PA Voters: Clinton Years Were Good for PA Economy

[OzarkDem]

One of the more shocking and disappointing things to come from the Obama campaign has been the false accusation that America's economy "suffered" under the Clinton/Gore administation. Even worse, these fals accusations damage the ability of Democrats to rebuild the post - Bush economy by reviving the political, monetary and economic strategies that were so successful after the Bush/Reagan years.


Despite tons of statistics and data showing just the opposite, it helps to hear the stories of Pennsylvania voters and political leaders who disagree.

"There's been a lot of hoopla about who said what and who shot John in the last couple of days. But one of the thing that I thought was kind of overlooked in all this is that one more time, the campaigns opposite Hillary said, 'well there really wasn't any difference in the Clinton years and the Bush years. Rural Pennsylvania really didn't do very well. Do you agree with that?" Asked Clinton, receiving a loud "NO" from the audience.

Clinton chuckled a bit at the response, adding "I just thought I'd get a few witnesses here. You know I'm a, I'm a Baptist. On Sunday we look for witnesses."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/04/bill-clinton-on.html


Gore and Clinton were successful in debunking every GOP meme about Dem economic policy. Clinton showed you could force businesses to clean up their pollution and have even greater profits. They showed public infrastructure programs and funding the rebuilding of economically depressed areas worked (ask many urban areas as well as the Pennyslvania towns who were recipients of billions in "block grants" for economic development. They showed that raising wholesale taxes on the energy industry and the uber wealthy did not damage the economy and in fact helped pay down the deficit. And they showed that shifting government spending from defense to domestic programs created jobs, improved education and provided economic security.

If Obama supposedly rejects the economic policies of the Bush/Reagan and Bush/Cheney administrations, and they also reject the successful ones of the Clinton/Gore administration, what does he plan to do? Reinvent the wheel? His economic plans don't reflect that, instead they contain a mixture of both traditional GOP and Clinton/Gore remedies, with a heavy emphasis on the former. Not hard to see that Wall Street has written Obama's economic platform for him.

Much was made of Obama's changing his web site to remove references to his support of "globalism" prior to the Ohio primaries. Ever the shape-shifter, we won't know what policy he backs unless he's elected. And for someone who spends so much time trashing the good policies of the Clinton years, it doesn't bode well for progressive economic policy.

[anonymous171]

1. lol.

:rofl: Rezko.

[OzarkDem]

2. Rezko is Obama's mentor

Was he the one who told him to insult PA voters?

[slick8790]

4. He was Obama's mentor now?

You shills can't even keep your smears in order anymore.

[OzarkDem]

7. The topic is PA's appreciation of Clinton/Gore's economic policy

and their refutation of Obama's GOP-like claim.

It appears the PA voters disagree, as do many of the political leaders from the state.


What do you think of that?

[TLM]

11. Yeah keep telling folks how great things are...

keep telling them how NAFTA and wal*mart have been so great for the rust belt.

That's sure to resonate coming from someone worth 109 million who sat on the board of walmart and supported NAFTA.

[Window]

69. So, ALL the voters of Pennsylvania were in that audience????

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

125. He's had like... six mentors now.

Rezko, Lieberman, Wright, Farrakhan, that Weather Underground idiot, etc.

[TLM]

8. Nope it was bill clintion who said in 91 rural whites are scared racists...

"you have all these economically insecure white people who are scared to death"

"You know, he wants to divide us over race."

"the most economically insecure white men and scare the living daylights out of them. They know if they can keep us looking at each other across a racial divide, if I can look at Bobby Rush and think, Bobby wants my job, my promotion, then neither of us can look at George Bush and say, 'What happened to everybody's job?"

[tabasco]

76. The last gasps of the H. Clinton campaign.

[TLM]

3. SO then you feel Bill lied when he said this....

Using your standard for attacking Obama... Bill said rural whites were cowardly racists too dumb to see past right wing manipulation.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/13/bill-clinton-flashback-al_n_96433.html
Huff Post:

As the rumination continues over Barack Obama's comments about economically-depressed small town voters, statements made by Bill Clinton on the same topic -- uttered while he was running for president in 1991 -- have now surfaced.

"The reason (George H. W. Bush's tactic) works so well now is that you have all these economically insecure white people who are scared to death," Clinton was quoted saying by the Los Angeles Times in September 1991.

A couple months later, Joe Klein, writing for the Sunday Times, reported that Clinton made the following remarks:

"You know, he wants to divide us over race. I'm from the South. I understand this. This quota deal they're gonna pull in the next election is the same old scam they've been pulling on us for decade after decade after decade. When their economic policies fail, when the country's coming apart rather than coming together, what do they do? They find the most economically insecure white men and scare the living daylights out of them. They know if they can keep us looking at each other across a racial divide, if I can look at Bobby Rush and think, Bobby wants my job, my promotion, then neither of us can look at George Bush and say, 'What happened to everybody's job? What happened to everybody's income? What ... have ... you ... done ... to ... our ... country?'"

[democracy1st]

5. So she is running on a DLC platform?

just checking need to make sure

[OzarkDem]

9. No she isn't, glad you asked

Happy to clear that up for you.

Try checking her health care reform plan - not anything like the DLC's. But Obama's is.

[TLM]

12. Even the DLC knows better than to put forth a plan....

that tells hard working Americans they'll have their paycheck reduced to fund Hillary-care programs they'll be mandated to join.


That'll be real popular in the GE.

[cali]

6. Baghdad Bobette is pontificating

and pulling more false crap out of her august ass.

:rofl:

[dchill]

70. Sorry to correct you...

but it is a June or July ass at best.

[JoFerret]

79. Such charm, such class

Why so bitter and nasty? Isn't Obama winning everywhere and on his way to winning?

Why such soreheadness in the face of victory?

[cali]

80. lol. this is the poster who insisted despite masses of evidence

to the contrary that a packed Obama event was sparsely attended. She's truly a baghdad bobette. And sorry, I think it's funny.

[JoFerret]

93. Erm...when have I asserted anything of the kind?

please...don't trade in this kind of nonsense.

..and please also allow for disagreement when it comes to who is the better candidate to take this country forward and confront the awful legacy of Bush.

Your name-calling and character assassination does you no credit.

[Zhade]

98. Pretty sure Cali meant the OP, not you.

As for the better candidate, you honestly think it's the one who's been proven to be a liar about things like Tuzla? Really?

[JoFerret]

116. You may be right re the intentions of the poster

As for the better candidate to win in the GE and be a better president - I think Hillary for whole raft of reasons. You presumably disagree for a whole raft of reasons. So be it.

Meanwhile I think we can both agree that Bush/Cheney should be hauled off to jail.

[Justitia]

10. Gee, that's not what Fast Eddie Rendell (their guv) said on CNN last night

He said PA was in the shitter a decade ago (Clinton Administration), but it has really turned around during the BUSH ADMINISTRATION.
He was refuting that things were currently as bad as Obama portrayed them.

So which is it? Is Bill lying or Fast Eddie lying? :crazy:

Those two need to get their stories straight.

[OzarkDem]

13. I would say its you lying

Got a link?

[TLM]

15. I saw it too....

I do not think he credited the Bush admin, but he did say that Obama was out of touch because he was unaware how much better things have gotten over the last few years.

[Justitia]

20. It was on fucking televison, quit being so lazy and find it yourself. -eom

[OzarkDem]

29. Yeah, right

Your interpertation as viewed through the kaleidescope of Obama worship.

[Justitia]

33. Denying reality is a prerequisite of your job, I see. Did you see the other poster who confirmed?

No, of course not. And suuuuure, it wasn't on National Television either.

I really must get the name of the drugs you are on, they're fantastic!

[OzarkDem]

34. The other poster is on ignore

[Justitia]

36. HAHAHAHAHA - so you ARE denying reality! I just LOVE that bubble you live in!

When are you going to put ME on ignore????

[OzarkDem]

43. If you think its a good argument

post it.

If all you're doing is trying to spam the thread with BS, get lost.

[Zhade]

100. ...says the person who denies the undeniable video evidence that proves clinton lied about Tuzla.

NT!

[Vinca]

14. The trade policies of Clinton/Gore didn't hit the skids until they

were long gone from office. By the time people realized the deals struck meant the widget factory would close down and move to China, it was too late. The agreements, like later agreements, favor the corporate interests. I'll give Clinton the benefit of the doubt that he thought more exports might result in more jobs for Americans. Unfortunately, it turned out quite the opposite. American jobs were exported instead of goods. If the deals had been negotiated with a fair playing field for the American worker, it probably would have turned out a whole lot better.

[OzarkDem]

25. Bush/Cheney reversed all Clinton/Gore economic policies

the first month they took office, just as they did with his Terrorism tracking task force. Both acts led to disaster for the US.

It took Bush/Cheney all of their first term and part of the second to destroy the Clinton/Gore economy.

Bill and Al built a strong economy, it took a lot to damage it. The best way to turn the current situation around is to return to many of the same policies that made the Clinton/Gore economy work.

Times have changed and some adjustments will have to be made (like getting out of Iraq or making someone else start paying for it).

What is Obama's plan if he rejects Clinton/Gore's? Bush's?

[Zhade]

101. Wow, your political and economic ignorance is staggering. Tell us, did they reverse NAFTA?

No?

That's what I thought. You don't know WHAT the fuck you're even talking about!

[Joe the Revelator]

16. One acomym for you: NAFTA

[OzarkDem]

18. Unions and PA voters disagree

They blame Bush I & II and the GOP for NAFTA problems, as they should.

[Joe the Revelator]

21. You're whisting past the graveyard if you don't think the administration who PASSED NAFTA had

something to do with it.

[OzarkDem]

28. I actually care about the country and its economy

So I don't shit on good economic policy of Clinton/Gore just to support a candidate who doesn't even respect voters enough to be honest about his plan.

[PA Democrat]

17. NAFTA cost Pennsylvania more than 35,000 jobs during the Clinton years

http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/briefingpapers_nafta01_impactstates

http://www.epi.org/briefingpapers/nafta01/state-losses-table.pdf

[OzarkDem]

19. What's Obama's economic plan?

Since he has rejected Clinton's plan (and keep NAFTA out of it, your argument against Clinton is disengenous and false).

What is Obama's plan?

[Justitia]

22. I thought this was about the Clinton years? -eom

[OzarkDem]

35. Read the post. Its about Obama's plan

So what is it?

[PA Democrat]

40. LOL! Quick, you might still have time to edit your OP to prove you are not full of crap.

Your OP reads. "Clinton Years Were Good for PA Economy". Your words, not mine.

[OzarkDem]

46. Clinton Years were good for the PA economy

Bill Clinton invested a great deal of money in helping them rebuild their economy, bring new businesses in and retrain workers. They also helped to stop the drain of jobs overseas.

Too bad Bush/Cheney reversed the process and started ignoring NAFTA violations and providing incentives to send jobs overseas. But I suppose Obama supporters think Bush/Cheney were the "good guys".

They must, Obama takes money and advice from the same people who supported them.

[PA Democrat]

51. The numbers I quoted were from the years 1993 through 2000, which was when BILL CLINTON was in

office. It helps to actually READ the links I provided before trying to refute my claims. I would be more than happy to look at any reputable sources you can provide showing that NAFTA helped PA.

[OzarkDem]

55. and how many lost in the Bush/Reagan years

How many new jobs were created during the Clinton/Gore years.

Tell the whole story.

[PA Democrat]

60. Sorry, you made the claim. You prove it.

[OzarkDem]

66. No I believe you did

as a dodge to avoid discussing Obama's economic policies.

Now tell us how Obama plans to fix the economy after rejecting the strategies used by Clinton/Gore.

[PA Democrat]

92. How childish. Go read your OP and get back to me when you have some evidence to back up your claim.

[Zhade]

102. Moving the goal posts, just like clinton - and just as fucking dishonest, eh?

What a fucking LIAR.

[Drunken Irishman]

23. How is it false?

Clinton supported NAFTA, her husband signed NAFTA, she is responsible for that.

Face it, Clinton is anti-working-class. The fact she thinks everything is fine shows how out of touch she really is with reality. Unless, of course, you believe the economy has been good the past 7-years?

[OzarkDem]

38. We've told you numerous times, so here's a suggestion

ask the union people and the PA voters who support her.

Maybe you will listen when they tell you.

[Drunken Irishman]

42. And what about the ones who support Obama?

Even unions backed Reagan, who Clinton stole her anti-working-class rhetoric from.

Clinton/Reagan '08, Convincing the Working-Class Everything is Workin'!

:rofl:

[PA Democrat]

37. I was refuting your blatantly FALSE claim that the "Clinton Years Were Good for PA Economy"

I posted a reputable source to back my claim. You are welcome to post a source which would support your claim. Why should I "keep NAFTA out of it?" Because it paints the Clintons in an unflattering light? Why should I or anyone else ignore reality?

Ignore the facts regarding NAFTA at your own risk. I live in PA and NAFTA is a very unpopular subject here, as most Pennsylvanians have seen the plants that closed and know people who lost their jobs due to NAFTA.

[OzarkDem]

61. Still can't tell us about Obama's plan?

Isn't it true his plan actually has many things in it that come directly from the Clinton/Gore years?

[PA Democrat]

65. Still changing the subject? Show me how the Clinton years were good for PA

as you claimed in your OP.

Here's another source, showing 78,000 jobs lost due to unfair trade policies, including NAFTA, over the past decade.

http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/news/article.asp?docKey=600-200804090213KRTRIB__BUSNEWS_7945-1VP4G3TMHA0JIOL70M58IQ9G8T

Edited to fix link

[OzarkDem]

91. Read the OP

ask Pennsyvania voters.

[Zhade]

103. Stop changing the subject just because you've been soundly defeated.

NT!

[jackson_dem]

27. Yeah and how many jobs were created in PA during the Clinton years?

How many jobs will Obama create? Over 20 million? Get real...Clinton gave us the greatest economy in a generation.

[anonymous171]

31. Bill Clinton is not running. Senator Hillary Rodham is.

[jackson_dem]

45. You can't criticize her for the bad things Bill did and then disassociate her from the good he did

Obamites also claim she has no experience, yet they then blame her for everything bad that Bill did.

[anonymous171]

48. Because she claims responsibility for all the good things Bill did.

A lot of people may vote for her solely because they think she's going to be Bill's surrogate.

[jackson_dem]

52. So the bad stuff counts but the good--and Bill was a good president--doesn't?

[BeyondGeography]

24. And that $20/barrel oil was really good, too

not to mention a comparatively weak China, Russia and India.

How were the Eisenhower years, while we're at it?

[OzarkDem]

32. How did oil prices get so high?

How did China, Russia and India become so strong? I think we know the answers to those questions.

The failed economic policies of Bush/Cheney, who immediately threw the Clinton/Gore economy in reverse when they took office. Don't forget their energy task force, too which saw to it that oil, and other energy prices rose to astranomical levels.

So if Obama rejects the Clinton/Gore policies that worked, which policies is he planning to embrace? The Bush/Cheney ones? The Wall Stree ones?

[BeyondGeography]

44. Nobody can make those conditions come back is the point

Reminiscing about the 90s is a waste of time. Clinton and Obama have many of the same remedies. The issue, for labor in particular, is who can you trust to stand up for American workers when it comes to trade deals and bargaining power re. management. The Clintons, between their record and the amount of money they have made and/or taken from anti-union sources, are a risky bet. Unions haven't lined up behind Obama for no good reason.

[OzarkDem]

53. Not true

If they worked, many of them, like

repealing tax cuts for the wealthy and large corporations

cutting defense spending (by getting out of unnecessary wars)

continuing with investment in renewable energy sources and conservation

putting the brakes on shipping US jobs overseas by using disincentives

offering incentives to companies to invest in domestic jobs production

federal spending on infrastructure to create jobs here

extending unemployment benefits and job re-training to keep money flowing through the economy

all those were part of the Clinton/Gore economic policies and they will still work.

[jackson_dem]

26. All rational people think the 90's were prosperous times

Stay away from the red stuff folks.

[OzarkDem]

39. Agree, all people who were actually working and paying bills

during the 90's knew they were good economic times. I think that's part of the problem here, and part of Obama's strategy. He makes his pitch about the economy to people who weren't old enough in the 90's to know he's full of crap.

[catcher]

30. well then ain't it funny

that all the clintons friends are corporate elitist.

[merh]

41. You do know that as a feminist, it is Hillary that is running for the office

it is not a co-presidency and what was Bill's is not her's - the office is not a community property experience.

You Hillary supporters need to get a grip - Hillary is the candidate, not bill - they don't get to share the experience any more than they did when he held office.

Oh, and a graph that others think proves the sexism in the media only proves that the clintons are not the favored citizens they think they are.



From this thread
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5484329

[PBS Poll-435]

47. Thanks for the graph!

The media IS biased.

[merh]

54. Yeah, bill the man ranks lower than hill the woman.

Who'da thunk?

[PBS Poll-435]

71. Bill is not a candidate. And they trash him 75% of the time.

Compare the candidates and it is even more telling.

[merh]

73. That's exactly the point

It isn't Hillary the woman getting the bad press, it is hillary the clinton getting the bad press, what is his is her's what is her's is his - nothing in that graph or in that study at that thread reflects that the bad press is due to the fact that hillary is a woman, it just shows that hillary the clinton is not that well liked or hillary the candidate has run a poor campaign. I think it is a combination of both - from day one most who thought hillary would have a hard time thought that bill's legacy will come back to bite her - the clinton fatigue and all of that.

[OzarkDem]

49. Bill is allowed to defend the Clinton/Gore economic policies

and he's more than welcome to go on the campaign trail just as any other spouse. Or are Obama supporters trying to impose ANOTHER double standard on Hillary Clinton's campaign? :eyes:

That he and Hillary aren't getting positive media coverage says everything about the news media's bias against a strong woman candidate for president. Nothing new there. Thanks for making our point.

[merh]

62. Actually, it is hillary that is trying to get him to shut up.

Or do you think she enjoyed him saying that she is forgetful after 11 pm?

:rofl:

Oh, and that nervous "angels dancing on the head of a pin" rambling when asked about the conflict with that $800,000.00 that bill earned, that sure the hell shows how comfortable she is with his help.

As I have said before, the clintons are doing the most harm to the Clinton campaign.

[merh]

64. Actually, it is hillary that is trying to get him to shut up.

Or do you think she enjoyed him saying that she is forgetful after 11 pm?

:rofl:

Oh, and that nervous "angels dancing on the head of a pin" rambling when asked about the conflict with that $800,000.00 that bill earned, that sure the hell shows how comfortable she is with his help.

As I have said before, the clintons are doing the most harm to the Clinton campaign.

[dchill]

81. Bill is WELCOME to continue...

his barnburner tour of the Primary circuit. I'd NEVER try to shut him up. He's been one of Barack's best surrogates.

[tishaLA]

50. Maybe if Clinton weren't so pro-NAFTA and

were more strongly pro-union, you might have an argument. But jobs have been flooding out of PA and real wages have decreased more than the national average.

[OzarkDem]

57. Got a link?

Clinton isn't pro-NAFTA, any more than Obama.

What's Obama's plan?

[datopbanana]

74. Bill Clinton. Genius. You know, the one during the Clinton Admin Obama referred to.

The one who's "greatest accomplishment" was passing NAFTA.

[Name removed]

104. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rodeodance]

112. David Gergan does not think so. check it out. at Fact ck . He was there you know.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

56. You're wrong.

The Clinton years did nothing for rural Pennsylvania. If anything, things got worse there during the 90s. I'm not going to blame Bill for that. I honestly think there is very little that any President could do to help. But for fuck's sake please do not pretend that it was the land of milk and honey under Clinton. It wasn't.

[KoKo]

58. The "Clinton Years" were good for "Some of Us" who'd lived through Nixon, Carter, Ford, Poppy....

It was fake...but it gave a few of us a "little back." The "calm before the storm." Best thing Clinton did was to put tax increase on America Wealthy that Kudlow and the Wall St. Types always HOWL ABOUT.....

If we taxed those folks that Bushies love.....and closed the "offshore loopholes" we could get A LOT OF INCREASED REVENUE to help us out of this RECESSION!

[OzarkDem]

63. Closing Offshore Loopholes is good. Who created them?

I believe it was Bush/Cheney.

Who is proposing to close them? Hillary Clinton.

[dchill]

82. "Who is proposing to close them? Hillary Clinton."

In other words, no one with any credibility.

[mitchum]

59. I also like pretty bubbles, but a bubble is still a bubble

[dchill]

67. You are wrong. Come to Greenville PA and ask...

how things changed during "the Clinton Years." We lost three of our biggest manufacturing employers during those "halcyon days" - Greenville Steel Car, Bessemer & Lake Erie, and Chicago Bridge & Iron. Other smaller firms left, too, but those three made up 80%+ of the local workplace. When you take the word of shouts at a Clinton rally, you are getting only a picture of the real falsehood - what Hillary wants you to believe. The downhill spiral of my town didn't stop or even slow down under Bill Clinton, and it never did get any better. We are left with a community of mostly retired people who have lived here all along, and the resultant medical care industry that grew up around them. Our population is less than half of what it was during the '80s, and much less affluent. Stores and business have closed down, too, of course - with a little help from good old Walmart. Hillary's former employer.

So, if that's the legacy Hillary wants use to in her campaign, then I submit that she is once again using bad judgment. We who have lived here all along know better. The cause of Greenville's downturn? NAFTA, of course. Where did all those jobs go? Mexico, overseas, and consolidation elsewhere in the US as a result of those NAFTA "benefits" to corporate honchos. Don't kid yourself, we did no better under Clinton than under Reagan, and we know exactly what we're bitter about. And what's insulting is when the Goddess tells us we aren't bitter.

So, stay tuned for that "Compassion Forum" - I can't think of anything Hillary Clinton is LESS qualified to contribute to.

[OzarkDem]

68. So Obama supporters can't say how his economic policy differs from Bill and Al's

Does this mean he supports Bush/Cheney's?

[dchill]

72. So now you're replying to your own post?

Obama's economic policy differs from "Bill's" (don't try to drag Al Gore into this quagmire) chiefly in the fact that he MEANS what he says. It's not "1984" Orwellian/Spongebob Squarepants "Opposite Day" rhetoric like Bill & Hill's.

[Zhade]

105. That's not even the point of your OP. You're changing the topic.

It's as dishonest as your proven liar of a candidate.

[Willo]

75. NAFTA has not been good to PA or the U.S. for that matter.

Hershey’s Chocolate Moves to Mexico
By Jack Fichter
12 weeks 5 days ago

Fewer and fewer products are being manufactured in America. Now, add to the list Hershey Candy. The company is moving to Mexico. This press release from Teamsters General President Jim Hoffa sums it up:
In another blow to working families in the United States and Canada, the Hershey Company has announced that it will be closing multiple plants, cutting its workforce by 11.5 percent and moving jobs to a new plant in Monterey, Mexico.
This decision is yet another byproduct of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) which, from its inception, has done more to erode the U.S. economy than perhaps any single piece of legislation in U.S. history. Millions of jobs have left our nation for countries like Mexico and China where workers don’t have the rights and protections our workers enjoy in the U.S. Wages are low and employer power is high—a perfect storm in which big business prioritizes profit over worker safety and well-being.

I wonder what those families would think now if they knew that 900 of the 3,000 workers in the three plants in Hershey, Pa., would soon be without jobs? Or if they knew 575 workers in Oakdale, Calif. will be looking for new employment in January 2008? Will they still feel the same pride in this American company?
This is a company that was built on the backs of hardworking Americans—blue-collar, middle-class men and women who dedicated their lives to Hershey and are now being betrayed for the sake of a few extra dollars at the bottom of a balance sheet.
Over the last 13 years, NAFTA has destroyed the competitive edge American workers had benefited from for decades. Skilled and hardworking Americans find themselves losing out to cheap labor over the border and across the ocean.
Since 2000, corporations have shipped more than 525,000 white-collar jobs overseas, according to the AFL-CIO department of professional employees. Some estimates say up to 14 million middle-class jobs could be exported out of America in the next 10 years.

http://www.capemaycountyherald.com/article/20022-hershey-s-chocolate-moves-mexico

[dchill]

85. The OP, OzarkDem, is from Ohio, so she should know...

"NAFTA has not been good to PA or the U.S." - Wanna bet she doesn't reply to your post? Or mine.
:hi:

[JoFerret]

77. That's the real problem of bitterness at the heart of "bitter"

....the dissembling is par for the course for politicians but to hear Obama folk tis only Hillary that plays to win.

And back to 'bitter' for a moment - it would not strike home so much if it were not for this powerful lingering notion that cannot be dispelled that Obama DOES look down on people as 'less than'.

[dchill]

87. Irrelevant post.

What does this have to do with the OP? This OP claims "Clinton Years Were Good for PA Economy" - a patently false, Orwellian statement if ever there was one. Bitterness is what happens when a President who claims to be for the people turns out, time and again, to only be for the very rich people - with the goal of ending up one him/herself. The Clintons are clearly the elitists who are looking down on the rest of us from their 109 million dollar tall stack of money. They thimk we're all as gullible as YOU are. They are wrong.

[JoFerret]

94. It's true.We all starved in the 90's.

.

[dchill]

109. Are you from Western PA?

[JoFerret]

117. Are you from the south west portion of western Pennsylvania?

If not you have no right to have any opinions whatsoever.

[dchill]

118. Ha Ha.

I'm ALMOST "from the south west portion of western Pennsylvania" - so do I "almost" have a right to an opinion.
:shrug:

[JoFerret]

122. But only on third Tuesdays.

between 4am and 6am.

[dchill]

126. I can wait.

[dchill]

78. OzarkDem - where did you go? Don't you want to discuss...

reality with someone who lived it during the 90's in PA?

Clinton Years Were Good for PA Economy

Only a Clinton or a Clinton shill could be so brazen as to make such a claim. ALL the steel mill and related jobs in Western PA that went away, went away during the Clinton years. Here's a clue - that WASN'T good for the PA economy, it was DEVASTATING - and it still is.

[OzarkDem]

86. I'm here

had to get dinner on the table. Roast beef w/ carrots and potatoes. MMM...

Yes a lot of steel mill jobs were lost in PA in the 1990's. Most didn't go overseas though. In the 1990's a trend of the 80's continued where more "mini-mills" were built in the South. These mills used scrap steel, were smaller, more automated and less expensive to operate. Steel companies were having a hard time competing with cheaper products and didn't want to spend big money re-tooling all those gigantic, ancient mills. They refurbished and updated a lot of them, but that also cost jobs as technology took away more jobs.

Steel companies were responding to pressure from US automakers who were under pressure to lower the cost of US autos in order to compete w Japanese automakers and keep US automaking jobs in the US.

There were some problems with foreign steel being "dumped" in the US, sold at non-competitive prices and Clinton dealt with that.

But in some ways it was the auto unions vs the steel unions and Clinton tried to reach a compromise. Both industries were dealing with high cost workforces and retirees, the need to invest in new technology and the need to lower costs to compete w/ overseas producers. Americans didn't want to stop buying foreign made cars.

Clinton's idea was to help these businesses keep jobs in the US while still helping them lower costs to compete. His idea was to bring new businesses and job training to depressed areas that were losing jobs - to focus on economic expansion based on new technology on transitioning regions from reliance on one manufacturing base to become more diverse. Some of Clinton/Gore's experiments didn't go as planned, but they were learning as they went along. Gore would have continued in that path, Bush/Cheney changed it completely and sent everything overseas.

Its been a difficult transition for the US. Unions compete against unions to keep jobs, etc. That's why both Hillary and Obama are focusing on economic plans that focus on "green technology" and health care technology, areas where we have superiority over foreign competition.

We can protect jobs from foreign competition to some degree, but we can't close foreign competition off completely, unless we can produce the same products at reasonable cost. At the same time we have to be able to produce what we need in the US, to protect our own national interests - we can't ship every kind of production overseas.

Clinton and Gore deserve a great deal of credit for the economy they produced. They did a fantastic job. Obama's trying to characterize it as a failure while using the same ideas that Clinton and Gore promoted is dishonest. He can pull it off by having a base of supporters too young to know the difference, but its still wrong.

[dchill]

89. Even if I bought that whole story...

it doesn't make your basic claim true - "Clinton Years Were Good for PA Economy." Now DOES IT?

"Clinton and Gore deserve a great deal of credit for the economy they produced. They did a fantastic job." Like I said, don't drag Gore into this - this is about Hillary claiming Bill's legacy as her "experience" - and she's welcome to it. And Bill should take credit for the economy he produced - bad as it was, he should take responsibility for it.

You really should come to Greenville and take a look at the "fantastic job" he did.

"Steel companies were responding to pressure from US automakers who were under pressure to lower the cost of US autos in order to compete w Japanese automakers and keep US automaking jobs in the US."

A perfect example of the "benefits" of NAFTA. And union-busting corporations.

[OzarkDem]

90. Union vs Union

UAW wanted lower steel prices, too.

If you have a question about the Clinton economic policy in PA, see by OP.

[AX10]

99. True. The Obama people don't like the details.

That should be obvious everytime Obama opens his mouth. No details, just fluff.

[dchill]

115. You are a true believer.

Good for you. Have you ever been to PA?

Whenever Clintons open their mouths, no details, just lies.

[dchill]

114. "If you have a question about the Clinton economic policy in PA, see by OP."

OP is a very loving piece of work. Western PA says it's a crock. We're bitter here.

[Zhade]

106. You're arguing with someone who denies the evidence that proves clinton lied about Tuzla.

A complete waste of time.

[dchill]

111. OK. I'm getting that.

Like her Goddess, she answers questions I didn't ask. Go figure.

[mod mom]

83. What some fail to realize is that sometimes it takes years to feel the effects of policies:

NAFTA & most favored trade status with China might have caused some short term stock market increases but look at what they are doing to the economy now-THERE'S A REASON HILLARY IS TRYING TO DISTANCE HERSELF FROM HER HUSBAND'S POLICIES:

Hillary Clinton has made statements unequivocally trumpeting NAFTA as the greatest thing since sliced bread. The Buffalo News reports that back in 1998, Clinton attended the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, and thanked praised corporations for mounting "a very effective business effort in the U.S. on behalf of NAFTA." Yes, you read that right: She traveled to Davos to thank corporate interests for their campaign ramming NAFTA through Congress.

On November 1, 1996, United Press International reported that on a trip to Brownsville, Texas, Clinton "touted the president's support for the North American Free Trade Agreement, saying it would reap widespread benefits in the region."

The Associated Press followed up the next day noting that Hillary Clinton touted the fact that "the president would continue to support economic growth in South Texas through initiatives such as the North American Free Trade Agreement."

In her memoir, Clinton wrote, "Senator Dole was genuinely interested in health care reform but wanted to run for president in 1996. He couldn't hand incumbent Bill Clinton any more legislative victories, particularly after Bill's successes on the budget, the Brady bill and NAFTA."

-snip

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/hillary-clinton-pretends-_b_86747.html



Clinton to renew Normal Trade Relations with China



June 2, 1999
Web posted at: 4:51 p.m. EDT (2051 GMT)


WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, June 2) -- President Bill Clinton will notify Congress Thursday that he is renewing China's most-favored-nation (MFN) trading status -- now known as Normal Trade Relations (NTR) -- for another year, CNN has confirmed.

MFN/NTR status offers low tariffs and treats countries as normal trading partners.

The formal notification, required by the Thursday deadline, is expected to trigger a major debate in the House and Senate due to allegations of Chinese espionage against the U.S. and other recent diplomatic tensions, including charges China tried to influence the 1996 presidential election with illegal campaign contributions.

One of the first speak out against Clinton decision, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-California), derided the president for making the decision near the 10th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre.

-snip

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/06/02/china.mfn/



Clinton Proposes Renewing China's Most-Favored Trade Status

Congressional reaction mixed amidst larger China policy issues


WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, June 3) -- President Bill Clinton on Wednesday proposed renewing most-favored-nation (MFN) trade status for China, saying it was "clearly in our nation's interest" as he urged Congress to support the request.

-snip

House Speaker Newt Gingrich welcomed Clinton's recommendation for renewing MFN status for China, and vowed to work in a bipartisan manner to ensure that China receives it from Congress.

Gingrich, joined by Reps. Bill Archer (R-Texas) and Philip Crane (R-Ill.), made his comments in a letter to Clinton.

-snip

House Democratic leader Richard Gephardt issued a statement Wednesday opposing Clinton's plan to extend China's trading status for another year.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/06/03/china.trade/



AND WHAT ABOUT BILL'S SUPPORT FOR THE MEGA MERGERS WITHIN THE BANKING INDUSTRY? HOW'S THAT HELPING PA NOW? LINK:

It's not exactly an advertisement for the working-class hero, or a picture her campaign freely displays. Her lengthy support for the Iraq War is Clinton's biggest liability in Democratic primary circles. But her ties to corporate America say as much, if not more, about what she values and cast doubt on her ability and willingness to fight for the progressive policies she claims to champion. She is "running to help and restore the great middle class in our country," Wolfson says. So was Bill in 1992. He was for "putting people first." Then he entered the White House and pushed for NAFTA, signed welfare reform, consolidated the airwaves through the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (leading to Clear Channel's takeover) and cleared the mergers of mega-banks. Would the First Lady do any different? Ever since the defeat of healthcare reform, Hillary has been a committed incrementalist, describing herself as a creature of the "moderate, sensible center" whom business admires and rewards. During her six years in the Senate, she's rarely been out front on difficult economic issues. Given her proximity to money and power, it's not hard to figure out why she keeps controversial figures close to her--even if their work becomes a liability for her campaign.

-snip

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070604/berman

[OzarkDem]

88. Bush/Cheney put NAFTA in overdrive

their fist day in office. They worked swiftly w/ their GOP Congress to put all the incentives in place to ship jobs overseas and maximize profits and to trash the protections that Clinton and Gore were able to put into NAFTA.

Bush I brokered the NAFTA, GATT agreements and put them on the fast track. Clinton / Gore amended them to protect US jobs, but they couldn't stop it. Those trade deals weren't set up to allow them to do that, deliberately.

If you are truly interested in fixing the US economy and trade problems, you'll accept the reality instead of trying to make the situation worse.

[mod mom]

95. the "reality" I want includes TRUTH w/o the parsing, spin and fabrication. I believe

this country is tired of spin and wants a candidate to speaks w/o the advise of fat-cat pollsters-imho.

[Zhade]

107. First you say that b*s* reversed ALL of Bill Clinton's economic policies, now you say the opposite.

NT!

[dchill]

119. "...they couldn't stop it."

Not by advocating FOR it, they couldn't. And stop dragging Gore into it. This is your good ole boy's work, and his good ole girl's.

[bowens43]

84. .

.

[Zhade]

96. I stopped reading after the lie about "false suffering".

You clearly don't know the terrible effects NAFTA has imposed on workers in this country since even its inception.

But then, you deny the proven lie of Tuzla, so it's not like you have any credibility left.

[AX10]

97. The idea that this nation was suffering economically during the 1990's

is pure crap. The only people who believe this are the Michael Moore "Marxist" crowd and those who back Obama who need a reason to bash the Clinton's, in order to build up their guy.

[Zhade]

108. Yes, idiots would call people who even listen to Moore "Marxists".

Idiots with no actual geopolitical knowledge do tend to make that lack of distinction, and also tend to be ignorant of the reality of NAFTA's effects AS SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE UPTHREAD.

But then, clinton does attract the "low-information voter".

And that's being kind.

[mod mom]

113. "Michael Moore "Marxist" crowd"? WTF? VERY telling!

[dchill]

120. That brown line on your forehead...

means you're a quart low.

[rodeodance]

110. "Wall Street has written Obama's economic platform for him." Bingo

[dchill]

121. The "validity" of the whole OP is based on the...

unbiased opinion of Bill Clinton. He shouldn't be looking for witnesses - he should be looking for miracles. You forgot Bango, Bongo and Irving.

[Spider Jerusalem]

123. That's nice, but these years are not those years and Hillary is not Bill.

So I really don't see what the point of this is.

[susankh4]

124. Ya know what?

This tearing down of the Clinton legacy by Obama and his supporters is the one thing I just can't understand. Why would he want to dismiss the good that befell us during the last Dem. administration???

If it were not for this.... I think I could buy into Mr. Obama's message more easily. But... his dismissal of the Clinton years, and praise of the Reagan admin..... well, it just plain bewilders me.