Obama says, 'We need to do what Bill Clinton did'

In Abington, Pennsylvania today (October 3) Obama praised Joe Biden on his debate performance and then turned to the economy, saying,

"That's why we're here today, because we need to do what we did in the 1990s and create millions of new jobs and not lose them. We need to do what we did in the 1990s and make sure people's incomes are going up and not down. We need to do what a guy named Bill Clinton did in the 1990s and put people first again. (applause) And that's why I'm running for President of the United States of America, to create jobs all across Pennsylvania, and all across America."

news link and video

So, Obama made four references to Bill Clinton economics and says this is why he is running for president. Interesting implications here. Without a doubt, economics will be the center of the Obama campaign in these final weeks. He can draw from Clinton's economic legacy and borrow/continue those policies as indicated today while putting McCain in a very difficult position. Very similar to how Clinton ran against Bush in '92 where economics became his opponent's achilles heel. Perhaps in the long run when Obama's identity is solidified he will be seen as the new Bill Clinton?

The economy could use some Bill Clinton policies and I hope we see some. But as far as Obama being the "new Bill Clinton"? I sure don't see him that way.

While Clinton's economic policies were good for he country, it's only one part of his presidency. There are some similarities between the two, but I think there are plenty of differences and Obama seems to generally have very different priorities in his personal life.

I honestly have a hard time comparing Obama to anyone else. I think that's part of his success.

There are similarities, but you could take any 2 people and find similarities.

Correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm sure you will, lol), but didn't Clinton make it so we had zero deficit? I think that will be impossible for the next president, thanks to the hole we are in now, but it is a noble goal to strive for.

I always thought Clinton did a lot more right than he did wrong, imo, he isn't a bad person to emulate.

Originally posted by Alora
but didn't Clinton make it so we had zero deficit? I think that will be impossible for the next president

Clinton always had huge budget surpluses which went toward paying off the national debt. I think Obama could turn the budget deficits around, but at first he won't have much money to do all the things he wants to do.

Check out:
edition.cnn.com...

Originally posted by Alora
I always thought Clinton did a lot more right than he did wrong, imo, he isn't a bad person to emulate.

That's true. It's a good strategy and the economics aspect will help him beat McCain.

I voted for Clinton, twice. I liked Clinton, I thought he did a good job with the economy.

Then I found out....

In July 1993 President Clinton asked regulators to reform the CRA in order to reduce paperwork and reward performance.[7] The CRA regulations were* substantially revised and featured requiring numerical assessments to get a satisfactory CRA rating; using federal home-loan data broken down by neighborhood, income group, and race; encouraging community groups to complain when banks were not loaning enough to specified neighborhood, income group, and race; allowing community groups that marketed loans to targeted groups to collect a fee from the banks.[5] During March 1995 congressional hearings William A. Niskanen, chair of the Cato Institute, criticized the proposals for political favoritism in allocating credit, micromanagement by regulators and overriding concerns about bank losses and soundness, predicting they would be very costly to the economy. He predicted the primary long term effect would be to contract the banking system and recommended congress repeal the Act.[8]

Community Reinvestment Act

Now I feel dirty all over. Clinton's readjustment of the Community Reinvestment Act started the chain reaction to the financial mess of today. Way to go forcing banks to lend to people that might not be able to repay.

Maybe Obama is a lot like Clinton. He is surrounded and supported by Fannie Mae people and he is one of their top recipients.

reply to post by SteveR


It was budget surpluses only on paper of which people accepted as fact.
Was there really a surplus? GAO report seem to question this. They don't give an opinion but they highlight discrepancies.

The U.S. Government is again reporting an accrual-based surplus, which this year is $46 billion.

source pdf file

this above is on the first page from the Secretary of Treasury message.

Reconciling Operating Results With Budget Results The government did not have an effective process to obtain information to reconcile fully the reported $46 billion excess of revenue over net cost and the reported unified budget surplus of $237 billion. Consequently, it could not identify all items needed to reconcile these amounts.

source

click on complete report and look on page 30. Seem to come up with two different surplus amounts.

Because we were unable to determine the reliability of significant portions of the accompanying U.S. government’s consolidated financial statements for fiscal year 2000, we are unable to, and we do not, express an opinion on such consolidated financial statements.

As a result of material deficiencies in the government’s systems, recordkeeping, documentation, and financial reporting, readers are cautioned that amounts reported in the consolidated financial statements and related notes may not be a reliable source of information.

source


click on complete report page 28

And the government has the audacity to question businesses accounting methods. Seems like the government has problems of its own when it comes to financial reporting.

Originally posted by wutone
Way to go forcing banks to lend to people that might not be able to repay.

Well as they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions . When Clinton made that adjustment he was responding to all the concern about racial discrimination in housing. It was a big issue back then and Clinton has admitted to his mistakes. The problem really lies with democrats who blocked proposals to regulate Freddie and Fannie in '03 and again in '05.

Check out:
query.nytimes.com...

and:
online.wsj.com...

Surplus or no surplus, there's no arguing that the economy under Clinton was the best this country had seen since after WWII. The fact that the economy has become so bad under Bush in such a short period of time, and it being so close (chronologically speaking) to Clinton's healthy and vibrant economy only emphasizes the contrasts between the two and makes it all the more difficult for McCain.

If McCain loses, it's not entirely his fault.

reply to post by jam321


Good find!

We won't know the precise numbers of the surplus but it's generally accepted they were pretty big. Besides, the effects of his economics were tangible. New jobs after Clinton's first term: 11,500,000. New jobs after Bush's first term: 10,000.

Originally posted by wutone
Clinton's readjustment of the Community Reinvestment Act started the chain reaction to the financial mess of today. Way to go forcing banks to lend to people that might not be able to repay.

I disagree. It did force banks to loan to lower-income families, but there's no indication that their income was SO low that they couldn't repay the loans. In fact, the banks were profitable. From your source:

Responding to concerns that CRA would lower bank profitability, a 1997 research paper by economists at the Federal Reserve found that "[CRA] lenders active in lower-income neighborhoods and with lower-income borrowers appear to be as profitable as other mortgage-oriented commercial banks".

It was (among other things) Predatory Lending practices that took advantage of even lower income families who couldn't afford a home, by offering no-down and ballooning payments that really kicked this economy in the bum.

Then why did Clinton admits that his amendments to the CRA weren't a good idea and that Fannie and Freddie needed more regulation?

Why did democrats block Fannie and Freddie reforms saying that regulations were racist?

And predatory lending?

Why don't people read what they sign? It's not like banks put a gun to someone's head and forced them to sign the bottom line. There is still such a thing as personal responsibility. Why did people lie about their income? If people are too stupid to read a contract on the what would be the largest purchase in their lives, then that is a whole other problem than predatory lending.

If there really is massive amounts of predatory lending, there should be huge amounts of class action lawsuits and Congressional and law enforcement investigations all over the place.

So obama thinks mankind has been waiting for him for along time, so how if he thinks this, will he start emulating bill clinton.

Originally posted by wutone
Why don't people read what they sign? It's not like banks put a gun to someone's head and forced them to sign the bottom line.

Don't want to argue about this, but I just wanted to let you know that I agree that people who borrow money that they cannot repay are ALSO guilty. That's what is meant by "there's enough blame to go around". There isn't just one person or one group that is responsible for this crap. There are a lot of people working in conjunction, INCLUDING the government, the banks and the people.

Originally posted by andy1033
So obama thinks mankind has been waiting for him for along time,

What? When did he share these thoughts with you?

Excuse me but it was some of Clinton's policies that got us in this financial crisis.

I'm referring to the pressure HE put on banks to make loans to people that would not be able to afford them. It was make loans or face closure.

The jobs created during the Clinton administration were more a direct result of the internet boom that we expereinced at the time, the boom was destined to happen regardless of who was President.

Sure we can go back and forth and say hat is was Al Gore that created the internet, but then again it was papito Bush that told us about "the informaton super highway" that was coming.

Likewise, jobs will be created regardless of who gets elected this year because I guarantee you financial majors will soon be switching majors and may even switch over to the IT field instead, security.
This may even trigger anther internet boom to some degree.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Here is pat buchanan, quoting obama, saying america has been waiting for him.



Not much more to say about that, is that american, lol.

[edit on 10/4/2008 by andy1033]

I have read elsewhere that Clinton was robbing the Social Security fund and leaving it full of IOU's, to pay for his programmes and thus create surpluses to make him look good.
If the Social Security funds are still full of IOU's, added to by Bush, then that's gonna have a big impact on retirees at some point if the money is not repaid.

Correct me if i'm wrong as i've only recently began to really dig into the economic aspects of things.

Wasn't it on part of Clinton that we are in this current situation. A bill his signed in 1999 that greatly contributed to this?

People keep on thinking the economy is the way it is because of the war and Bush. In reality (and I know I'm right on this) its corporate and citizens greed that put us here.

Multiple credit cards that are never paid back, loans given out to people that aren't qualified and have no means of paying them. Many more factors I can bring up.

People could survive with all the extras but they choose to be greedy thinking that the worst to come of not paying loans and credit cards is harrasment by bill collectors.

I wont lie, when I turned 18 I was just as guilty as those whom were greedy. I took out loans for school that I didnt need, and got a credit card and financed a laptop I also didnt need. Long story short I didnt pay it back and couldnt have to begin with.

Im just now getting to the point where I can START to pay back a small % of it all. But a lesson was learned it it. Unfortunately there are millions out there that dont learn from past mistakes.


This is an attempt on Obama's part to connect his picture with one of the states better presidents to date. I guarantee you Hillary and Bill both don't like that fact.

Originally posted by andy1033
Here is pat buchanan, quoting obama, saying america has been waiting for him.

There's a reason you can't find Obama actually saying that.

That's not Pat Buchanan quoting Obama, that's Pat Buchanan quoting Dana Milbank, who supposedly heard it from "an unnamed source"... Hello?

You know, people who push this idea about Obama just cement my support for him... But really, it doesn't have anything to do with Obama and Clinton economic policies.

We need to do what Clinton did?

Ok! I need access to the Oval Office, and an intern with questionable moral values, and a really, really, long distance call to Yassar Arafat.

Good times ahead! (pun fully intended)

[edit on 4-10-2008 by sir_chancealot]

Originally posted by AndrewTB
Wasn't it on part of Clinton that we are in this current situation. A bill his signed in 1999 that greatly contributed to this?

I've never been a Clinton fan, but actually, he was just expanding on something that Jimmy Carter started earlier.