January 12, 2012
-
Would you vote for Bill Clinton in 2012?
When Bill Clinton was in office we had hope we may even have had some change. He presided over a fabulous economic period in American history. Before we had new stimulus packages every other week we had a President that was in touch with the American people.We had a good economy, we had new products people wanted to buy, people had money to buy the new products in the market, and we had new jobs, 22 million of them.
Because of his economic and strategic planning we got to see a record 115 months of economic expansion. We had the lowest unemployment rate that we had in over 30 years; the unemployment rate was at a 4.0%.
Clinton expanded financial aid for students going to college; he thought that educating young Americans was a good thing! This country had a very low crime rate, the overall crime rate declined for 8 consecutive years.
Clinton paid off $363 billion of the national debt, thanks to the lowest government spending in over 30 years.
Love him or hate him he was a good President. Let’s move to change the twenty-second amendment ruling of only a two term President.At the very least if we did not amend the twenty-second amendment make him the Secretary of the Treasury.
Comments (2)
I think looking wistfully at Bill Clinton is the same as Republicans looking wistfully at Ronald Reagan: it sounds good, and it looks good but a second go-around won’t quite be the same. For one, the whole political climate is completely different, 20 years on. It’s difficult to imagine any President being able to work with the current Congress. Secondly, world circumstances have changed and there weren’t the national security and military considerations during the 90s that pervade the current national consciousness that resulted in the economic spiral that culminated in the 2008 crash.
The twenty-second amendment is a tricky subject, and I think that, along with the advent of the 24-hour news cycle has precipitated the years-long political cycle that results in very little being able to be achieved. I think I would amend the 22nd amendment for three consecutive terms, to allow more time for agendas to be implemented. That, or a 5/6-year executive cycle with a 3/4-year legislative cycle so there could be a 1-2year period where elections are not at the forefront of anyone’s agendas so political records have a chance to be developed before having to stand for re-election.
Pipe dreams, I know, but certainly options to unclog the current US political system.
thanks for the great comment and feedback! interesting idea about the three term…@cmdr_keen -