polls show Bush ahead of Gore the stock market starts to dip.
Midsummer 2000 Democratic convention Gore make good speech, poll for Gore rises, so does market.
Autumn 2000 Bush has to be prodded to debate with Gore, Pundents proclaim Bush at least didn’t loose debate. Stocks fall
Autumn 2000 Bush talks down economy is criticized by Clinton. Claims tax cut is needed to stimulate already roaring economy. Market falls
Nov 2000 recount fight in Florida Enron donates $100,000 to stop recount, market falls.
Dec 11th 2000 Supreme court rules that it would be against George Bush’s constitutional rights if he were not named president, then reverse themselves and say the recount can go ahead.. but they only have two hours... (heh) Market drops.
January 2001 Suddenly out of the blue, California energy prices go up 138%, Bush administration claims it’s all California’s fault and they should just learn to live with it.
February and March 2001 Bush administration cancels out or un-signs or refuses to ratify just about every international treaty there is. All this doesn’t show the American investor much confidence.
March 2001 recession is declared.
So Toad, *ALL* of this happened before 911. And lets not talk about the forth quarter earning reports due to be released in Oct 2001... The ones that the corporations would not be able to hide the fraud.

from Funkedup
Quote
FunkedUp Says It's Irrelevant Because Bubba Has Previously Demonstrated Himself To Be A Lying Sack Of toejam

So FunkedUp, you still screwing horses?.. prove that your not.

from Shuckins
Quote
Politicians who are straight shooters do not generate the kind of animosity and outright hatred that Clinton did. Pooh-pooh his scandals if you wish, but there is a lengthy list of them. Whitewater is one of the least important. The appearance of 700 personal FBI files at the White House by "accident" is just one of the more serious. An enemies list perhaps?

How does this compare with denying Americans their right to due process?

Karnak wrote:
Quote
I don't think that any party can be responsible for the economy. The economy is too complex and independant to ever be pinned down like that.

Nonsense, toejam don’t happen in a vacuum Karnak, it’s not the blind watchmaker.

Toad (again)
Quote
Would you rather deal with Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs BEFORE or AFTER those weapons are completed and supplied to terrorists like Bin Laden and actually used against a US city?

Because if you think it will never happen........

Yeah and why quibble about things like evidence?.. Or the wisdom of Military Generals?.. The chicken hawks know what to do... Say if your gonna wag that dog you better do it before the fall elections otherwise you might loose congressional funding for your adventure.

funkedup · « **Reply #28 on:** July 28, 2002, 03:16:17 PM »

WTF Are you on about? Are you Bubba's little defender attack dog or something?
Sheep maybe.
Horses EWWWWWWWWWWWW!

midnight Target · « **Reply #29 on:** July 28, 2002, 03:19:29 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kieran
On second thought, don't answer that. If you really are here to simply stir up a response, I think I'll recuse myself from any thread with your name on it. I thought you wanted to discuss topics. Flamers and pot stirrers are a dime a dozen.

Now who's getting snooty? I will let my actions and responses on this board speak for themselves. If making a little quip regarding Clinton's ability to draw a crowd is "pot stirring" then I plead guilty!

And BTW, almost all posts in the O-club are designed to elicit a response. Sheesh Kieran, lighten up bud.

Back on topic, I'm the one who mentioned the economy in the original post. This seems to be what everyone is pouncing on. If Clinton had been able to implement his reforms back in 93, it is possible the corporate shenanigans that are causing the market to sink may have been identified sooner, or avoided altogether.