Paul Ryan "If we had a Clinton presidency we would have fixed this fiscal mess by now"

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 11:49 AM
link   
Video Here

Very short article ...
Paul Ryan gave an NBC Meet the Press interview and stated this -


If we had a Clinton presidency, if we had an Erskine Bowles, chief staff at the White House or President, I think we would have fixed this fiscal mess by now.


I got the impression he was talking about a Bill Clinton presidency .. not a Hillary one. I could be wrong, but that's the impression I got.

I have to agree with him. If Bill Clinton was in office, I don't think we'd have nearly the deficit problem we have now. Bush43 got it started in a big way and Obama is just making it bigger and bigger (all the while he continues to promise to cut it in half ... and people still buy that lie.
)

That's still not enough incentive for get rid of the 2 term limit ...
But I do agree with him.




posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


Then, I take it from this remake, the Republicans in the Congress have something "personal" against President Obama.
I would think this would be the last thing to which I would admit as someone who is supposed to be a representative of the people from his home district.
That makes it appear as though there is something wrong with this particular person being elected by a majority of the citizens of the U S.
Which could be interrpreted as him thinking there is something wrong with the majority of the people of this country.
I would hope a person in his position would be above making politics into something personal.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 12:03 PM
link   
Hillary/Bill. Bill/Hillary. It's all the same. Ryan may get his wish in 2016.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by teamcommander
 

Wow. Where exactly do you get all that from?
Paul Ryan was complimenting President Clinton on his financial savy. And he was saying that both the republicans and democrats have caused a fiscal mess. That would be both Bush43 and Obama having caused it.

I thought Paul Ryan was dead on accurate.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
Hillary/Bill. Bill/Hillary. It's all the same. Ryan may get his wish in 2016.

I'm wondering if it'll be Hillary vs Chris Christy. Christy has been posturing a lot lately.
Both are qualified. Both could do the job.
But then again .. Hillary and her head injury and benghazi-gate stuff could kill that for her.
hmmm ....



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 12:11 PM
link   
I think he was referring to the fact that Clinton was able to work with the other side to accomplish things. The House was Republican then, too, and Clinton had the ability and the intelligence to work with them to find the solution. It could be done now, too, if Obama had the desire to repair the economy rather than a base desire to decimate the other party.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 12:13 PM
link   
Personally I would vote for increasing, or doing away with completely, term limits and another Bill Clinton term. The two term limit creates the problem of lame ducks and I don't think any president looking to become tyrant for life would let term limits be a hindrance anyway. As for Mr. Clinton, well, things just seemed a whole lot better during his time in office. I am beyond curious as to how he would have reacted to the way history has gone if he had been able to continue on in place of Bush and possibly Obama.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 12:14 PM
link   
I say nonsense. To expect either a Democrat or a Republican to implement any substantial, positive changes is just laughable. Both parties are self-serving and screw things up worse then before they got in office. Bill did a good job because he presided as president during the technology boom of the 90's. It would have been pretty hard to screw that up.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 12:26 PM
link   
I hate to agree with Ryan on much, given who he hooked his little wagon to for 2012, but he's got a point.

I was once on the 'bash all dems' kick myself and Clinton was the Dem's Dem when it came to all that. After all, how many leaders have single handedly redefined something as profound as sex itself? (Ask a kid today if a blowjob is sex...and be ready for the mixed replies I never heard before him).

Perhaps looking at Clinton close enough to write about and really know the data for is what started my mindset to turning well before it fully turned around the time of this last election. Who knows...but I do know the time I spent making the President's thread I still have linked in my siggy brought some surprises I hadn't understood before without looking hard into the data to know why it said what it said.

The bottom line I came away with though is this. Whatever Clinton was as a man and a person outside his duties as President? Whatever his failings...and there were plenty....in foreign policy? The man made this economy work. Daddy Bush handed him a failing economy and bad unemployment ...and he handed Baby Bush a BOOMING economy and near full employment by economic standards.

The BEST indicator of that is the one no one can lie about or fudge on. No K street firm can cook up to look pretty. When I was trucking and Clinton was in Office, there were 10 jobs for every qualified driver and sitting, waiting for a load meant a company was a screw up and needed better dispatch and sales teams.

Within a couple years of Bush and continuing downhill to this day? There aren't 10 jobs to every trucker anymore. Far from it. Trucks sit because there IS no freight as often as any other reason and when I left the road, it wasn't uncommon to sit for multiple days ...in a truck stop filled with OTHER guys sitting for multiple days. It had become the norm. To hear friends still on the road speak? It still is, if not worse.

Why does this matter and how does trucking define a nation?

That freight I made my living on ONLY ROLLED when demand by consumers and business out stripped available supply. When demand drops? So does truck freight volume..and even the spotty periods of "recovery" now are relative to a baseline/start point I'm not sure we'll see again for many years. That baseline was what Clinton's White House oversaw ....and saw improve year upon year over his 8 years in office.

My two cents....now I'm sure Right and Left both dislike what I said here. It's the truth as I experienced and lived it though and it's the truth as I learned it by the raw data and numbers of economic reality in our nation during the 1990's.
edit on 28-1-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 12:28 PM
link   
Post 9/11 presidency is much harder than what Clinton had to go through. Including problem and relations...

Clinton is one of the "cool" president in my book.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kyrios0Zero
Personally I would vote for increasing, or doing away with completely, term limits ...

YIKES!
Heck no! Then people with silly slogans and no ability who bamboozle crowds (like Obama) and people fear mongering like Bush43 would never leave. The term limits are a good thing.


Originally posted by Krazysh0t
To expect either a Democrat or a Republican to implement any substantial, positive changes is just laughable.

I agree. But I also agree with Paul Ryan ... Bill Clinton understood economics and we wouldn't have this fiscal mess if he were in. Bush43 started it. Obama has made it a heck of a lot worse.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by luciddream
Post 9/11 presidency is much harder than what Clinton had to go through. Including problem and relations...


Clinton had his foreign policy matters to deal with too. The former Yugoslavia was a mess. If my memory isn't failing me Clinton authorized the largest bombing campaign since WW2 by that time.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 12:34 PM
link   
its clear they are setting the stage for everyone to accept hillary as president in 2016.
heaps of news articles and words from people in power would strongly suggest this.

god help us all if this actually happens



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
YIKES!
Heck no! Then people with silly slogans and no ability who bamboozle crowds (like Obama) and people fear mongering like Bush43 would never leave. The term limits are a good thing.


Those types aren't leaving any time soon as it is, both parties have no shortage of interchangeable puppets to bring out to fill those shoes. At this point 3 terms of Bush seems like it would have been the same as his two plus Obama's first. Now we have Obama again when Ron Paul got stuffed by his own party and Gary Johnson is nearly an unknown.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Video Here

Very short article ...
Paul Ryan gave an NBC Meet the Press interview and stated this -


If we had a Clinton presidency, if we had an Erskine Bowles, chief staff at the White House or President, I think we would have fixed this fiscal mess by now.


I got the impression he was talking about a Bill Clinton presidency .. not a Hillary one. I could be wrong, but that's the impression I got.

I have to agree with him. If Bill Clinton was in office, I don't think we'd have nearly the deficit problem we have now.


I have seen some articles say he was talking about "Hillary"...but I suspect you are right, he meant Bill.

It still suprises me, the love-fest the GOP have with Bill Clinton...it's like everyone forgets they IMPEACHED him.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by teamcommander
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


Then, I take it from this remake, the Republicans in the Congress have something "personal" against President Obama.

That makes it appear as though there is something wrong with this particular person being elected by a majority of the citizens of the U S.

Which could be interrpreted as him thinking there is something wrong with the majority of the people of this country.


Yes, yes and yes. Rightly so.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by luciddream
 


Harder? We didn't have to invade Iraq. We certainly could have been smarter in Afghanistan, and had that whole thing wrapped up in months.

You're telling me that we have satellites that can see what type of screw (flat, hex or phillips) is in the wing of a moving aircraft from orbit, we intercept nearly all digital communications via Carnivore/Eschelon, and we couldn't find a 6-foot something man on dialysis in some mountains? Really? REALLY?

If we would have wanted OBL dead (like really wanted) it could have been done in a matter of weeks. Instead, Bush jr. wanted to go globetrotting and help out his friends in the military industrial complex.

Bush jr. tanked this country after 9/11 -- and it didn't have to go down that way. This isn't a Right vs. Left thing either, plenty of Democrats waved their flags and spouted fake patriotism after 9/11.

So now even if we pull out of these areas, we have a bunch of vets with PTSD, missing limbs, and severe medical problems from being exposed to chemicals. Many of these guys's wives have cheated and left them (barrack bunnies), their houses have been foreclosed on, and they have no real job skills for anything outside the military.

Great, we just created an entire new lower middle class of people. Thanks Bush.
edit on 28-1-2013 by MystikMushroom because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by MystikMushroom
 


Haha, i was not defending anything Bush did, Iraq invasion was pretty dumb. I was mainly referring what the war did to America, and the post war presidents had to deal with much more issues.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by luciddream
 


You know, our biggest domestic threat to our country is based right here. We shouldn't be galavanting around the world under the guise of "protecting our freedom" when we're letting it be taken away right here at home.

If our top military members really meant that oath they always talk about, they'd understand that the bigest threat to American's freedom and liberty is in a tiny 10 by 10 mile area on the East Coast; not in a sandbox halfway around the world.





new topics
top topics
 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join