Bill Clinton on the Trail

[juddling]

That being said, he cheapens his Presidency every time he attacks Barack Obama.

 

 

Just curious....how do you feel when former presidents (Clinton, Carter) go on foreign soil and rip the current president?????

[southsider2k5]

This election cycle has more good candidates than any I've seen in a few cycles. Unfortunately, everyone seems to be forgetting that, because Clinton and Romney (the current front-runners) are among the worst of each bunch. But the overall field is an improvement.

 

The "good" candidates don't have a chance. Pretty much unless you are out there slinging mud, you get tore apart or ignored completely.

[Balta1701]

I hope some of you aren't thinking that Bush the elder just sat on the sidelines and said, I'm stating out of it. It's up to my son? You can bet all of his old supporters received a phone call. Like it or not, the business of politics is the same for both sides. Coke and Pepsi have to bottle their product and follow the same laws and compete in the same market. The business model stays fairly consistent between the two. What we see is the tip of the iceberg, the marketing. Lift up the hood and it's all the same.

Of course they received a phone call, and I'd have been shocked if the old Clinton donors all haven't had a dozen meetings and phone calls from Bill. But I think the issue is that there's a fundamental difference between behind-the-scenes work on building the infrastructure of a campaign and out-in-front work as an attack dog. That's the key question.

[southsider2k5]

Of course they received a phone call, and I'd have been shocked if the old Clinton donors all haven't had a dozen meetings and phone calls from Bill. But I think the issue is that there's a fundamental difference between behind-the-scenes work on building the infrastructure of a campaign and out-in-front work as an attack dog. That's the key question.

 

Its the difference between campaigning for someone, or against someone.

[NorthSideSox72]

The "good" candidates don't have a chance. Pretty much unless you are out there slinging mud, you get tore apart or ignored completely.

Yeah, that's pretty much true. But I'd contend that is only partially their fault. Part of the blame for that lies with the media and their lack of focus, as well as a population in this country that is blissfully ignorant of the political process. Those factors encourage the sound byte culture we see and hear.

 

[Texsox]

Its the difference between campaigning for someone, or against someone.

No, they completed a fast kill on McCain via his "illegitimate" black baby. After that there wasn't much to do but coast in.

[Jenksismyhero]

Yeah, that's pretty much true. But I'd contend that is only partially their fault. Part of the blame for that lies with the media and their lack of focus, as well as a population in this country that is blissfully ignorant of the political process. Those factors encourage the sound byte culture we see and hear.

 

 

Yip, which is why we've been hearing nothing but the spat between Hillary and Obama, and not much with the actual meat of the debates. It's sad, but thats what happens when entertainment value trumps newsworthiness (in terms of viewership). Anyone interested in this exact issue should check out the last season of The Wire. It pretty much sums up the state of the news and journalism business these days.

 

Anyone else notice the complete drop-off of Edwards? I mean I never thought he had a chance, but the debate the other night cracked me up, where he said something like, "Hello guys, there is a third candidate in this race."

[NorthSideSox72]

Yip, which is why we've been hearing nothing but the spat between Hillary and Obama, and not much with the actual meat of the debates. It's sad, but thats what happens when entertainment value trumps newsworthiness (in terms of viewership). Anyone interested in this exact issue should check out the last season of The Wire. It pretty much sums up the state of the news and journalism business these days.

 

Anyone else notice the complete drop-off of Edwards? I mean I never thought he had a chance, but the debate the other night cracked me up, where he said something like, "Hello guys, there is a third candidate in this race."

Well, a caveat on the media - there is still good media out there. Its just not where most people get their news. Most people now get it from TV or the internet, and more specifically, from crappy news stations and major media sites. But if you dig deeper, into solid newspapers, public broadcasting (some of it), and websites that are more in-depth, good reporting can still be found.

 

Edwards hasn't really dropped off that much - he just had a really bad Nevada. I'd guess, though, that he'll do pretty well in SC, probably 15-20%. That's pretty much his slot.

 

[southsider2k5]

Yip, which is why we've been hearing nothing but the spat between Hillary and Obama, and not much with the actual meat of the debates. It's sad, but thats what happens when entertainment value trumps newsworthiness (in terms of viewership). Anyone interested in this exact issue should check out the last season of The Wire. It pretty much sums up the state of the news and journalism business these days.

 

Anyone else notice the complete drop-off of Edwards? I mean I never thought he had a chance, but the debate the other night cracked me up, where he said something like, "Hello guys, there is a third candidate in this race."

 

My response was "No, there isn't."

[Texsox]

My response was "No, there isn't."

 

Not at the moment. I keep wondering if after Clinton and Obama finish each other off that maybe he backs in. It seems to be slipping away, but this still could be very interesting.

[mr_genius]

Despite that I don't like Bill Clinton much, he was indeed a pretty good President. More so in hindsight even. And the economy, as Bush 1 once rightly (but politically stupidly) pointed out is not something a President can do a whole lot with. That said, Clinton and Congress did manage to do a lot of good with the tools they had during that period.

 

They also had a tech bubble which, of course, burst. And signed some bad trade agreements, basically setting the ground work for some of this massive trade deficit we have.

 

 

[NorthSideSox72]

They also had a tech bubble which, of course, burst. And signed some bad trade agreements, basically setting the ground work for some of this massive trade deficit we have.

Bad trade agreements in that period had little to do with the current trade deficit. Overall economic factors in the US play a much bigger role that way.

 

And the tech bubble was not really within much control of the federal government - that was something that just had to play itself out. And it did.

 

[mr_genius]

Bad trade agreements in that period had little to do with the current trade deficit. Overall economic factors in the US play a much bigger role that way.

 

actually, that's not accurate. Our trade deficit has a lot to do directly with NAFTA and deals with China signed during Clinton's reign.

[NorthSideSox72]

actually, that's not accurate. Our trade deficit has a lot to do directly with NAFTA and deals with China signed during Clinton's reign.

I can't say I know the numbers, but there are so many economic reasons for the trade deficit that were in place well before Clinton that I can't see how NAFTA or those China deals are anything very large.

 

[Balta1701]

I can't say I know the numbers, but there are so many economic reasons for the trade deficit that were in place well before Clinton that I can't see how NAFTA or those China deals are anything very large.

Perhaps a better thing to say then would be that, like many issues, Bill Clinton's administration just sort of slid through without taking any action that could help correct the growing trade deficit when it may have been more manageable than what we have today?

[NorthSideSox72]

Perhaps a better thing to say then would be that, like many issues, Bill Clinton's administration just sort of slid through without taking any action that could help correct the growing trade deficit when it may have been more manageable than what we have today?

I'd go with that.

[mr_genius]

I can't say I know the numbers, but there are so many economic reasons for the trade deficit that were in place well before Clinton that I can't see how NAFTA or those China deals are anything very large.

 

actually the wto, nafta, china trade deals Clinton agreed to in the 90's are a huge reason. Not all his fault (of course), but he holds a lot of blame. Bush has done nothing to stop this trend. He likes the Clinton China deals, good for exploiting cheap labor... big profits.

 

 

http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statis...rical/gands.txt

 

 

Here is a link about trade deficit with China from ,often considered left wing, frontline. It basically admits that trade deals are the reason for the deficit, so this isn't the vast right wing conspiracy trying to take Bill Clinton down. Many would argue that the trade deficit is good for the US consumer, cheaper goods. But there really isn't an issue of what the cause of it is.

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sh...hina/trade.html

 

Expanded trade with China has, in fact, been a blessing for large U.S. multinationals like Boeing, Caterpillar, and Cargill, which had trumpeted the prospect of a massive Chinese market for American products and services. China is the world's fastest growing market for commercial aviation, and needs billions of dollars worth of airplanes from Boeing. Its growing infrastructure has been a boon for companies like Caterpillar, which produces tractors and other heavy equipment. And it is importing billions of dollars worth of farm products, a boon to companies like Cargill. Last year, China bought $2.9 billion worth of soybeans -- the top U.S. export crop to China. China also has proven to be a growing market for U.S.-made fertilizer and chemicals.

 

But China has been a tougher market to crack for smaller and mid-sized American companies, like those selling bicycles, vacuum cleaners, and lawn mowers, who face stiff price competition from Chinese manufacturers of these products. And they also face discriminatory rules, burdensome red tape, language difficulties, and a population that earns only a fraction of what U.S. consumers make, and therefore lacks the purchasing power to buy consumer goods made in America.

 

Yvonne Smith, the communications director at the Port of Long Beach, literally sees the imbalance in U.S.-China trade. She reports that through Long Beach alone, the U.S. is importing $36 billion in goods yearly from China and exporting just $3 billion. By her account, the mix of products is very unfavorable to the U.S.

 

"We export cotton, we import clothing," Smith reports. "We export hides, we bring in shoes. We export scrap metal. We bring back machinery. We're exporting waste paper, we bring back cardboard boxes with products inside them."

 

Overall, the U.S. trade deficit with China reached a record $124 billion dollars in 2003 and the figure is headed even higher this year. Today, U.S. imports from China outpace U.S. exports to China by more than five to one, and the deficit shows no signs of abating.

Edited January 24, 2008 by mr_genius

[mr_genius]

Perhaps a better thing to say then would be that, like many issues, Bill Clinton's administration just sort of slid through without taking any action that could help correct the growing trade deficit when it may have been more manageable than what we have today?

 

he was proactive in getting those trade deals, not just a bystander.

[southsider2k5]

I'd go with that.

 

I won't. The trade deficit is almost all due to American consumers. Trade pacts really don't make that big of a difference in my eyes. If we quit buying Toyotas, Sony's and everything else made everywhere but here, the trade deficit would be gone, and the dollar would go back up, NAFTA or no NAFTA.

[Balta1701]

I won't. The trade deficit is almost all due to American consumers. Trade pacts really don't make that big of a difference in my eyes. If we quit buying Toyotas, Sony's and everything else made everywhere but here, the trade deficit would be gone, and the dollar would go back up, NAFTA or no NAFTA.

Not sure I have a horse in this debate race, but couldn't one respond to that claim that one of the reasons Americans keep buying so many products made overseas is that these trade pacts made it possible for Americans to load up on incredibly cheap goods from all those standard-less factories overseas and their hard working 8 year old employees? I.e. is it fair to say that the trade pacts pushed the price of goods produced overseas downwards, thus actively encouraging importing of goods?

 

Oh, and at some point you do have to count oil in that chart btw.

[southsider2k5]

Not sure I have a horse in this debate race, but couldn't one respond to that claim that one of the reasons Americans keep buying so many products made overseas is that these trade pacts made it possible for Americans to load up on incredibly cheap goods from all those standard-less factories overseas and their hard working 8 year old employees? I.e. is it fair to say that the trade pacts pushed the price of goods produced overseas downwards, thus actively encouraging importing of goods?

 

Oh, and at some point you do have to count oil in that chart btw.

 

Sure, its our biggest import, and it has tripled in price over a short period of time.

[mr_genius]

I won't. The trade deficit is almost all due to American consumers. Trade pacts really don't make that big of a difference in my eyes. If we quit buying Toyotas, Sony's and everything else made everywhere but here, the trade deficit would be gone, and the dollar would go back up, NAFTA or no NAFTA.

 

 

People will buy a cheaper item of equal quality almost every time, thats what the trade agreements allow China to do. American companies produce their products in China too, not just sony or Toyota. China doesn't have the same worker standards the US does. They sure don't have to pay minimum wage, so basically manufacturing in the US is pretty much screwed. Many would argue that it's just a fact of global capitalism and the American economy needs to adapt.

 

Of course, raising tariffs could make the US more competitive, but that could hurt the economy as well. things would cost more, inflation could be a big problem.

Edited January 24, 2008 by mr_genius

[NorthSideSox72]

Oil is a big part. And SS2K5, note I agreed with you - those trade agreements had an effect, just not a very large one.

 

[mr_genius]

Oil is a big part. And SS2K5, note I agreed with you - those trade agreements had an effect, just not a very large one.

 

between 1989 and 2003 the U.S. trade deficit with China rose twenty-fold, from $6.2 billion to $124 billion because of oil? please explain how that works, northside72.

[NorthSideSox72]

between 1989 and 2003 the U.S. trade deficit with China rose twenty-fold, from $6.2 billion to $124 billion because of oil? please explain how that works, northside72.

I said nothing of the sort - I wasn't just talking about China. Were we only discussing China?

 

And you are assuming that increase, in China, was due to changed trade policies. Instead, I'd suggest, the economic realities of massively increased production moving to China, changes in currencies, and various other factors all played major parts as well.