Obama's Expedient Debt Logic

[sugarb]

Well you know what some smart person once said ... the government that governs best is the government that governs least. That being the case, sometimes I think we need to throw even more sand in the gears.

I don't consider taking the time to know what the details of a bill are before voting to approve it "stalling". But apparently the democrat leadership does. That was the case with the Stimulus Bill. The Omnibus. Cap N Trade. And Health Care.

Have you been following the nonsense now going on with respect to the latest democrat health care bill offering? They want the bill passed quickly and solely on the basis of "concept language" (which is several hundred pages in length). But the real language, the legal language, which could be written to hold all manner of ticking time bombs, would be several thousand pages long. And democrats want the bill passed before our representatives (and the people) even get to see that language in it final form. Let's see ... what's the complete opposite of stalling. Because that's what democrats now seem to be doing.

And by the way, you are right that some of the crises we're experiencing are the result of stalling. The Mortgage Crisis certainly was. Early in Bush's first term, republicans, seeing a potential problem in that area, tried to add additional oversight and monitoring to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac operations (both organizations were run by democrats). Oversight that many experts say might have prevented the mortgage industry (and thus banking industry) collapse. But democrats (such as Barnie Franks and Maxine Waters) fought that at every turn. By stalling, equivocating, denying, lying. You ever see some of their speeches in Congress defending Fannie and Freddie ... claiming that there was no problem? They stalled until the house of cards (built in large part by democrat agendas) came down.



Well you are going to have to tell me more about that. Because I certainly don't remember that and alzheimers hasn't set in yet.



No, I think you are just confusing two issues. Hard core republicans called Gingrich a traitor for letting Clinton get away with most of the things he could have been charged with during the impeachment. I suggest you read David Schippers book, "Sellout: The Inside Story of President Clinton's Impeachment". You remember who David Schippers was?



As Obama now seems intent on doing.



Then I guess you don't recall his efforts to work with Teddy Kennedy on Public Education (http://blogs.usatoday.com/.a/6a00d83451b46269e20120a51fef58970b-pi ). For example.



In the sense that he didn't seem to know how to say no where welfare was concerned. True. But I think his defense spending was completely necessary. And I think he was right to lower taxes and increase revenues. For most of his term the economy did well, despite a recession going in, the disruption from 9/11 and an ongoing war against terror that has to be won. And he was on the right track with regards to the mortgage industry until democrat stalling succeeded in causing him to fold his hand and adopt some of their same language.



No, I think the biggest difference is that Clinton was a crook, a traitor, a liar and cared only about himself. While Bush was none of those things and put his country over his own welfare and legacy.



Bush had some very good advisors but he also knew where the buck stopped. Clinton, on the other hand, surrounded himself with fellow criminals and yes men. And Obama now seems to have a bunch of far left incompetents around him. People who got it wrong where the stimulus was concerned. People who apparently couldn't even read and understand the March CBO report. People who are steadily making a mess of our Foreign Policy and War against terrorists. And when Obama is caught doing something wrong, it seems he has a tendency to point fingers, claim he didn't know the person, and throw people under the bus.



That may be true. But Obama is close to the top of what democrats can offer. That is sobering. And look at the Vice President ... heart beat from the top spot. Now THAT is scary.



Untrue. I neither suggested that nor as I pointed out above did he just ignore the things leading to those crises. He did indeed try to get legislation that experts say might have prevented those problems from becoming the *crises* they did.



Don't you think that's precisely what Obama has said ... only with even more spending in mind ... even bigger debt? And contrary to your claim, Bush did try to enact other changes in our economy. For one, he tried to make it possible for people to save more of what they make. Have more control over what they make. Changes to encourage all of us to become capitalists. But then democrats didn't like that either.



Unlike Obama, Bush actually ran a successful company. I actually think he understands basic economics far better. In fact, Obama understands economics so little that he apparently couldn't even understand the March CBO report that stated in very clear language that Obama's programs would add about 5 trillion to the national debt over what Bush's program would have added. No, instead Obama went before the public and claimed that thanks to his programs the national debt would be 2 trillion less than what it would have been under Bush's programs.

You see, Obama has been thoroughly indoctrinated with socialist/communist *economics* over his life. At every turn, you find hard core socialists and communists by his side. So he has no trouble mouthing their *economics* of "social justice" and redistribution of wealth. Which is to say that Obama does not understand basic economics. He does not understand TANSTAAFL. He probably doesn't even grasp why the Soviet Union and East Block eventually collapsed.



And which program is that? Health Care? The CBO says that the health care proposals offered so far will NOT reduce health care costs but increase them. And do you know that the CBO says that without the final language of the health care bill (that democrat now don't want to release until after the bill is passed), they can't calculate what the latest health care bill will do to health care costs? Coincidence? I think not.



Certainly true, but then again we are talking about top level stuff, top level concepts, top level logic, top level numbers, top level economics ... stuff that a President certainly should be expected to know ... especially when he personally is pushing trillion dollar programs in those areas. Especially when some of the silly stuff being said is in prepared speeches (not off the cuff) that the President's advisors must have vetted.



Well I certainly agree that the lines have blurred a little but there still are massive differences between the two parties ... between those who represent the two parties. On dozens of major and important issues. The two parties are miles apart on those issues ... foreign policy, terrorism, taxes, welfare, racism, debt. In some cases they are on the same side of ball park, but still miles apart, with one party (democrats) mostly out in left field and the other party about where the short stop is (when I'd like them on the pitcher's mound. Both wrong, but one massively wrong. In other cases they are at opposite ends of the football field, defending different goal posts. Don't buy the lie (promoted by democrats) that there are no differences. And remember this ... one party may still be redeemable (that would be the republican party). I don't think the other is at this point.

Hello again, BeAChooser. Just a few general comments;it is time to go make dinner, as all good Republican women should do

First, I have not heard of that book, but I will look for it, and no, I do not remember who Schippers was, but that'll give me something to look into tomorrow.

I know that Bush was a successful businessman, but...was it him? Or his family? You see, I don't think we can really make a judgement call on just how good Bush was. Maybe you are correct. Perhaps I am being too judgemental based on how he presents himself and how he speaks. That is certainly a possibility, because I know that there are very wealthy and successful people who aren't as "polished" as we might expect them to be.

Something you wrote made me think of something, though. I don't know very much about Obama's advisors, the people he surrounds himself with. My attitude has been, probably, too dismissive, but I seem to recall some discussions about him putting self-professed "communists" in high positions. I don't know if that is true. For some reason (perhaps because I've become so cynical), I doubt it...but...the one thing it did make me think about was, after nine months, how little I really know about our current administration. As a general rule, I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but maybe I've gone to far in the other direction. Maybe I don't question enough anymore. I'm wondering, though, if you've already started a thread about that? If not, it might make an interesting discussion...at least informative.

All of that aside, as far as the stalling goes, it doesn't matter to me which side does it. I just don't like it. And maybe the main thing that bugs me is that Congress seems to waste a whole lot of time on things that...well...really just don't matter. Baseball, for goodness sakes! I mean, really. The hearings over music lyrics was ridiculous enough.

Going to totally agree with you on public education. But...I don't think Bush was trying to "appease" Democrats. I think, ultimately, Bush and his hard core religious supporters were hoping to destroy the "godless" public school system and force government money to go to private schools regardless of religion. That's wrong, too, BeAChooser. That's as wrong as forcing "tolerance" programs about things that just really don't belong in the classroom setting anyway. Public education is something everyone seems to want to control. Control the schools, control the minds. We all get that, and I think we just need to get so-called "social issues" out of schools, so that kids can learn to think and come to their own conclusions. Like we all had to do (for those of us in school long enough ago). Personally? You may disagree with me, but I blame Reagan for messing with education. Talk about an appeaser! Reagan. And I liked him. But...any appeasing Bush may have done didn't even come close.

Anyway, I'll get back to this tomorrow. Hopefully I can win a game of trivial pursuit here in a bit, as we head to our relaxing part of the evening. Though I doubt it. I hope you have a good evening, and are having a good weekend.

 

[sugarb]

No, I didn't say that.

Okay, I'm sorry. Still, though...I agree with you that the numbers of social programs implemented years and years after the Depression weren't helpful.

 

[Meadmaker]

Hello, Meadmaker

I'm going to say something here that may or may not make sense about taxes. Okay? Perhaps I'm very wrong and someone could help me understand what I'm missing, but...

I've never been in an income bracket that seems to be affected one way or the other by the tax cuts or increases. I mean, honestly?


What I'm wondering is this: is this true for the majority of the population? I mean, any differences have been, really, minor. To us, personally.

I've noticed tax increases, especially under Reagan/Bush. The increase in payroll taxes affected me. I don't think Clinton's tax hikes made a huge difference, because my income wasn't high enough, although, probably, they came at a time when my income was rapidly rising anyway, so I might not have noticed them for that reason. The Bush tax cuts were noticeable.

However, the key word is "noticeable". None of them were so significant that they really, really, mattered. We adjust. Republicans want to tell us that changing the top tax rate from 28 to 43, (or was it 33 prior to Clinton? I don't remember the numbers.) would have some sort of really dramatic effect because somehow it deincentivises hard work.

Hogwash! The folks in the corner office who make that kind of dough got there because they had drive, ambition, talent, and, though they won't admit it, luck. In my lifetime, taxes have never been so high that someone wouldn't bother working hard just to become the big boss instead of the cubicle rat.

Everyone wants lower taxes, including me, but I'm not willing to pass on my bills to my son. Unfortunately, George W. Bush decided that was ok, so he'll end up paying the bills. As for Obama, the best I can do is hope he changes things around in the three years before the next election. If he doesn't, I'll vote for a Republican if they nominate someone who actually seems responsible, or third party if they don't.

 

[Dr Adequate]

DA, I know you will always "love and admire" Clinton regardless of what facts are brought to the table to show he was a duplicitous, treasonous, lying scoundrel. And I've made up nothing regarding the War on Poverty. If you think you can prove I have, do so, otherwise we will all conclude you are now lying. Or you have your head stuck deep in the ground to avoid learning anything but what the liberal media and your democrat friends tell you.

With the possible exception of your lies about me personally, some of which may be new (I wouldn't remember them) you do not seem to have risen to my challenge:

Couldn't you come up with some new nonsense, you know, something that, while equally dumb, hasn't been debunked yet? Only it's hard to go on laughing at the same old jokes.

 

[FlamingMoe]

Or, to put it another way, in a time of massive unemployment, the government is going to spend a bit more in the next year on welfare than Bush did.

Or, to put it yet another way, deficit spending is bad, but only when the other guy does it for things I don't like.

 

[lomiller]

While true, about the Republicans not cutting enough either, the President can veto every bill and force Congress to make cuts.

The bill(s) for mandatory spending are already enacted, you can’t veto a bill once it’s already law.

 

[lomiller]

due to changes that Obama made, .

such as...

 

[Dancing David]

Such as what my friend the bigfoot here has to say...

 

[BeAChooser]

First, I have not heard of that book, but I will look for it, and no, I do not remember who Schippers was, but that'll give me something to look into tomorrow.

You never heard of David Schippers? And you claim you were 21 when Clinton was elected? Hmmmmm. You must have lived in a vacuum. Here, this should help you: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_1_17/ai_72273372 . I wouldn't want a republican to not know this very important bit of history. I wouldn't trust a republican who didn't.

I seem to recall some discussions about him putting self-professed "communists" in high positions. I don't know if that is true. For some reason (perhaps because I've become so cynical), I doubt it.

I don't know, sugarb ... you must still be living in a vacuum to not know this is true. In fact, one of his *czars* (Van Jones) was recently in the news when it came out that he was a self-professed communist and 9/11 truther. The honest-to-gosh truth is that Obama has been surrounded by communists and hard core socialists his whole life. Usually, willingly.

His father was a communist who wrote a paper called "Problems With Our Socialism" that advocated 100% taxation of the rich, communal ownership of land and the forced confiscation of privately controlled land. His mother was a communist sympathizer (at the very least). She met his father at a russian class. Obama said "the values she taught me continue to be my touchstone when it comes to how I go about the world of politics." His brother Roy "Abongo" was a communist. Obama wrote that Roy was the “the person who made me proudest of all". His cousin Odinga is communist. Obama helped him recently in an election in Kenya.

The school and church he attended as a child were filled with communists and radicals. One was even known locally as the "little red schoolhouse". The teenage mentor, Frank, that Obama identified in his book as being very influential during those years turned out to be a communist party member named Frank Marshall Davis. Frank waxed poetically about the wonders of the Soviet Union and communism. And when Obama came to the mainland he ended up living in the neighborhood that Davis originally came from.

William Ayers, who Obama co-chaired the Chicago Annenburg Challenge (CAC) and who many people (including Mayor Daily and Ayers himself) say is a long time friend of Obama, is a self proclaimed communist. Ayers' wife (and fellow terrorist) Dohrn is a self proclaimed communist. Obama met his future wife at a law firm where both she and Ayers wife worked. The person Obama and Ayers gave the most money to during CAC, Mike Klonsky, is a communist ... indeed, Mike was one of the few allowed to visit Red China before it opened it's doors to the world. Klonsky was allowed to open a blog on the official Obama campaign website and was listed by Michelle Obama as a friend on her website ... until it was noticed that Klonsky was a communist. Then he was *purged*.

Obama was even introduced to the political world for the first time at the home of "little c" communist William Ayers ... at a gathering organized by communist sympathizer Alice Palmer, who was the only African-American journalist to travel to the Soviet Union to attend the 27th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and who openly praised the Soviet Union. The gathering in Ayers home was also attended by communist Quentin Young (who also is on record describing Ayers' and Obama's relationship as that of "friends"). Obama joined the New Party prior to his run for the Illinois Senate ... a group filled with communists and socialists from the days of SDS.

Obama's church for 20 years espoused communist themes. When that was revealed during the campaign, that got *purged* too. During the Presidential campaign, Obama willingly accepted monetary contributions from groups like the CPUSA, the DSA, the Movement for a Democratic Society (MDS) and the Progressives For Obama (all which have lots of admitted socialists and communists in their management and membership). He accepted money from socialist/communist leaning groups as CODEPINK. Obama's website even hosted a page for them: http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/group/MarxistsSocialistsCommunistsforObama . He's had numerous WILLING contacts with groups and individuals that espouse communism or communist agendas dressed up as something else. Obama's campaign even allowed a band to play the Soviet National Anthem at the beginning of concerts which were given for Obama in places like Oregon.

Surely you've seen my discussions on all this in various threads.

I think, ultimately, Bush and his hard core religious supporters were hoping to destroy the "godless" public school system and force government money to go to private schools regardless of religion.

And you claim you're not a "conspiracy theorist"?

Public education is something everyone seems to want to control.

No, some of us just want schools to teach, not indoctrinate. To teach children how to think, not parrot indoctrination. But if you read what the people who've influenced Obama's view of education over the years (like William Ayers) say, you'll see they think education at this time needs to be about indoctrination regarding the evils of capitalism, racism and the United States ... in the interests of promoting "social justice".

You may disagree with me, but I blame Reagan for messing with education.

Bush. Gingrich. Reagan. For all your talk about being republican, you sure don't seem to like republicans.

I hope you have a good evening, and are having a good weekend.

Thanks. Hope your weekend is pleasant too.

 

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
due to changes that Obama made, .

such as..

Why don't you ask the CBO.

Page 11 of the March CBO report (http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cach...rent+law+assumptions&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us ) states this:

The cumulative deficit from 2010 to 2019 under the President's proposals would total $9.3 trillion, compared with a cumulative deficit of $4.4 trillion projected under the current-law assumptions embodied in CBO's baseline.

Surely you understand what that says. It's quite clear.

And yet Obama claimed that

if we had done nothing, if you had the same, old budget as opposed to the changes we made in our budget, you'd have a $9.3 trillion deficit over the next 10 years. Because of the changes we've made, it's going to be $7.1 trillion. ... snip ... Now, that's not good, but it's $2.2 trillion less than it would have been if we had the same policies in place when we came in. ... snip ... And the steps that we've taken so far have reduced federal spending over the next 10 years by $2.2 trillion."

 

[sugarb]

You never heard of David Schippers? And you claim you were 21 when Clinton was elected? Hmmmmm. You must have lived in a vacuum. Here, this should help you: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_1_17/ai_72273372 . I wouldn't want a republican to not know this very important bit of history. I wouldn't trust a republican who didn't.



I don't know, sugarb ... you must still be living in a vacuum to not know this is true. In fact, one of his *czars* (Van Jones) was recently in the news when it came out that he was a self-professed communist and 9/11 truther. The honest-to-gosh truth is that Obama has been surrounded by communists and hard core socialists his whole life. Usually, willingly.

His father was a communist who wrote a paper called "Problems With Our Socialism" that advocated 100% taxation of the rich, communal ownership of land and the forced confiscation of privately controlled land. His mother was a communist sympathizer (at the very least). She met his father at a russian class. Obama said "the values she taught me continue to be my touchstone when it comes to how I go about the world of politics." His brother Roy "Abongo" was a communist. Obama wrote that Roy was the “the person who made me proudest of all". His cousin Odinga is communist. Obama helped him recently in an election in Kenya.

The school and church he attended as a child were filled with communists and radicals. One was even known locally as the "little red schoolhouse". The teenage mentor, Frank, that Obama identified in his book as being very influential during those years turned out to be a communist party member named Frank Marshall Davis. Frank waxed poetically about the wonders of the Soviet Union and communism. And when Obama came to the mainland he ended up living in the neighborhood that Davis originally came from.

William Ayers, who Obama co-chaired the Chicago Annenburg Challenge (CAC) and who many people (including Mayor Daily and Ayers himself) say is a long time friend of Obama, is a self proclaimed communist. Ayers' wife (and fellow terrorist) Dohrn is a self proclaimed communist. Obama met his future wife at a law firm where both she and Ayers wife worked. The person Obama and Ayers gave the most money to during CAC, Mike Klonsky, is a communist ... indeed, Mike was one of the few allowed to visit Red China before it opened it's doors to the world. Klonsky was allowed to open a blog on the official Obama campaign website and was listed by Michelle Obama as a friend on her website ... until it was noticed that Klonsky was a communist. Then he was *purged*.

Obama was even introduced to the political world for the first time at the home of "little c" communist William Ayers ... at a gathering organized by communist sympathizer Alice Palmer, who was the only African-American journalist to travel to the Soviet Union to attend the 27th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and who openly praised the Soviet Union. The gathering in Ayers home was also attended by communist Quentin Young (who also is on record describing Ayers' and Obama's relationship as that of "friends"). Obama joined the New Party prior to his run for the Illinois Senate ... a group filled with communists and socialists from the days of SDS.

Obama's church for 20 years espoused communist themes. When that was revealed during the campaign, that got *purged* too. During the Presidential campaign, Obama willingly accepted monetary contributions from groups like the CPUSA, the DSA, the Movement for a Democratic Society (MDS) and the Progressives For Obama (all which have lots of admitted socialists and communists in their management and membership). He accepted money from socialist/communist leaning groups as CODEPINK. Obama's website even hosted a page for them: http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/group/MarxistsSocialistsCommunistsforObama . He's had numerous WILLING contacts with groups and individuals that espouse communism or communist agendas dressed up as something else. Obama's campaign even allowed a band to play the Soviet National Anthem at the beginning of concerts which were given for Obama in places like Oregon.

Surely you've seen my discussions on all this in various threads.



And you claim you're not a "conspiracy theorist"?



No, some of us just want schools to teach, not indoctrinate. To teach children how to think, not parrot indoctrination. But if you read what the people who've influenced Obama's view of education over the years (like William Ayers) say, you'll see they think education at this time needs to be about indoctrination regarding the evils of capitalism, racism and the United States ... in the interests of promoting "social justice".



Bush. Gingrich. Reagan. For all your talk about being republican, you sure don't seem to like republicans.



Thanks. Hope your weekend is pleasant too.

Oh, BeAChooser, you are so mean to me.

And don't roll your eyes at me! I don't like all women, but that doesn't mean I'm not one. There are a whole lot of people I don't like, but that doesn't mean I'm not one. Criminitly. Do you want a list of Republicans I like? (I like Reagan, by the way, just not everything he did. I liked the first President Bush. I even liked Dan Quayle, which I think puts me in a minority of Republicans, but I can make you a list if you'd like).

Vacuum. At 21? Well, we'll get to that in a second, but as to the communist issue, not entirely in a vacuum. I've been following the Ayers thing, one of your threads, though I'm sure there are others I have missed. I'm just now really delving into the political section, so it'll take me a while to catch up. I became...disenchanted with political discussions online about eight years ago, because they were for the most part just hours and hours worth of insults and stupidity, so I'm getting into it here slowly. I admit that I am still a little hesitant to enter into the things that are likely to get really heated. But!

At 21? Yeah, I probably did live in a sort of vacuum. I don't know many 21 year olds that don't, to some extent. But I will tell you that, at 21 and for about a year after that, I was in the process of...well, I guess you could say I was a recovering alcoholic...so yes, for a few years, I did miss some things.

And good God I am not a conspiracy theorist. The fact that everyone wants to influence public schools for their own purposes isn't being a conspiracy theorist. Being a conspiracy theorist is being afraid to let your kids hear what the President of their country has to say! Seeing the boogeyman around every corner is being a conspiracy theorist. Thinking that communists will take over our government is being a conspiracy theorist, and conspiracy theorists like that have been around a long, long time. Guess what? Our flag ain't just red. Still.

But I'm sorry you don't trust me. I'll get better educated Maybe redeem myself.

And thank you! Our weekend ended late last night, but we did have a lovely one. I actually won two games of trivial pursuit It was just me and husband, and I tried really hard to lose the second game...but it was just taking soooo long. He hates to lose, and I kinda enjoy seeing him win. But I have to admit that sometimes I get tired of hearing WHY any baseball player that is the answer to a question was so great, and about his entire career. Still, it is cute to watch it. For a while.

 

[Meadmaker]

Vacuum. At 21?

Because you didn't recognize the name David Schippers?

If that's the criteria for vacuum status, most of the country lived in a vacuum. I didn't recognize the name, and I was 30 when Bill was elected, and a news junkie. I remembered it when I clicked the link, but only dimly. Anyone whose claim to fame was that he was involved in the impeachment of Bill Clinton is not a very significant character.

I was embarrassed for the GOP when they tried to pass the four articles of impeachment. Two of them were so pathetic that they couldn't ram them through the House even using their parliamentary dirty tricks. However, that's ancient history.

On the subject of this thread, the national debt, I will say that if it turns out the cumulative deficit actually turns out to be in the 9.3 trillion dollar range that is being estimated right now, I won't vote for Obama a second time, but I don't think that's going to happen. I guess we'll have to see.

 

[lomiller]

Why don't you ask the CBO.

why don't you do the homework necessary to back up your claims?

 

[Dr Adequate]

Or, to put it yet another way, deficit spending is bad, but only when the other guy does it for things I don't like.

In the comment to which you are ostensibly replying, I neither mentioned deficit spending nor criticized Bush.

I can only conjecture why you claimed that your post was a paraphrase of my sentiments "put yet another way". I have a number of hypotheses: one is that you genuinely thought that that was a precis of my opinion; another is that you were suddenly possessed by the unquiet and tormented spirit of Bozo the Clown.

 

[Dancing David]

why don't you do the homework necessary to back up your claims?

Is a bear clatholic, does the pope...

 

[Dancing David]

In the comment to which you are ostensibly replying, I neither mentioned deficit spending nor criticized Bush.

I can only conjecture why you claimed that your post was a paraphrase of my sentiments "put yet another way". I have a number of hypotheses: one is that you genuinely thought that that was a precis of my opinion; another is that you were suddenly possessed by the unquiet and tormented spirit of Bozo the Clown.

And there are such a huge array of those Bozo astral zombies...

 

[mhaze]

why don't you do the homework necessary to back up your claims?

I consider quoting the CBO authoritative. If you dis agree with them, why not say exactly what you disagree with.

 

[BeAChooser]

Vacuum. At 21? ... snip ... Yeah, I probably did live in a sort of vacuum. I don't know many 21 year olds that don't, to some extent. But I will tell you that, at 21 and for about a year after that, I was in the process of...well, I guess you could say I was a recovering alcoholic...so yes, for a few years, I did miss some things.

But I'm still a little puzzled by the timing. You said you were 21 when Clinton was elected. Even if you were talking about his reelection, in 1996, the impeachment still wasn't until 1998, 2 years later. His trial in the Senate wasn't until February of 1999. And what happened remained a topic of discussion for years afterwords. On the other hand, if you'd relied on the mainstream media for news at the time, you'd not have learned even a fraction of what happened during the Clinton administration. So I can't really fault you for being in the dark back then.

But regardless, contrary to what many on this forum (like Meadmaker) would have you believe, David Schippers wasn't some minor character and Clinton (and his adminstration) did some really serious and bad stuff. The impeachment shouldn't have been just about sex (actually it wasn't, but that's just another false history that democrats like to foster). It would have been about much more if Schippers and the House Managers had gotten their way ... if certain republicans (like Trent Lott and Gingrich) hadn't intervened for personal and political reasons.

Then it would have been about campaign finance illegalities, invasion of privacy, bribery, blackmail, treason and perhaps even murder (or at least the coverup of several possible murders). Even without those charges, Clinton would have been convicted of what he was charged with if democrats hadn't closed ranks on purely political grounds and disgraced themselves. Democrat partisanship was so bad that Senator "ethics" Byrd was on record stating that the accusations against Clinton were impeachable offenses and that Bill did commit those offenses ... and then turned around and voted to acquit.

Then, Bush made a huge mistake and just "moved on" where the criminal actions of the Clinton administration were concerned. Perhaps because he feared (perhaps accurately) that if he tried to clean house and prosecute some of the illegalities, the democrats in Congress would block anything he wanted to accomplish. That's the excuse that many over at FreeRepublic gave for just moving on. Or perhaps Bush feared the threats of mutual assured destruction that members of Clinton's Whitehouse (like George Stephenopolis) had made if republicans pursued criminal complaints. Remember Mena? Whatever the reason, Bush allowed that corruption to remain in the government and media, festering, just waiting for the chance to surface again. Which I think it has now.

Just to give you one idea of what poor decisions the Bush's administration made with regard to this criminality, James Riady (a foreign billionaire, tied to the Chinese communists, who gave millions of dollars in illegal campaign contributions to Clinton and the DNC) stood in front of a judge in a California courtroom during the first year of the first Bush term. He was there to be sentenced in a plea agreement (for campaign violations) where he would get only a slap on the wrist for trying to tamper with the US elections. The agreement required that he tell the truth about what had transpired. He told the judge, under that oath, that contrary to public statements by Bill Clinton and DNC officials, the millions of dollars in illegal contributions he'd given them had not been returned. The prosecutor told the judge that to the best of their information that was indeed true. The Clintons and DNC had not returned the millions of illegal dollars they got from Riady. Yet Bush's DOJ did not investigate further ... they simply moved on. And let those millions of illegal dollars influence the election process with no punishment to anyone (outside of the slap on the wrist that Riady got). With such toothlessness, is it any wonder that Obama's campaign figured they could get away with funneling who knows how many millions of dollars in contributions from illegal foreign sources into his campaign via the internet. And they did ... do it and get away with it.

And contrary to what Meadmaker and democrats want you to believe, what happened isn't just ancient history because numerous criminals from the Clinton administration are still in power, still affecting policy. Hillary Clinton, now Secretary of State. Who was as guilty as sin where Filegate was concerned and who was definitely involved in whatever coverup took place surrounding the death of Vince Foster. Eric Holder, now #1 at the Department of Justice. The #2 man at the DOJ under Reno, and who helped maintain the coverups in Chinagate, Campaignfinancegate, Filegate, Emailgate and other scandals. Leon Paneta, in charge of the CIA. Who according to sworn testimony defied court orders and obstructed a lawsuit aimed at gathering information related to Chinagate and Campaignfinancegate. Who called Filegate "a completely honest bureaucratic snafu". Who was White House Chief of Staff from 1994 to 1997, the exact period during which Monica Lewinsky repeatedly visited the Oval Office. Yet Panetta claimed to not know a thing about the relationship, that he had no recollection of Monica, even though one of the Chief of Staff's responsibilities is handling the President's schedule. And those are just some of the crooked Clinton holdovers now in Obama's top echelon ... advising him.

 

[sugarb]

But I'm still a little puzzled by the timing. You said you were 21 when Clinton was elected. Even if you were talking about his reelection, in 1996, the impeachment still wasn't until 1998, 2 years later. His trial in the Senate wasn't until February of 1999. And what happened remained a topic of discussion for years afterwords. On the other hand, if you'd relied on the mainstream media for news at the time, you'd not have learned even a fraction of what happened during the Clinton administration. So I can't really fault you for being in the dark back then.

But regardless, contrary to what many on this forum (like Meadmaker) would have you believe, David Schippers wasn't some minor character and Clinton (and his adminstration) did some really serious and bad stuff. The impeachment shouldn't have been just about sex (actually it wasn't, but that's just another false history that democrats like to foster). It would have been about much more if Schippers and the House Managers had gotten their way ... if certain republicans (like Trent Lott and Gingrich) hadn't intervened for personal and political reasons.

Then it would have been about campaign finance illegalities, invasion of privacy, bribery, blackmail, treason and perhaps even murder (or at least the coverup of several possible murders). Even without those charges, Clinton would have been convicted of what he was charged with if democrats hadn't closed ranks on purely political grounds and disgraced themselves. Democrat partisanship was so bad that Senator "ethics" Byrd was on record stating that the accusations against Clinton were impeachable offenses and that Bill did commit those offenses ... and then turned around and voted to acquit.

Then, Bush made a huge mistake and just "moved on" where the criminal actions of the Clinton administration were concerned. Perhaps because he feared (perhaps accurately) that if he tried to clean house and prosecute some of the illegalities, the democrats in Congress would block anything he wanted to accomplish. That's the excuse that many over at FreeRepublic gave for just moving on. Or perhaps Bush feared the threats of mutual assured destruction that members of Clinton's Whitehouse (like George Stephenopolis) had made if republicans pursued criminal complaints. Remember Mena? Whatever the reason, Bush allowed that corruption to remain in the government and media, festering, just waiting for the chance to surface again. Which I think it has now.

Just to give you one idea of what poor decisions the Bush's administration made with regard to this criminality, James Riady (a foreign billionaire, tied to the Chinese communists, who gave millions of dollars in illegal campaign contributions to Clinton and the DNC) stood in front of a judge in a California courtroom during the first year of the first Bush term. He was there to be sentenced in a plea agreement (for campaign violations) where he would get only a slap on the wrist for trying to tamper with the US elections. The agreement required that he tell the truth about what had transpired. He told the judge, under that oath, that contrary to public statements by Bill Clinton and DNC officials, the millions of dollars in illegal contributions he'd given them had not been returned. The prosecutor told the judge that to the best of their information that was indeed true. The Clintons and DNC had not returned the millions of illegal dollars they got from Riady. Yet Bush's DOJ did not investigate further ... they simply moved on. And let those millions of illegal dollars influence the election process with no punishment to anyone (outside of the slap on the wrist that Riady got). With such toothlessness, is it any wonder that Obama's campaign figured they could get away with funneling who knows how many millions of dollars in contributions from illegal foreign sources into his campaign via the internet. And they did ... do it and get away with it.

And contrary to what Meadmaker and democrats want you to believe, what happened isn't just ancient history because numerous criminals from the Clinton administration are still in power, still affecting policy. Hillary Clinton, now Secretary of State. Who was as guilty as sin where Filegate was concerned and who was definitely involved in whatever coverup took place surrounding the death of Vince Foster. Eric Holder, now #1 at the Department of Justice. The #2 man at the DOJ under Reno, and who helped maintain the coverups in Chinagate, Campaignfinancegate, Filegate, Emailgate and other scandals. Leon Paneta, in charge of the CIA. Who according to sworn testimony defied court orders and obstructed a lawsuit aimed at gathering information related to Chinagate and Campaignfinancegate. Who called Filegate "a completely honest bureaucratic snafu". Who was White House Chief of Staff from 1994 to 1997, the exact period during which Monica Lewinsky repeatedly visited the Oval Office. Yet Panetta claimed to not know a thing about the relationship, that he had no recollection of Monica, even though one of the Chief of Staff's responsibilities is handling the President's schedule. And those are just some of the crooked Clinton holdovers now in Obama's top echelon ... advising him.

Hello, BeAChooser. Thank you for this rather lengthy post...it has convinced me to buy the Schippers book. I remember "filegate", I remember Reno, I remember the issues about China...some of them I remember well, some I don't. (You'll have to forgive me. To perhaps help some of your confusion, I had my first "breakdown" in 1997, so many things from back then are kind of vague. I have worked to remind and re-teach myself a lot of things I missed over the years, and am still working on it. Now that I'm getting treatment, that is the one thing I'm finding helps me the most--having things to focus on and learn about. I appreciate your patience.)

Byrd. Ack, don't get me started on Byrd. I'm still so mad at him! Home state WV here, and I've never understood why every West Virginian alive isn't ashamed of that man, especially after Kerry's campaign.

But I've drifted us way off topic, sorry about that, so I'll hush.

 

[Meadmaker]

But regardless, contrary to what many on this forum (like Meadmaker) would have you believe, David Schippers wasn't some minor character

Oh, I didn't mean to imply that his role within the impeachment drama was minor. However, the impeachment drama itself was minor. It should never have existed. Hastert should have allowed a vote on a censure resolution. The Republicans could have voted for it, and expressed their disapproval, and then they would have voted against impeachment. That's why Hastert couldn't allow that vote. It would have passed, and wrecked their plans.

And it couldn't have been Gingrich who blocked anything at all, because he was out of office by the time Clinton was impeached.

The impeachment of Clinton accomplished one and only one thing. Many states require students in the eighth grade to take a class in government, where they learn about the Constitution, including impeachment. The impeachment of Bill Clinton ensured that for generations to come, the teachers who teach those classes will say, as if with one voice, "Can't we please talk about Andrew Johnson?"