What has Hillary Clinton ever accomplished in life?

Thanks. Am with you completely on this, give or take my posts of course.

 

really?

Clinton increased the debt an average of 200 billion yr
Bush is going to blow by that by doubling the rate of increase somewhere around 400 billion yr

no president tried anything to bring the debt down. The only way to bring the debt down is to stop BORROWING and that means you have to spend less than you take in.


We are going to be hitting 10 trillion in debt and we are increasing spending each day, borrowing money every day to pay for it and pretty soon we might be borrowing money to help pay the interest.


Just because our empire has not fallen does not make us bullet proof.
We have all the signs of a failing society-

1. High national debt
2. Corruption
3. Lazy/apathetic populace

I think we can last another 10-15 years at the most without paying the piper.

 

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/faq.html

look at the trend/slope during clinton's administration.

look at the trend/slope during bush's administration.

clinton = negative trend.

bush = positive trend.

i didnt say clinton didnt increase the debt because in actuality, he did increase the debt. but he couldnt totally shut down the government...

if you look at the TREND/SLOPE, you can clearly see that the rate of increase of the national debt during clinton's adminstration was decreasing. where as bush is increasing the slop like a rocket.

you can equate this graph to clinton hitting the brakes and almost bring the car to as stop. but then bush got in the drivers seat and slammed his foot on the accelerator.

so i think its erroneous to say that clinton did not try...

 

He increased the debt every year in office.
Yes, at the end of his term the rate of increase was very low.
The rate of increase was also low in his administration (especially compared to Bush)

But he borrowed and spent it. We will have to pay it back or at least the dollar/economy will have to weaken considerably to offset how the bankers deal with it.

I wouldn't vote for Hillary in hopes she is going to cut spending sufficiently to lower the debt. She won't.

It may be too late anyways. Ron Paul can't be elected and he is the only candidate I know of who would try to lower the debt.

I trust you understand the significance and correlation of the debt, fiat currency and standard of living.


Thanks for pointing out the debt clock website.

 

i concede that clinton did not succeed in cutting the national debt. but to say that he did not try is wrong bc its clear that he was beginning to reverse the trend. had bush adopted clintons fiscally conservative policy maybe the debt wouldnt be increasing. (even greenspan praised clinton)

with the current burden of iraq, i dont think any candidate would be able to lower the debt (even ron paul).

its mind boggling how the government has let this debt go unchecked. clinton tried to stop the runaway caboose. he was headed in the right direction but didnt succeed.

i guess every politician has to "wet their beak" so to say.

i dont know how hillary would handle the national debt if she were elected. who knows... but one thing im sure of is that whoever the next president is needs to tighten the belt and everyone needs to go on a bread and water diet. otherwise, america will be suffocating in the interest and out future generations would be royally screwed.

 

Agree, but can any politician do this? I just always picture Carter in his sweater telling people to bundle up in the winter, to use less energy. He put solar panels on the white house. He was laughed out of town and the panels were removed by his replacement.*

Anyway, I hope someone has the guts to speak the truth, but it's political sepaku.


* = I believe it is true that GWB has put panels back on the white house, no? At least he has them all over the Crawford compound.

 

well said,

the war on terror is definately ramping up the borrowing

I think the Clintons and the Bushs all pretty much support the debt load to the bankers, and Greenspan's endorsement is the kiss of death in my thinking.

Greenspan before his Fed days wrote papers and made speeches like someone who would reign in the Fed, but once he worked for the bankers he was horrible.

As long as private bankers are running the economy we can expect them to exploit you and I for every nickle they think they will eventually get.

It gets scary when the bankers lose faith in you and I and don't think we will pay them back.

 

thats when all hell will break loose.

 

While I think the Clintons are globalist and pro-business, I don't believe their intent is to assume a huge debt burden that will crush our entitlement and infrastructure expenses, like what Bush seems to be doing.

It's still wrong, but the Clintons are the lesser wrong...so to speak.

We've mortgaged our future on so many fronts, it's almost like we're paralyzed from the choices. I think the debt burden is fixable as long as the US is the lynchpin of the world's economy, but politicians are using the debt burden as a pretext for not fixing and investing the other issues. It's this indecision and political gaming that will bite us in the ass in the near future.

 

A better of putting it would be... "the debt increased every year Clinton was in office."

1998: Budget Surplus = $69.2 billion
1999: Budget Surplus = $122.7 billion
2000: Budget Surplus = $236.2 billion

(First time since 1957 that we had two or more consecutive years of surplus.)

Total payed against the Debt during Clinton's administration: $355 billion.

It wasn't enough in any one year to fully cover the interest, but he did reduce the rate of growth to 0.32% his last year. Assuming Gore would have pursued similar policies, 2001 would have seen the first decrease.

Bush has averaged a Debt increase of 7%. Astounding when you realize how much the Debt total truly is now... $9.059 trillion.

Clinton's last year saw Debt as percentage of GDP at 57.6% after a drop of 10% in 4 years. This year, the debt-to-GDP ratio is expected to be 69.3%... and of course, our GDP is higher now.

 

A little mixed and misleading- first of all there is no relation to a 'budget' surplus and the amount of debt unless the surplus is sufficient to eliminate borrowing.

The surplus does not mean that we did not borrow (that is how we acquire more debt) The surplus meant that we did not have to borrow as MUCH because we spent less than was budgeted. The budget itself is nothing! A budget only is a prediction of how much you will spend, in this case borrow. Just because we borrowed less doesnot= we paid down the debt. Every year we borrowed MORE. So the debt was increased. The last year Clinton was in office the increase to the debt was very small and was almost flat. That is wonderful but it is not an indicator of what might have happened. Clinton increased the total debt about 1.5 trillion during his terms.

No debt was paid OFF during his terms- not 355 billion.
He might have saved us borrowing an additional 355 billion by spending less than the budget but he did not PAY down the debt ANY. I am sure at least 355 billion in interest had to be paid, also.

I can re-check the numbers, I could be off on some of this... but I know that borrowing less than budgeted is not paying off the principle of the debt.


I think

 

At least she made it to a Michael Moore documentary.

 

They are different things (hence the words budget and debt), but they are related in a way similar to the relationship between your salary and credit card debt.

That's pretty to close to what I said in my post... I just emphasized the fact that if you inherit a bunch of debt, it takes you awhile to get ahead of the interest accumulation. Your last sentence here makes it sound as if Clinton willfully increased the debt when in reality he worked very hard to create surpluses and put the country in a position where it was possible to pay off some debt the year after he left office. And Clinton's numbers are a reasonably good indicator of what might have happened had the next administration valued budget discipline and debt reduction.

Again, I acknowledged that the Clinton government never ran enough of a surplus in any one of those three years to stay ahead of the interest. Still, he used the $355 million to buy back securities. That reduced the debt. Those debts were paid off. It just wasn't enough to show a positive number on the overall debt for any one of those three years.

While we're essentially citing the same facts, your argument is akin to saying that someone who manages to cut their credit card debt down to a level where they could pay it off within a year is the same as not paying anything on the card. Yes, they have a balance left, but it's not as large as it was and they're also saving on interest.

 

By the way, (on topic) I don't know what Hillary has accomplished, but I don't want to know either.

And I am glad Bill didn't spend like George the Great. You are right that he showed much more fiscal conservatism than George.

 

He said something I agree with.

<object type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="450" height="370" wmode="transparent" data="http://www.liveleak.com/player.swf?autostart=false&token=c68_1193347304"><param name="movie" value="http://www.liveleak.com/player.swf?autostart=false&token=c68_1193347304"><param name="wmode" value="transparent"><param name="quality" value="high"></object>

 

I love how if you dislike someones politcal views then being twice elected to the US senate means you did not accomplish anything.

Trader-Jorge - please go and vote for your gun grabbing "conservative" canidates and feel good about yourself when they strip away all our liberties one by one.

Until a 3rd party that is a true conservative party arises we are all screwed.