Your friendship means the world to me. Whether our fellows know it or not, the USA needs to approach things a little differently if we want to get some different results:
Bill Clinton’s Dubious Economic Legacies
by Jack Rasmus, March 1, 2016
With every televised U.S. presidential debate, listeners are fed a line of bull by candidates about how great previous United States presidents were and how the country needs to return to their policies in order to “make America great again!”
All that’s needed, the Republican candidates say, is to resurrect Reagan policies and today’s U.S. problems will be solved. “Vote for me, and I’ll return to Reagan and restore U.S. greatness,” we’re told.
With the Democrats, it’s a bit more subtle but the underlying message is the same. Under Hillary’s hubby, Bill Clinton in the 1990s, the U.S. created a record number of jobs, incomes were rising, the healthcare crisis was contained, and the U.S. had achieved a “new economy” of prosperity that would only improve further in the 21st century. Under Bill, we were on the right track. George W. Bush screwed it up by reversing course. All we need then is to get back to that “Clinton track” and good times will return again.
But what are the facts? Were Clinton policies a diversion from Reagan? A continuation? Worse?
SNIP...
The Clinton campaign’s frequent claims today that Bill’s two terms in office were days of exceptional economic good times for U.S. workers is just plain false. On several policy fronts, Bill Clinton was actually worse than Reagan — especially with regard to free trade and benefits like health care and pensions. At best, Bill Clinton’s presidency and legacy therefore represents a continuation of Reagan’s — not a shift from his predecessor.
CONTINUED...
https://jackrasmus.com/2016/03/01/bill-clintons-dubious-economic-legacies/
Otherwise, we'll be doing the very definition of insanity ascribed to everybody this side of a Bartlett's.
= new reply since forum marked as read