|
|
| Author |
Message |
roz
|
|
How's Bill doing?
| 
Aug 30 19:01 UTC 1994 |
There have been a lot of good articles in newsmagazines lately
focusing on the current administration's leadership and style.
So what do you think? Is there a crisis of leadership at the top,
or is Clinton just getting bad press? What about his impact on
the November Congressional elections? Is he good, bad or
indifferent?
|
| 33 responses total. |
timdole
|
|
response 1 of 33:
|
Sep 9 20:17 UTC 1994 |
Hmmm... I'm thinking.... Don't let me interrupt the
flow and rush of conversation on this conference. Give me a minute.
Talk amongst yourselves.... :)
I not only voted for Clinton, but I worked on his campaign
briefly during the primaries in the bitter cold of New hampshire.
A lot has happened since those heady days.... But I really think
that for the most part, Clinton has gotten a bad rap. I still
believe he has a lot of good ideas. Translating them into bills
that can pass or that are nationally popular...well, that's
a different story altogether. What d'ya think?
|
kentn
|
|
response 2 of 33:
|
Sep 9 20:46 UTC 1994 |
Do you vote for good ideas that never get implemented? Or do you
vote for the person most likely to get good ideas (i.e. those you
agree with ;) implemented? I'm sure you thought at election time
that Clinton's good ideas would pass Congress and good things would
result. Would you vote for Clinton again knowing what you do now?
|
timdole
|
|
response 3 of 33:
|
Sep 9 23:24 UTC 1994 |
Yep. Because I think Clinton --better than the paleo-liberal
crowd-- is trying to do precisely that: to steer a course close enough
to the middle to attract the votes required by our majoritarian system
of government, while nudging the country toward progressive reforms.
|
jdg00
|
|
response 4 of 33:
|
Sep 10 08:51 UTC 1994 |
Middle? Bwahahahahah!
|
variable
|
|
response 5 of 33:
|
Sep 20 21:54 UTC 1994 |
May I say that Bill is really doing better than I thought he would.
I didn't vote for the guy because I thought that congress was
going to be able to push him around the way they did Carter.
Though I amy not agree with everything he has done
I have to admire the ability he has shown in compromising
and attempting to get things done.
(Truth is I'll still vote Perot next time, but that can
be argued in another item should anyone wish)
|
kentn
|
|
response 6 of 33:
|
Sep 21 00:42 UTC 1994 |
I'm still pissed about that retroactive tax increase.
|
other
|
|
response 7 of 33:
|
Oct 5 17:08 UTC 1994 |
I think my feeling about Clinton can best be summed up by how I dealt with
his election campaign.
1) I printed up and sold bumper stickers which read:
CLINTON GORE '92
The Lesser Evil
2) I registered as a republican so I could vote in the republican primary.
This was solely so that I could cast two votes against George Bush in a single
race.
|
carson
|
|
response 8 of 33:
|
Oct 5 23:03 UTC 1994 |
sheesh.
ok, needs to be said again: sheesh.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 9 of 33:
|
Oct 13 15:34 UTC 1994 |
Clinton has done a heck of a lot more to actually cut the deficit
than either of his predecessors, despite much talk. Doesn't get much
political credit for it, though, which means we can look forward to all
future candidates realizing deficit reduction is important to talk about
but not very valuable to actually do.
I wish he'd pushed campaign finance reform harder instead of health
care and NAFTA/GATT and the like, and there are plenty of things like
that I'd change. But at least he never casually remarked that he
thinks my religious beliefs make me inelgible for citizenship of
the U.s.
|
cicero
|
|
response 10 of 33:
|
Oct 15 02:26 UTC 1994 |
I think Bill is the smartest most human and best president we've had at least
since JFK and possibly since FDR (I dont actually think that much of JFK). He
has actually accomplished quit a lot so far, and he's kept more campaign
promises than any other politician I've ever heard of (except Zachary Taylor of
course). It is not his fault that congress and many of the american people are
so hostile that they never give him a chance. I would think that the
republican's would like him better than most democrats because he is not at all
a liberal. (and I should know since I AM!) I wish people would just look
around them rather than blindly listening to what the press and the pols
blather. Bill's health care plan was brilliant, but most people never took
the time to read it and to really understand it. As for the so-called tax
increase: My taxes didn't go up. My friends' taxes didn't go up. If your
taxes did go up than in my opinion you were not paying enough before. I am
sick to death of the way the republicans have screwed the middle class to help
the rich and I am glad that this time there was a little tax justice. And no,
my tune won't change when my income goes. If I ever make 100,000 in a year I
expect them to tax the hell out of me too. I will be able to afford it a lot
more then some poor sap who makes 33 grand!
|
kentn
|
|
response 11 of 33:
|
Oct 15 05:31 UTC 1994 |
Man, they sure got you fooled. Too bad.
|
other
|
|
response 12 of 33:
|
Oct 18 16:29 UTC 1994 |
Oh, AJ! Poor AJ...
(33G--poor sap?! That's close to thrice what I make in a year...)
|
cicero
|
|
response 13 of 33:
|
Oct 19 06:44 UTC 1994 |
re 12:
That's exactly the point: if you make 12 grand you arn't taxed all that badly,
if you make 100 grand you (were) not taxed preportionally either. But if you
make like in the 30's 40' and 50's (solid middle class), you get totally
whomped. That's not fair. The rich should pay not only the most in dollars,
but the most percentage of their actuall incomes as well.
|
roz
|
|
response 14 of 33:
|
Oct 23 11:17 UTC 1994 |
Question: is the object to get to a point of perceived fairness,
or to actually raise more revenue. Because, like it or not, the more
you tax those with high incomes, the more income gets sheltered, and the
less tax (proportionally) gets collected. That's why I chuckle when
folks talk about raising taxes on "the rich" as if they'll sit there an
(whoops) and not change their strategies.
Actual tax revenues (amount of money coming in) rose after the Reagan
tax cuts.
|
pegasus
|
|
response 15 of 33:
|
Oct 23 14:05 UTC 1994 |
What I would favor is making drugs legal, and taxing the hell out of 'em.
Same with cigarettes. I would think that'd bring in so much money that
income taxes could be greatly reduced.
Pattie
|
kentn
|
|
response 16 of 33:
|
Oct 23 14:54 UTC 1994 |
I thought cigarettes were legal and had the hell taxed out of them
already...
|
cicero
|
|
response 17 of 33:
|
Oct 24 04:04 UTC 1994 |
re 14:
The Rich shelter exactly as much money as they can every year regardless of tax
rates I'm quite sure. The reason that the Regan "tax cut" increased revenues
is that the net result was a tax increase on the middle class--who pay mostd8
of the taxes.
|
wicko
|
|
response 18 of 33:
|
Oct 28 10:30 UTC 1994 |
On Clinton - as a outsider (non-US) I have been surprised that Clinton
was chosen as the Presidential candidate and Gore as the running-mate and not
vice versa. Perhaps only seeing things from a distance I have obtained
a distorted impression of the abilities of the two.
|
srw
|
|
response 19 of 33:
|
Oct 29 05:02 UTC 1994 |
Some of us in the US are similarly puzzled. I prefer Gore to Clinton myself.
|
cicero
|
|
response 20 of 33:
|
Oct 29 05:54 UTC 1994 |
I think that Al may be a better manager than Bill, but Bill is by far better
at communicating ideas. (Gore's gettng better though, look at his performances
on the talk show circuit.) Hey with any luck, Al will get to be Prez too!
|
raven
|
|
response 21 of 33:
|
Oct 30 05:33 UTC 1994 |
I would have a hard time voting Clinton again. He's just too weak
on civil rights for my taste. With things like the passage of digital
telephony, talk of a national id card, and the assault weapons ban, I feel
Clinton doesn't respect peoples right to privacy and civil liberties.
|
cicero
|
|
response 22 of 33:
|
Oct 31 03:04 UTC 1994 |
I wasn't aware that Clinton was in favor of an ID card? Where did you hear
that? And what is the problem with digital Telephony? Too easy to tap?
Again... not an Issue I've heard much about. Arn't there benifits to digital
communications that could outweigh easier tapping (there are always encryption
methods you can use too.) As for the assult weapons ban, you'll get no
sympathy from me there. I am staunchly in favor of VERY VERY strict gun contol.
Whey you guys say that we are out to take away your hunting rifles, you are
being paranoid--I have no interest in that. But when you say we're out to
take away your handguns--you are darned right we are. We don't need handguns
in the hands of citizens, and I don't want them there. Even thought most gun
owners do not commit crimes with their guns, the available supply of guns
which are suitable for crimes (ie. handguns and assult weapons, but not
hunting rifles) means that it is too easy and cheap for criminalso get them.
Banning them wont take them away from criminals, but it will make them harder
and more expensive for crimials to obtain.
It is not a violation of your civil rights to protect the popultion from drive
by shootings with military-style assualt weapons.
|
srw
|
|
response 23 of 33:
|
Nov 1 02:33 UTC 1994 |
what cicero said
|
marcvh
|
|
response 24 of 33:
|
Nov 2 00:15 UTC 1994 |
Re #21: Who would you vote for instead? Clinton's civil rights record,
while suboptimal, is better than Bush's or Reagans on most every major
area (except maybe RKBA, if you're a supporter of that, though remember
Bush also restricted assault weapons and Reagan plugged the Brady Bill.)
At least Clinton isn't pitching compulsory prayer in schools (pledge of
allegiance) or stuff of that genre.
|
