DBWI: A successful Bill Clinton Presidency

Last week, the William J. Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock, Arkansas opened its doors to the public for the first time last week. The purpose of the library is to chronicle the achievements of Bill Clinton's Presidency (1993-1997) and store his personal papers.

In reality, the achievements of the Clinton administration are very few. First, there was the health care commission fiasco followed by the backlash over Clinton's tax hike in 1993 and Don't Ask Don't Tell which resulted in Republicans taking back Congress in the 1994 elections. Then, there was that extramarital affair and leaks to the press that Newt Gingrich cheated on his wife and the recorded phone conversations with his mistress (forcing Gingrich to resign as Speaker of the House and Congress in early 1996).

After Clinton survived a challenge from the left by Senator Paul Wellstone and won re-nomination by the Democrats, Vice President Al Gore decided not to run for reelection. In November, John McCain won a landslide victory over Clinton thanks to the campaign run by Dick Morris (who was rewarded with the job of Chief of Staff).

Gore returned to Tennessee. In 1998, he was elected Governor over incumbent Republican Don Sundquist. By 2002, he was the most popular governor in the nation and was reelected with 70 percent of the vote. In 2004, Gore was elected President over incumbent Vice President Tommy Thompson. In 2008, President Gore was reelected over Senator Sarah Palin of Alaska, the nominee of an increasingly conservative Republican party.

As we go into this upcoming election, Vice President Susan Davis is on her way to clinching the Democratic party nomination and leads every Republican in head to head match-ups. Hilary Rodham lives quietly in Chicago where she practices law (she divorced Bill Clinton in early 1997).

Paul Wellstone ran again for President in 2000 and won the Democratic party nomination. However, he and his running mate Dennis Kucinich lost to The McCain/Thompson ticket. In 2008, Wellstone retired from the Senate for health reasons.

My question to you is: What would have made Bill Clinton a successful President and got him reelected in 1996? Would Al Gore have been elected President in 2000 following a hypothetical two-term Presidency? And would an earlier Gore Presidency be successful in fighting the War on Terror that defined the McCain Presidency? And would a successful Clinton Presidency mean that he and Hillary stay married?
 
It's too bad Clinton didn't win in '96. McCain's policies really fucked up the economy, particularly in the Rust Belt and out west. Need I remind you guys of Enron again? Or the fact that Ford nearly went bankrupt, twice, until Gore bailed them out? And don't get me started on the $2 trillion bank bailouts either.
I should mention his poor handling of the War on Terror as well; we didn't get any positive results until the first Gore administration and there were TWO major attacks on this country within months in '02, the April L.A. carbombing and the Nov 9th Terror Plane attacks, made worse by the insane incompetence of the administration. We invaded Iraq and Lebanon without cause, when it was actually the Taliban, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, and Al-Qaeda who were responsible, and pissed off a great number of our friends particularly those in Western Europe, as well as the Israeli left.

And then there were other things, too. Like when a certain GOP asshole tried to shove that horrendous copyright 'protection' bill back in '03 down our f***ing throats, and McCain was hyping it all the way; thanks to a GOP majority in Congress it damn well could have passed and the Internet would have been VERY badly affected by this, had it not been for the Dems, and a small number of Repubs who had a conscience(like Lisa Murkowski for instance), who fought against it.
I could go on and on about other things, like the War on Women or the Texas immigration laws(f*** you Rick Perry!), but I better stop before I end up textwalling.......
 
Last edited:
Well, Clinton could have backpeddled and backed NAFTA. Stealing free trade from the Republicans and claiming that success for himself in '93 would have been far better than letting it fester and allowing McCain to get all the credit in '97. The UAW and their sort would have hated him, but they'd have had more jobs sooner as the US wouldn't have set off a round of protectionism and trade wars that curtailed US exports (while doing little against the imports, with the quality and value of Toyotas and VWs being so much better than the big three) and atificially prolonged the early '90s recession. The fact that Ford and GM had to be bailed out in '07 and Chrysler got bought out by Honda in '06 tells us how much US manufacturers and their bloated unions learned from that debacle. And then there is the fact that Toyota is the world's #1 automaker by units sold, and builds more cars and trucks in North America than both Ford and Honda-Chrysler. Only GM outproduces them here, but that is because Americans (and Canadians) like pickup trucks and SUVs.

Gore should have lost in '08. Hell, Palin got a majority of the popular vote, but Gore won enough states to get a majority in the EC. And yes the presumed Democrat candidate is leading right now, but if America's economy doesn't improve (the US economy has stagnated or been recession for the last ten years) then she's toast in November.
 
It wasn't just protectionism, it was also another huge recession from McCain idiotically de-regulating certain industries which only stopped when Gore reset the regulations.

Besides that, for your so called,"bloated," Unions, these same Unions had to take massive pay cuts before the time when these car companies failed. These, along with benefits destroyed, resulted in a loss of worker morale, already coupled with the companies utterly failing to innovate.

With that in mind, what caused most of the US's economic problems was actually a combination of a massive recession recently from, once again, banks screwing around because of not having regulations. Unemployment at least isn't climbing, unlike during the McCain years where it reached up to 16%. Not only that, if the GOP tries to cut welfare, I assure you there will be riots, because I know at least 20 people now who are utterely dependent on welfare right now to EAT.

There's a reason why she's leading in every state. The GOP of late has shown itself to be too incompetent to do anything with the economy, as the last time they had a governor in a state near me, the cuts caused unemployment to reach 20% levels until he was forced out, and his replacement did frantic deficit spending.
 
I'm guessing you guys are supporting the proposals to make the US a one party state and ban dissenting views ? LOL
 
It wasn't just protectionism, it was also another huge recession from McCain idiotically de-regulating certain industries which only stopped when Gore reset the regulations.

Besides that, for your so called,"bloated," Unions, these same Unions had to take massive pay cuts before the time when these car companies failed. These, along with benefits destroyed, resulted in a loss of worker morale, already coupled with the companies utterly failing to innovate.

Those car companies produced shitty cars for 25-30 years. And they paid their employees 40% more than what people with similar skills would get in other jobs. What did you think was going to happen when someone came along and started selling better cars at a lower price? Like their employers they got bloated and priced themselves right out of business.

With that in mind, what caused most of the US's economic problems was actually a combination of a massive recession recently from, once again, banks screwing around because of not having regulations. Unemployment at least isn't climbing, unlike during the McCain years where it reached up to 16%. Not only that, if the GOP tries to cut welfare, I assure you there will be riots, because I know at least 20 people now who are utterely dependent on welfare right now to EAT.

There's a reason why she's leading in every state. The GOP of late has shown itself to be too incompetent to do anything with the economy, as the last time they had a governor in a state near me, the cuts caused unemployment to reach 20% levels until he was forced out, and his replacement did frantic deficit spending.

McCain has been out of office for 8 years. The recession that drove him out of office actually ended before the '04 election that determined who'd succeed him. The US actually prospered for most of his time in office (leading to his reelection in 2000) unlike under either Clinton or Gore. (Between '97 and 02 the average unemployment rate in the US was 5%. It only rose during the recession and had begun to fall right around the time of the 2004 election. It went back up to 16% in 2007, well actually 15.9% versus 2003's 16.1%. Same difference. And at present the US unemployment rate is at 14.7% and rising. It'll probably pass the '03 mark sometime this summer.) Since Gore was elected in 2004 there have been two recessions ('07-8 and since summer of last year and continuing) and nothing but stagnation in between. Whoever wins the US election in November is going to have to bite the bullet and cut into a whole bunch of sacred cows, from the Military to the EPA to all of the entitlement programs. Republicans and Democrats both won't like it but it'll have to happen. I bet that there are many republicans who're secretly praying that their candidate loses in November. That way the Democrats will have to own the shitty economy and all of the cuts. And the Republicans can reap the benefits in 2016.
 
Except the cuts will get nowhere, as your claims that McCain's presidency worked are lies. Tell that to the 16% unemployment rate during the McCain era, which has been proven repeatedly. Don't deny the numbers. That 4%? Came from a statistic screwing that has been rescinded. From 1992-2002, effective unemployment was 16%, not dropping until Gore came and forced it down through things like infrastructure programs, and later on, the bailouts.

For the cuts, if you cut the EPA, you can look forward to the 2nd Dustbowl all over again, the only thing preventing right now is regulations forcing agriculture companies to stop doing monoculture.

For cuts, no one can, as every time the US cuts, its deficit grows, as demonstrated by Gore actually. You know those recessions during his reign? Yeah, both occurred because he cut something, the first time he tried to cut welfare, caused a recession. Has been proven repeatedly by economists across the board, same goes for the 2nd recession, which resulted when he tried to cut an infrastructure reconstruction program. Once again, another recession began.

During both of those times, the US actually LOST money, as tax revenue fell. Face it, cuts won't work, and have proven not to.

For the car companies, sure, except that statistic is a lie too. Japanese car companies paid their employes 50% more than their American counterparts before the latter had to get bailouts. The Japanese companies didn't provide health insurance, but they had universal healthcare, saving them costs.

As for military spending, you can once again thank idiotic policy by McCain. It has driven the deficit too much, causing the US a situation where its only choice is to raise taxes. A lot. The Reagan cuts? You can kiss them goodbye, as whoever is next will have to raise taxes, as cuts have been shown to accomplish nothing, regardless of the area.

This isn't even getting into McCain's decision to bail out the banks which cost the US economy FAR more than the EPA or welfare ever did.
 
Last edited:
Except the cuts will get nowhere, as your claims that McCain's presidency worked are lies. Tell that to the 16% unemployment rate during the McCain era, which has been proven repeatedly. Don't deny the numbers. That 4%? Came from a statistic screwing that has been rescinded. From 1992-2002, effective unemployment was 16%, not dropping until Gore came and forced it down.

For the cuts, if you cut the EPA, you can look forward to the 2nd Dustbowl all over again, the only thing preventing right now is regulations forcing agriculture companies to stop doing monoculture.

For cuts, no one can, as every time the US cuts, its deficit grows, as demonstrated by Gore actually. You know those recessions during his reign? Yeah, both occurred because he cut something, the first time he tried to cut welfare, caused a recession. Has been proven repeatedly by economists across the board, same goes for the 2nd recession, which resulted when he tried to cut an infrastructure reconstruction program. Once again, another recession began.

During both of those times, the US actually LOST money, as tax revenue fell. Face it, cuts won't work, and have proven not to.

For the car companies, sure, except that statistic is a lie too. Japanese car companies paid their employes 50% more than their American counterparts before the latter had to get bailouts. The Japanese companies didn't provide health insurance, but they had universal healthcare, saving them costs.

As for military spending, you can once again thank idiotic policy by McCain. It has driven the deficit too much, causing the US a situation where its only choice is to raise taxes. A lot. The Reagan cuts? You can kiss them goodbye, as whoever is next will have to raise taxes, as cuts have been shown to accomplish nothing, regardless of the area.


IC: Actually, I don't know where RCAF Brat is getting this stuff, but the recession ended in '04(he must be referring to the recent ones in China. The GOP wasn't happy about having lost most of the jobs they shipped over there.). The fact is, between 2004 and 2010, the economy was starting to fully recover; it was only thanks to the fact that the fringe-right wingnuts ended up being able to stuff a whole bunch of their guys into office in the 2010 elections and now the economy is starting to falter again thanks to the teabaggers. (And Honda and Chrysler? The two companies may have worked together for a while, particularly in Europe, but just like Ford and Volvo, they didn't actually truly merge, and in fact as of today are fiercely competitive after a falling out between the two CEOs in 2006.)

The good thing is, though, the Repubs honestly don't have a chance this year.....Rand Paul is such a f***ing idiot that even Chris Chandler would've made a better candidate.

OOC: Honestly, RCAF, stop derailing the thread(mainly referring to your second post, and the bit about Honda-Chrysler, the complete merger of which is, quite frankly, ASB.). Seriously, did you not read the post I made? :mad:
 
Anyway, eh, Clinton maybe could've done better, but honestly, the US needs a paradigm shift in regards to its politics and economics. To what? Well, there needs to be a change over to high taxes, and massive education investment, along with investments in green energy. The deficit won't close until the US finds a new economic product to bring that isn't a service.
 
Anyway, eh, Clinton maybe could've done better, but honestly, the US needs a paradigm shift in regards to its politics and economics. To what? Well, there needs to be a change over to high taxes, and massive education investment, along with investments in green energy. The deficit won't close until the US finds a new economic product to bring that isn't a service.

Fun fact on outsourcing, btw: it was McCain's idea to ship jobs to China, not Clinton's.

Unemployment was at 18% in 2002 thanks to McCain's bungling. In 2009, it was all the way back down to 5.8%, thanks to Gore. It wasn't a coincidence and the numbers are easy to crunch(of course, Faux News only recently stopped pulling shit out of their asses).
 
Except the cuts will get nowhere, as your claims that McCain's presidency worked are lies. Tell that to the 16% unemployment rate during the McCain era, which has been proven repeatedly. Don't deny the numbers.

The rate was at 8.6% when he took office in January of '97 and it dropped to a low of 3.6% in May of '99. 3.6% is basically full employment and is literally as low as it can go. The US unemployment rate stayed below 4.5% until June of 2002 when it exploded, reaching the high of 16.1% in the fall of 2003. In January of 2005 it was 12.1 and since then the US unemployment rate hasn't gone below 10%. Compare that to Canada, where throughout the '90s until the 2002-4 recession the unemployment rate was always about 5 points higher than in the US. During that recession, it went from 8% to 15% and then right back down again. In 2007 it peaked at 13%, noticeably better than in the US before dropping to 7.5%. Presently it stands at 11% and probably won't go much higher unless the EEC goes into recession too. The numbers actually speak for themselves.

For the cuts, if you cut the EPA, you can look forward to the 2nd Dustbowl all over again, the only thing preventing right now is regulations forcing agriculture companies to stop doing monoculture.

The same EPA that is making US industry uncompetative, is preventing the use of new technology to increase yields and efficiency rendering US agriculture uncompetitive, and so on. That bureaucracy can take some paring down while remaining focused on it's core competencies.

For cuts, no one can, as every time the US cuts, its deficit grows, as demonstrated by Gore actually. You know those recessions during his reign? Yeah, both occurred because he cut something, the first time he tried to cut welfare, caused a recession. Has been proven repeatedly by economists across the board, same goes for the 2nd recession, which resulted when he tried to cut an infrastructure reconstruction program. Once again, another recession began.

The US can start by cancelling the F-35 and the Kennedy-class aircraft carriers. Next can be an end to the peacekeeping mission in Haiti. And then the US consolidate the various welfare and social security programs in to one simplified, universal program, eliminating a dozen redundancies in one go. And then go through all the various agencies and consolidate and reorginze to eliminate the duplication and inefficiency in the bureaucracy. That could save $300-400 billion a year. And the deficit could be eliminated by FY 2018 at the latest. Hell, if whoever does it does it right, they could have things under control in time to win the 2016 election.

For the car companies, sure, except that statistic is a lie. Japanese car companies paid their employes 50% more than their American counterparts before they had to get bailouts. They didn't provide health insurance, but you can thank a lack of universal healthcare for that.

The Japanese companies can actually afford to pay that much though. One of their factories only has half the people as one run by Ford or GM. The difference is in the level of automation. Those plants can churn out as many cars as the the Ford or GM plants, but the cost in salaries and benefits is significantly lower, so the cars can be sold for a lower price and still bring in a profit.
 
OOC: Honestly, RCAF, stop derailing the thread(mainly referring to your second post, and the bit about Honda-Chrysler, the complete merger of which is, quite frankly, ASB.). Seriously, did you not read the post I made? :mad:


OOC: Yes I did. It's just that the consequences came at the end of his second term and have continued ever since. (Had the first term been a disaster you'd have had a Democrat in office in 2000...) Just like the OTL policies of Clinton and Bush didn't bite anyone in the ass until 2007 and can't be fixed overnight. A 'Lost Decade' for the US is what I'm getting at, and by TTL's 2012 it has become a bipartisan clusterfuck. To fix it will require both side to gore their sacred cows, and whoever breaks down and does so will be out of power for a generation and they know it.
 
The first is still wrong. It was 16% in 1999, that 4% came from statistic manipulation that is on the levels of being criminal, as demonstrated by some of his staff being arrested for statistic manipulation in other ears.

For the EPA, the reason they won't allow the new technologies as they've been proven, repeatedly, to cause ecological damage. After all, Mexican companies recently used them, and damaged soil so heavily that it has caused the soil to be useless for agriculture until 2023.

For the military, yes, that needs to be cut hard, however that's it. Trying to simply the welfare is pointless right now, as the last time that was tried, this time in California actually, it caused a massive plummet in quality of welfare until they, once again, had to rescind the cuts. This took place in 2002, and has been proven repeatedly to not have worked.

For the car companies, yes, they're more automated. However, this automation in the long run will cost the US too much, as it was desperate to employ people, and automation would mean more unemployment than the US could take. Now, they have automated, and the unemployed were put into various government make work programs of late.
 
Top