Bill Clinton: a man you can trust?
Without a doubt, Bill Clinton is an exceptional speaker – convincing and charming – a devastating combination. But can he be trusted?
Bill Clinton as courtroom witness
Once again I find myself falling back on my courtroom experiences. I know firsthand that lawyers and witnesses can make a compelling case for just about anything and having you believing wholeheartedly that they are telling the truth. Again, relying on courtroom experience, I can also tell you that when searching for the truth it is wise to look at the past of the person who has been so convincing. If this person is a witness, the courtroom term is “impeaching” the witness. The opposition does this by catching them in lies, which assaults their credibility.
“Impeachment” is an interesting term to use when discussing Bill Clinton, for obvious reasons. Whether this man is giving a convention speech or telling Congress and the country that he did not have sex with that woman – Monica Lewinsky, we would be wise to apply the courtroom standard to his words. The talking heads have done a good job of fact checking some of his more poignant remarks, and as was the case in the past, they are woefully inaccurate.
Can you believe Bill Clinton today?
Bill Clinton as President. Photo: Bob McNeely, The White House.
So the question now is – will countless Americans believe his remarks that he skillfully punctuates with his index finger wagging to emphasize, or will they remember that this particularly charming man is a bona fide liar extraordinaire? My guess is that those who have been enchanted by the Liar in Chief will accept Clinton’s remarks as inspirational. Liars can be inspirational as well as convincing – just as the father of all liars was when he led a revolt that recruited one-third of heaven. The good news is that some of us recognize liars for what they are. Hopefully there are enough of us voting in the November election.
Well, he did turn Reagan and Bush Sr.’s big deficit into a surplus.
For any fiscal conservative, you would think he’s the man to count on.
Not until after Republicans took control of Congress for the first time in fifty-two years. Once he lost the Congress, he scaled back his grandiose plans. Quite clever if I may say so. Clever—and obedient to the Constitution.
The surplus occurred after Clinton signed into law two key Republican proposals: to cut the capital gains tax, and to “end welfare as we know it.”
The surplus didnt just immediately appear after the introduction of GOP-backed legislation. There were very steady reductions in the deficit from 1992 to 2000 (link to factcheck.org.jpg).
The Republicans also introduced the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (aka the repeal of Glass-Steagall), allowing for the consolidation of different types of banks and creating a major cause for the financial crisis of 2008. The Democrats also supported this in droves, so they’re guilty as well.
You left out one law that probably did it all by itself: the Community Reinvestment Act.
The Community Reinvestment Act caused the surplus? Or the recession?
There isnt really too much of a connection with either being how that act was passed in 1977. Please explain.
Its pretty clear to most economists that allowing banks to gamble with FDIC-insured money (the thing that Glass-Steagal prevented) was a major contributor of the recession.
The CRA caused the crash of 2008. By letting non-credit-worthy borrowers borrow money to get into homes they could never have afforded otherwise.
I find it interesting that you are so certain in your analysis of a subject regularly debated by economists. I’d like to read more on the subject, could you provide me a paper or two about how the CRA lead to the housing crash?
And the banks wouldn’t have lent that money if they actually had a risk rather than having all of their money backed by the FDIC.
You know better than that. The banks lent the money to make Jesse Jackson go away. He was accusing them of “red-lining.” Maybe that’s just what the housing market needed.