Welcome Instapundit readers! Have since tweaked the post a tad to fix a typo I caught in the link!
Today, everyone is all abuzz about Bill Clinton’s speech tonight to the Democratic National Convention. Earlier today Yahoo! led with this image:
The chart below, however, illustrates the real difference between the two Democrats. Reproduced from Table 1.3, one of the many historical tables providing “data on budget receipts, outlays, surpluses or deficits, Federal debt, and Federal employment over an extended time period” on the White House’s website, this shows how federal spending declined as percentage of GDP during Clinton’s tenure in the White House:
I have circled [the column on] the chart showing federal outlays as percentage of GDP over the course of the Clinton presidency. Outlays decline from 21.4% in FY1993 to just 18.2% in FY 2001, the last budget passed by a Republican Congress and signed by the Arkansas Democrat.
For the past two years, that number has been 24.1%, down, to be sure, from FY 2009, a year which included TARP, the “stimulus” and a budget finally passed in the first months of Obama’s term, but up from the last budget passed by a Republican Congress and signed by a Republican president (FY 2007, 19.7%).*
Over at Cato@Liberty, my friend David Boaz reported that Bill Clinton campaigned against big government and embraced “an expanding entrepreneurial economy“.
*Yes, that does indicate that federal outlays grew as a percentage of GDP under George W. Bush; that good man was clearly not a small government conservative.
And do note that federal outlays grew at a far more rapid pace with the election of a Democratic Congress in 2006.
I don’t recall Democrats complaining the Government was underfunded under Clinton. Yet, today they scream at the slightest suggestion that Federal spending be reduced below 24%…. Much less 18g%.
Wish Republicans held Clinton in the esteem then as they do now, instead of getting wrapped up in a blue dress. (i.e. morality employed only when convenient)
Oh hindsight, how we love thee.
Let’s check back in ten years.
Regards,
Cinesnatch
#2: “Let’s check back in ten years.”
No need.
Back in 1998 when Bill Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice, the Democratic Party made their position unequivocally clear: sexually harassing/assaulting women and lying about it under oath is not immoral if the serial harasser and accused rapist has a ‘D’ after his name and supports abortion on demand. In fact, the Democrats further declared that their view of ‘immorality’ was best personified by the evil men and women who dared to try to hold Bill Clinton accountable for his crimes and oppression of women.
It’s now 2012. The Democrats have honored Bill Clinton (the aforementioned serial harasser and oppressor of women) by tapping him to give the keynote address at their convention.
14 years and the only thing that’s changed is that the Democratic Party has even more contempt for quaint, traditional notions of morality than they did then.
10 more years (assuming the Democratic Party still exists–hopefully not) will bring more of the same…an easy prediction given the Party’s trajectory since those evil, old prude Republicans “got wrapped up in a blue dress.”
I hold BJ Clinton in no esteem at all, lest we forget it was under BJ that the Government began the policy of forcing banks (under threat of discrimination lawsuits) to give mortgages to unqualified Democrat voters. This policy was the root of the real estate bubble and collapse that brought about the disastrous economic implosion of 2008.
Clinton became fiscally responsible only out of pragmatic necessity, a quality solely lacking in the radical ideologue that currently occupies the White House.
If Clinton is so important to Obama’s re-election chances, why is his speech airing during the Cowboys-Giants game?
Tom >> It appears they wanted one heavy hitter each night and a build.
M. Obama < B. Clinton < B. Obama
Sean A, The perjury charges stemmed from activity that involved two legal and willing participants: Clinton and Lewinsky. And she never claimed assault or harassment.
#7: I never said Lewinsky claimed she was sexually assaulted or harassed, Cinetwit. JONES made those allegations, and Clinton perjured himself regarding BOTH. But thanks for confirming the point I was making:
Perjury – NOT IMMORAL if it involves a politician with a ‘D’ next to his name, even if it thwarts justice in a legitimate sexual harassment lawsuit.
Sexual infidelity b/w the most powerful man on Earth and a female intern half-his-age – NOT IMMORAL because the conduct was consensual and it’s not like he sexually assaulted her or anything.
Like I said in my initial comment: Dems categorically denied that these things were immoral in 1998; they (and YOU) don’t believe they’re immoral in 2012; and they won’t condemn them as immoral 10 years from now either.
Sean A, You wrote earlier:
I ask you, when did Clinton “LIE” “UNDER OATH” about “SEXUAL HARASSMENT/ASSAULT”? He was cited for perjury charges that related only to his “improper relationship” with Lewinsky. He was ACCUSED of SEXUAL HARASSMENT/ASSAULT. He was NOT FOUND GUILTY of SEXUAL HARASSMENT/ASSAULT. He was NOT FOUND GUILTY of LYING about SEXUAL HARASSMENT/ASSAULT. He was FOUND GUILTY of LYING about “AN IMPROPER RELATIONSHIP.”
Please provide evidence that Clinton lied under oath about sexual harassment/assault.
Seems to me I remember a 104th Republican congress who dragged Clinton kicking and screaming to budget sense. I believe the guy wrote 7 budgets before the Republicans would come to agreement with him. Government shutdown blamed on the evil Republicans. Poor seniors dieing in the streets because their Medicare was taken away, school lunch programs decimated by the evil child hating Republicans – all because they simply wanted a lower rate of growth in these programs.
Walaa !! almost 20 years later and Bill Clinton gets all the credit for (relatively, excluding S.S.)balanced budgets of the late ’90’s.
I occasionally hear some Democrats argue that we should go back to President Clinton’s tax rates “when the economy was booming”; yet somehow I never hear them argue we should go back to President Clinton’s spending rates.
I honestly think that if we were offered the 1998 budget and tax rates, we should take it in a heartbeat. The tax rates would still be too high, but we could probably handle that without the out-of-control spending.
Early in Clinton’s presidency, when he was backed by a Dem Congress, he stated that he saw no end of deficits. Not until the GOP took Congress and held his feet to the fire was the budget brought under control. And yet, who gets credit for it nowadays? Slick Willie.
Not only does BJ Clinton get (or claim) credit for a balanced budget, he poses as the welfare reformer–even though he twice vetoed reform before the Republican Congress got him to sign.
Talk about Teflon presidents.
Oh, and even if Monica was eager to service the president, when Clinton did would qualify under the law as sexual harassment if done by any other executive.
so, he lied under oath about lewinsky because … he was telling the truth about gennifer flowers? isn’t it more like he lied about both?
He was found GUILTY of PERJURY regarding his “improper relationship” with Lewinsky.
Sean A said that the donkeys support “sexually harassing/assaulting women and lying about it under oath.”
Except:
1) No sexual harassment/assault was proven
2) No lying about sexual harassment/assault was proven
Making Sean A’s statement about what the donkeys believe and support unsubstantiated, outside the realm of his skull.
Let me posit a hypothetical.
Suppose, eight months into Obama’s first term, there had been a massive terrorist attack in the USA that killed thousands of people.
Suppose that the Bush Administration had enacted policies years earlier that prevented intelligence agencies from detecting the attack in its planning stages.
Suppose, also, that a foreign government had offered to turn over the terrorist mastermind behind the attack to the Bush Administration, but the Bush Administration refused.
Would it be fair to say that the Bush Administration was at least partly to blame for not stopping the attack?
#10: Cine-Dense, again, you’re just hammering home my point about you and your fellow Democrats: perjury, not immoral; sexual infidelity with interns half-one’s-age, not immoral.
As for Jones v. Clinton, there wasn’t a jury verdict finding Clinton liable for harassment/assault either way because his perjured deposition testimony is what his attorneys used to get the case dismissed on summary judgment. And to be clear, in his deposition testimony, he denied both the relationship with Lewinsky AND Jones’ allegations as well.
Jones had lost, but she appealed. Once it was revealed that Clinton had lied under oath about Lewinsky, it was clear that the summary judgment (procured through his perjury) would like be reversed and Jones would likely get her day in court afterall. That’s when Clinton settled for $850,000. The trial judge also held Clinton in contempt of court for his perjured testimony, ordering him to pay $1,202 to the court and $90,000 to Jones’ lawyers. The Arkansas Bar also stripped Clinton of his law license for 5 years.
THIS is sufficient for any rational, moral, intelligent adult to conclude that Clinton perjured himself both with regard to his relationship with Lewinsky AND with regard to the underlying allegations made by Jones in the sexual harassment civil case itself.
However, since it’s well established that you are NOT, in fact, a rational, moral, intelligent adult, I expect your position to be that: (a) Clinton DID commit perjury regarding his relationship with Lewinsky because it was consensual, private, and no one else’s business; and (b) that Clinton DIDN’T commit perjury by denying Jones’ specific allegations because…well…he just didn’t…or something.
But as always with you, CineSkank, this all just an irrelevant distraction because neither you, nor any other Democrat hold Clinton in contempt for any of it because of the big ‘D’ next to his name. You’re actually arguing that because Clinton got the Jones case dismissed by committing perjury and later settling it for $850,000, there was no jury verdict on the issue of Clinton’s liability on Jones’ specific allegations. Therefore, Clinton didn’t commit perjury when he was asked about Jones’ allegations in his deposition. He just committed perjury regarding the Lewinsky stuff. Yeah…that’s it! You’re obviously just too stupid to be embarrassed for taking such a position.
This is why everyone on this blog with a brain and a moral compass laughs at you when you do things like bring up Romney cutting some classmate’s hair 40-50 years ago, ominously declaring that the alleged incident “speaks to greater truths.” You’re such a joke, CineJizz.
For the slow learners, Clinton was impeached on one count of obstruction of justice, and one count of perjury. Let us address the latter.
Not matter how many times Cinesnatch INSISTS ON USING ALL CAPS, Clinton was indicted for perjury because he lied -under oath- about having sexual relations with Lewinsky. Not assault, not harassment, but relations.
The defense from Clinton “it depends on what ‘is,’ is” maintained that -in the present tense- he was not “having sex with that woman,” not that he never had sex. Basically Bill was trying to play clever lawyer and parse a word in a very specific -albeit torturous- manner. Again, harassment and assault had nothing to do with it.
So Cinesnatch decides to play his own little word games and create a straw-man argument. Bottom line: Clinton lied, under oath about having sex with Monica Lewinsky. That’s perjury, no matter how many CAPITAL LETTERS you use.
You are entitled to you own opinion, but not your own facts.
I would say the fact that many conservatives “miss” Clinton is a reflection of the fact that -despite their disdain for the man’s moral failures- they recognize he was a skilled, accomplished politician who appreciated where the revenue comes from. He knew how do get along with the Chamber of Commerce crowd. Obama doesn’t have a damned clue.
Casey:
Thanks, genius. That’s what I’ve been claiming this whole time. Learn how to read. Now, please explain how Clinton lied about sexual harassment/assault as Sean A is claiming. Thank you, genius.
Sean A, And … (c) He knew what he was doing and was smarter than Ken Starr was desperate.
If you want to throw morality at me, Sean A, we can get in a whole conservation about your Iraq war, but your conduct speaks volumes about your self-righteous morality.
Vince actually does have a consistent moral viewpoint: Democrats, good. Republicans, bad.
Everything else bends to fit that view.
Vince,
You are making a mountain out of a molehill and I am not the least bit interested in why you care to do so.
America was far better off under Clinton than it is under Obama. If Clinton were able to run again, he would not get my vote, mainly because he is a chucklehead who still can not figure out what is at his core so that he can set his moral compass and nail down his legacy.
That said, he is the old style Democrat liberal who understands compromise and negotiation. Who is there left in your party who can walk in his shadow?
One thing Obambam has over Slick Willy is that he isn’t an accused rapist, womanizer, wife cheater, impeached former president. He may be an @sshole socialist scum, but at least he is faithful to his family.
[mythbuster] Well there’s your problem. [/mythbuster]
#21: “If you want to throw morality at me, Sean A, we can get in a whole conservation about your Iraq war, but your conduct speaks volumes about your self-righteous morality.”
MY Iraq war, CineDope? Really? The Iraq war is MINE now? And…Iraq? Wow, you really are an unhinged, leftist, nut-bag cliche. Because as nut-bags like yourself continuously insist, ALL issues of morality are resolved and explained by IRAQ.
Interesting bit of trivia that you CLEARLY overlooked: not only is the Dems’ keynote speaker a serial harasser, abuser, and oppressor of women, but he also invaded and bombed Iraq PRE-9/11 because well…he needed to get those Lewinsky deposition headlines off the front page. Nice guy you’re defending there, CineTwat. Such discernment you have between right and wrong. Like you said, “smarter than Ken Starr was desperate.”
You seem to have made an error. The table is from budgets. Budgets have only a tenuous relationship to actual spending. They are accounts of what one admits to planning to spend vs. what one hopes will come in to pay for it. Both numbers are little more than pious hopes. Actual, real, honest-to-gosh Federal spending, measured by what’s left in the piggy bank at the end of the year, has ALWAYS exceeded Federal revenues, at least for the past 45 years. This is reflected in the Federal debt, which has increased every year since 1957. It had increased before that, too, but the debt actually went down, slightly, in both 1956 and 1957 – just one reason why “I Like Ike”. If there was any sort of real cash surplus, there would have been no Federal deficit for that year, and the Federal debt would have decreased (even if only a tiny amount).
In short, numbers in the the budget are not an accurate way to determine actual Federal spending. Try
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm
for a more realistic accounting of just how deep the debt hole has become.
Republicans are accused of wanting to privatize, deregulate, voucherize, unleash free markets and cut government to the bone. Boy, do I wish any of that were actually true.http://www.humanevents.com/2012/09/06/democrats-lose-grip-on-reality
Clinton’s economic success == housing and financial bubble + GOP Congress
Also, don’t forget Y2K. The country spent over $2Trillion dollars on Y2K preparation. It’s no coincidence that the economy collapsed in 2000, just as that spending came to an end.
Only Cinesnatch could write this:
With no irony. Clueless about how directly the second part answers the first. A few hints:
1) Perjury charges have to do with: lying under oath.
2) Clinton’s relationship with Lewinsky was improper, in part – Not entirely, but in small part – because, if only Clinton had had an (R) after his name, feminists would cite it as a prime example of workplace sexual harassment, lecturing people ad nauseum on how the extreme power imbalance of the President-underling relationship makes it harassment even if the underlying consented.
Haha, “even if the -underling- consented.”