2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWill Bill Clinton loosen up business/Wall Street regulations if Hillary makes him economic czar?
If she captures the Democratic nomination and if she somehow defeats Donald Trump.
Two very big if's.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
BootinUp
(47,156 posts)He is uses current trends, issues, problems and comes up with ways to make it better. If that means clamping down on Wall Street, he will be all for it.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)The rest of us are an after thought
BootinUp
(47,156 posts)He has a big heart. It is part genetic part environment he was raised in. After listening to all possible solutions and what it would take to get it passed, it would have to meet his heart test. Call it philosophy if you will. The final measure would have to on balance, help not harm those who need relief.
Your reply is exactly not the test it would have to meet.
The 90's are a different era that after going through the process I described had different solutions.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)publicly dismissing the agenda of Sanders and his supporters as "shoot every third person on Wall St. and everything will be fine."
Sorry but that reveals an instinctive bias against people who are truly concerned about the excessive concentration of wealth and power that really is hurting average people and minorities.
Makes one wonder what he says when the microphones aren't on.
BootinUp
(47,156 posts)in terms of attacks on Hillary. It was a comment on the tone of the race, not talking about Sanders. It was certainly not a hint at his ideas for how to deal with the actual issues. But you are free to believe it is if you prefer.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)And family net worth of over $100 million......Yeah I think he has has absorbed the Elite Corporate Wall St. Kool Aid, even if he thinks he is doing the right thing.
BootinUp
(47,156 posts)that we have issues with.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)The 90's were a coicaine high. Not real growth or progress or advancement for average people. Just a lot of swindles, unrealistic super bubbles and illusions.
The economy under Bush was the inevitable result (coupled with GOP/Bush screwups) of things ignored and bad policies and beliefs promoted by the DLC/Clinton crowd.
BootinUp
(47,156 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)has been on a counterproductive jag since the 80's.
It could be improved....but only if we want it to.
BootinUp
(47,156 posts)good you think you accomplish with same lefty talking points. More counterproductive than anything else. The improvements we all desire are only achieved by gaining more elected seats whether in Congress or the WH. Every 4 years we collectively place our bets and go forward. Re-litigation of the past has it usefulness taken in moderation.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)As for my lefty talking points....I happen to believe tham and this is a discussion board, not a campaign ad.
The "talking points" are based on a whole pattern of events that I -- and many others -- have seen and thought about and connected dots....Including the endless cycle of "have to beat the GOP boogeyman, but there's nothing more we can do to improve life."
I am more than aware that life is not black and white -- that there are nuances and necessity of compromise. But there is a difference between compromise and either selling out and pushing in the wrong direction, or surrendering when we don't believe in our own values and beliefs.....It's the killing the lobsters by slowly turning up the heat and eventually boiling them.
At some [point we have to start breaking that cycle or it is going to continue to boil the poor, working and middle classes.
You are welcome to have a different opinion, but that's my story and I'm sticking to it.
BootinUp
(47,156 posts)
.99center
(1,237 posts)That doesn't speak of elitism. Would it not be fair to bring up Hillary's father and the type of environment he created?
If by "clamp down" you mean to close one's mouth around, you'd actually be pretty accurate there.
LonePirate
(13,424 posts)He will be nothing more than a symbolic figurehead who might toss out a suggestion occasionally to the President and Congress.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)
Kip Humphrey
(4,753 posts)Buzz cook
(2,472 posts)First that Bill will have any public role in a Hillary administration.
Second that it will be an independent and powerful one.
Third that it will be focused on economics.
Finally that there would be an "economic czar" in the first place. Presidents are jealous of their powers and economic power is one of the powers that presidents are most personally involved with. The odds that any president would cede that power to anyone is hard to believe.
PS it also assumes that Hillary is incapable of making economic decisions on her own. Fits with the stereotype of Sanders supporters being chauvinists.
Don't be a stereotype.
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)At a recent rally in Kentucky.
What people don't understand is that Bill had a team of economists behind him while he was POTUS, and very few of the ideas that were implemented were not his own, but rather those of his advisors.
Buzz cook
(2,472 posts)I just googled it up.
On edit, still less of one than Bernie, but still that's incredibly tone deaf.
Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)It'll make her Secretary of State / Clinton Foundation payoffs look cheap by comparison.
I bet they'll be billionaires before he's done. And who knows how many more countries they can plunder. It'll all be legal because we're handing them the keys.
He can probably privatize Social Security too. All they'll need to do, to get this junk passed in Congress, is grease the right palms. We now know nearly all of them are in the payoff line.
Bill is running for his third term, in case nobody noticed.
