Skip to main content

View Diary: Bill Clinton: I Shouldn't Have Listened to Summers and Rubin [Substantive Update] (341 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  LOL...too funny. eom (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RFK Lives, gmb, 3goldens, Irons33, 0wn
    •  He apologized for inaction in Rwanda, for one... (5+ / 0-)

      But you aren't interested in reality, are you?

      •  Yeah, make a ton of terrible decisions and follow (10+ / 0-)

        up with apologies a decade later, securing your place in the history books.  Nice...

        •  Yeah, he was a real fuck-up! (29+ / 0-)

          He raised taxes on the rich.
          He raised the minimum wage.
          He raised median wages by more than any President since the 1950s
          He lowered the unemployment rate to < 4%.
          He LOWERED defense spending for 6 straight years.
          He saved the Muslims in Kosovo & Bosnia.
          He helped broker peace in Northern Ireland.
          He tripled the stock market.
          He helped to create 23 million jobs.
          He eliminated the deficit - running a surplus.
          He helped lower the crime rate every year of his Presidency.

          So, yeah, if you don't like any of that stuff, he made bad decisions.

          •  He made good and bad decisions (15+ / 0-)

            I applaud the ones you list and acknowledge the ones he and others point out as mistakes.  He's a human being after all, as is our current president.  What the 2 of them have in common that any republican president that has served in my lifetime (53 years) does not, is that they genuinely care about making the world a better place for people to live in.  

            "In our century, we've learned not to fear words" - Lt. Uhura

            by ShempLugosi on Sun Apr 18, 2010 at 03:52:12 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Rubin was more than just wrong... (12+ / 0-)

              He was complicit in the whole scam!

              Oct.-Nov. 1999

              Congress passes Financial Services Modernization Act

              After 12 attempts in 25 years, Congress finally repeals Glass-Steagall, rewarding financial companies for more than 20 years and $300 million worth of lobbying efforts. Supporters hail the change as the long-overdue demise of a Depression-era relic.

              On Oct. 21, with the House-Senate conference committee deadlocked after marathon negotiations, the main sticking point is partisan bickering over the bill's effect on the Community Reinvestment Act, which sets rules for lending to poor communities. Sandy Weill calls President Clinton in the evening to try to break the deadlock after Senator Phil Gramm, chairman of the Banking Committee, warned Citigroup lobbyist Roger Levy that Weill has to get White House moving on the bill or he would shut down the House-Senate conference. Serious negotiations resume, and a deal is announced at 2:45 a.m. on Oct. 22. Whether Weill made any difference in precipitating a deal is unclear.

              On Oct. 22, Weill and John Reed issue a statement congratulating Congress and President Clinton, including 19 administration officials and lawmakers by name. The House and Senate approve a final version of the bill on Nov. 4, and Clinton signs it into law later that month.

              Just days after the administration (including the Treasury Department) agrees to support the repeal, Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, the former co-chairman of a major Wall Street investment bank, Goldman Sachs, raises eyebrows by accepting a top job at Citigroup as Weill's chief lieutenant. The previous year, Weill had called Secretary Rubin to give him advance notice of the upcoming merger announcement. When Weill told Rubin he had some important news, the secretary reportedly quipped, "You're buying the government?"

              http://www.pbs.org/...

              Now in light of the new "revelations" about Goldman Sachs... does this give anyone pause when you think that Rubin is giving advice to Obama as he did Clinton?

              •  Rubin, Summers, and Geithner were bad news then (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                3goldens, blueoasis, seabos84

                They're equally bad news now.  In fact, they may be worse b/c they should know better by now.  It was nice for WJC to admit the truth for a few minutes today.  Sadly, he quickly did an Emily Litella 180 after the show.

                In 10/08, Greenspan publicly admitted that his core theories were wrong.  Since then, his rep has been rehab'ed, and WJC is participating in that rehab.  As long as Dems continue to participate in that charade, it will work to their serious political detriment.

                Some men see things as they are and ask why. I dream of things that never were and ask why not?

                by RFK Lives on Sun Apr 18, 2010 at 07:05:33 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  Um, that tripling of the stock market? (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            DocGonzo, blueoasis, mkor7, MichaelNY

            It was based on the dot com bubble--which blew up in 2000/2001. Sorry, but he does NOT get a pass on that one.  As an economist, he damn well knew better.

            You can have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, or democracy, but you cannot have both. ~ Louis Brandeis

            by 3goldens on Sun Apr 18, 2010 at 04:26:37 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yeah, 3goldens? You wouldn't be typing on the... (4+ / 0-)

              Internets now if Clinton/Gore hadn't help ignite the dotcom era.

              You think it would have happened if old man Bush had won in 1992? Or Bob Dole in 1996?

              •  I was going to say... (0+ / 0-)

                ... you forgot to mention in your list above that Clinton-Gore were instrumental in creating the regulatory environment that let the Internet out of the box.  I'm sure George HW Bush would much prefer it to have remained the playground of academics and spies rather than the free and open public space it has become.

              •  I'd like to point out to you that (0+ / 0-)

                there's a big difference between the impetus given by Al Gore to the development of information technology and the dot com bubble and bust, an economic phenomenon that was aided by de-regulation of the stock markets which, in turn, allowed companies to blow their stock valuations to 20 times their actual worth.  A bubble, by definition, is built on air and not much else.  That is NOT the same thing as what Al Gore did so that people like me could access the internet.  And, by the way, how many of those IT folks, who were part of that info. technology bubble, lost their jobs and went jobless for a long time because there were far fewer jobs in that line of work after the bust?  That was created on Clinton's watch--along with Rubin, Summers, and Greenspan.  You don't remember Greenspan's comment about the "froth" in the stock market and the, as he called it, "irrational exuberance"?

                You can have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, or democracy, but you cannot have both. ~ Louis Brandeis

                by 3goldens on Sun Apr 18, 2010 at 08:18:51 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  If only (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Saxman, blueoasis, CharlieHipHop, Badabing

            Obama can follow his example. He should try. Maybe Bill can give him some advice on creating 23 million new jobs.

            "Private health insurers always manage to stay one step ahead of the sheriff." Sen. Sherrod Brown

            by Betty Pinson on Sun Apr 18, 2010 at 05:22:49 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Any president will make a bunch of decisions (7+ / 0-)

          that can later be viewed as errors. There are just that many decisions to be made, and even if the decision making process is sound, some will have poor outcomes. At least Clinton can own up to this facet of reality and take some responsibility for his part.

          I'm as cynical as the next guy and am far from his biggest fan, but trying to bash him on this strikes me as pointless.

          (-8.38, -8.00) Did I make my savings throw?

          by hyperstation on Sun Apr 18, 2010 at 02:58:35 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I think it is difficult to remember how much of a (5+ / 0-)

            GOD Alan Greenspan seemed to be at the time. So Clinton gets triple-teamed by Greenspan, Summers and Rubin --- and he folds.

            Yes it was a mistake, but considering how great their advice had been leading up to 1998, and how well it had worked, can you truthfully say that you wouldn't have done the same?

            •  Exactly. (0+ / 0-)

              (My comment was a response to gloomyguy.)

              (-8.38, -8.00) Did I make my savings throw?

              by hyperstation on Sun Apr 18, 2010 at 06:09:07 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  The other point that Clinton made was that (3+ / 0-)

                He was no longer President when the shit hit the fan, and if he had been, he certainly wouldn't have disabled the SEC (as Bush OBVIOUSLY did).

                The people here have no problem blaming him for events 6-7 years after he leaves office?

                Suppose 6-7 years after Obama leaves office, GM folds. Someone, somewhere on some website will say: "ah-hah. You see what happens when the government intervenes in the marketplace?" Nonsense.

                Even though it was a mistake, the mob here is insane NOT to put most of the blame on Bush, who not only didn't see the problem coming, he wasn't even looking.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site