Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

kaleckim

(651 posts)
37. Oh please
Wed Mar 30, 2016, 02:02 PM
Mar 2016

Last edited Wed Mar 30, 2016, 04:24 PM - Edit history (1)

"the claims about NAFTA's job losses have been refuted"

I know the damn data inside and out. You are either lying or speaking out of ignorance. Why don't you research the US's trade balance with Mexico and Canada before and after NAFTA, then research the impact on jobs. You also can't argue against the long term consequences of his policies.

Take a look:

"But you cannot deny the reality of many people doing quite well under the Clinton administration"

Most definitely, and those people have paid him kindly for his service. Like, when the East Asian financial crisis broke, or the Mexican peso crisis broke, he most definitely helped them to do well, he used public money to guarantee that. He also did that when he deregulated Wall Street and destroyed working people and unions with NAFTA and destroyed our democracy with the WTO.

"Social Security was never privatized so stop inferring that it was."

Never said it was, he was (not arguable) working to do so, then Lewinsky happened, just as I said. After that broke, he realized the last thing he needed was to piss people off even more and he backed off his plans. This is not a secret:

http://www.counterpunch.org/2004/10/30/how-monica-lewinsky-saved-social-security/

Late in 1998 or in the State of the Union message of 1999 a solemn Clinton would have told Congress and the nation that, just like welfare, Social Security was near-broke, had to be “reformed” and its immense pool of capital tendered in part to the mutual funds industry. The itinerary mapped out for Clinton by the Democratic Leadership Committee would have been complete.

It was a desperately close run thing. On the account of members of Clinton’s secret White House team, mandated to map out the privatization path for Social Security, they had got as far down the road as fine-tuning the account numbers for Social Security accounts now released to the captious mercies of Wall Street. But in 1998 the Lewinsky scandal burst upon the President, and as the months sped by and impeachment swelled from a remote specter to a looming reality, Clinton’s polls told him that his only hope was to nourish the widespread popular dislike for the hoity-toity elites intoning Clinton’s death warrant.

...We have this on the authority of high-ranking members of the Clinton Treasury who gathered in Harvard in the summer of 2001 to mull over the lessons of the 1990s. At that conclave it was revealed that on Clinton’s orders a top secret White House working party had been established to study in detail the basis for a bipartisan policy on Social Security that would splice individual accounts into the program. Such was the delicacy of this exercise that meetings of the group were flagged under the innocent rubric “Special Issues” on the White House agenda.

What was in fact being prepared for the President was precisely that second dose of welfare reform, this time targeted on the very citadel of the New Deal, the Social Security program Roosevelt himself established.

...The “Special Issues” secret team was set up by then-Deputy Treasury Secretary Larry Summers (later elevated to Treasury Secretary and now President of Harvard) and Gene Sperling, the head of the Council of Economic Advisers. The Deputy Treasury Secretary’s fondness for schemes to privatize Social Security comes as no surprise. As Chief Economist of the World Bank in the early 1990s Summers had commissioned a notorious report, “Averting the Old Age Crisis”, that argued that Merrill Lynch and Fidelity would be better at pension provision than any government. In fact governments should offer only a safety net and farm out their power to tax payrolls to private financial concerns, which would run mandatory funded pensions on the Chilean model. The task of the Special Issues group was to find an installment of privatization that could reconcile realistic Republicans and Democrats, and be sold as still honoring most existing entitlements.

Participants at the Harvard conference conceded that severe technical problems beset efforts to introduce commercial practices. The existing program has low administration costs whereas running tens of millions of small investment accounts would be expensive. The secret White House team sought to finesse the problem by pooling individual funds and stripping down the element of choice or customer service. But Summers was unhappy: as one Team member now recalls it, “Deputy Secretary Summers was fond of saying that we had to guard against the risk of setting up the Post Office when people were used to dealing with Federal Express”. And pooled funds were also to be avoided because they would risk government control of business.

Some members of the team also worried that allowing employees the option of setting up their own accounts would soon turn into a “slippery slope”, since the defection of the richest five or ten per cent of employees would soon undermine the program’s ability to honor its commitments to existing retirees.

Nevertheless, under Summers’ guidance, the secret team pushed forward. There were high hopes that the President would embrace what had by now had become a detailed blueprint: “The working group’s estimates were at the level of detail that it was determined how many digits an ID number would have to be for each fund and how many key strokes would therefore be required to enter all of the ID numbers each year.”

Clinton was kept up to date with briefings every few weeks and in July 1998 attended one of the “Special Issues” meetings himself. But in that same month he was served with a grand jury subpoena. A month later he finally acknowledged a sexual relationship with Monica.

In Britain he's remembered from helping bring peace to Northern Ireland. Bad Dog Mar 2016 #1
Neither Clinton is a bit shy about taking credit for things Ted Kennedy accomplished. merrily Mar 2016 #6
Surprised you didn't give the credit to Bernie. 6000eliot Mar 2016 #29
I call bs. Link to any post where I've misattributed or usurped credit. Or slink. merrily Mar 2016 #36
+10000 nt riderinthestorm Mar 2016 #35
Ted Kennedy had nothing positive to do with Northern Ireland. Bad Dog Mar 2016 #40
That was a major accomplishment BlueMTexpat Mar 2016 #8
It's pretty big over here. Bad Dog Mar 2016 #39
I recall some good years liberal N proud Mar 2016 #2
Tax and fee hikes by Reagan and Poppy, combined with ending "welfare as we know it" merrily Mar 2016 #10
Is there a point to your excitement? liberal N proud Mar 2016 #13
Is there a point to your ad hom Reply 13, other than you can't refute anything in my post? merrily Mar 2016 #16
don't forget they used the SS surplus too Viva_La_Revolution Mar 2016 #17
EXCELLENT POINT. I and millions of other Americans wuz robbed to help create that merrily Mar 2016 #21
Family Medical Leave nt WhiteTara Mar 2016 #11
Signed into law almost as soon as Bill Clinton became President - legislation that had been vetoed karynnj Mar 2016 #38
I agree with all your points, BlueMTexpat Mar 2016 #12
In the 2008 primary, Hillary fully embraced Bill's acts and omissions, though she's now "evolved" merrily Mar 2016 #22
"Hillary's would be significantly better" kaleckim Mar 2016 #23
Those don't make up for... SHRED Mar 2016 #3
Ending welfare pulled families out of poverty? ok. Let's REALLY remember: merrily Mar 2016 #4
People also forget, or maybe don't know kaleckim Mar 2016 #14
Yes and his main guy on Social Security cuts, etc. was Bowles of Simpson Bowles, aka the merrily Mar 2016 #15
Lest we forget kaleckim Mar 2016 #5
excellent rebuttal! thanks Viva_La_Revolution Mar 2016 #20
Never said it was a perfect record and the claims about NAFTA's job losses have been refuted Jitter65 Mar 2016 #33
Oh please kaleckim Mar 2016 #37
NAFTA, Deregulate Telecomunications, Repeal Glass/Steigel Chasstev365 Mar 2016 #7
You forgot the Patriot Act I and the Telecommunication Act. Wilms Mar 2016 #9
As long as we're on precursors to the post 911 Dummya years, how about bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iraq? merrily Mar 2016 #18
I see that hundreds of thousands of dead and injured bothers you, too. Wilms Mar 2016 #27
Those already exist, paid for by Saudis, among others, but are well-whitewashed. merrily Mar 2016 #28
Good point. Wilms Mar 2016 #31
Good catch. Both Bush Libraries, too. merrily Mar 2016 #32
NAFTA, explosion of the prison population because of the War on Drugs..... marmar Mar 2016 #19
Focus on the negative and blame it ALL on Clinton ... BlueMTexpat Mar 2016 #24
or kaleckim Mar 2016 #25
I'm sorry, but you can deny history and reality all you want. marmar Mar 2016 #26
You seem to have a lot of cognitive dissonance BlueMTexpat Mar 2016 #42
Who is "blaming them for all that is evil"? kaleckim Mar 2016 #43
Sorry..... marmar Mar 2016 #45
Not at all. eom BlueMTexpat Mar 2016 #48
Which things attributed on this thread to Bubba did not happen on his watch? merrily Mar 2016 #30
Clinton was a good president, but Hillary is more of a hawk than he is adigal Mar 2016 #34
Some DUers long for the Bush years and hope Trump will bring them back Democat Mar 2016 #41
What does a left wing critique of Democrats like Clinton look like? kaleckim Mar 2016 #44
no .... welfare reform and mass incarceration are unforgivable....period dembotoz Mar 2016 #46
It's also important to remember that came in the context of GOP attacks about "Willy Horton" BainsBane Mar 2016 #47
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Lest we forget what the e...»Reply #37