Talk:Presidency of Bill Clinton

Start discussion hereJasper23 04:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Dot Com bubble and Real estate bubble forming under Clinton

Any mention of this anywhere? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericg33 (talk • contribs) 11:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Judicial appointments

I had suggested adding these on the Bill Clinton article (suggestion on the talk page) but someone recommended that I add the lists on this article. So I started listing the Circuit and District Justices appointed by Clinton. I think I got all or most of the Circuit appointments. I hope others can find more District ones! --Ashley Rovira 01:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Lack of Criticism relating to Economics

Somebody should have a look at the Economy Section of this article. It lacks a lot of needed criticism relating to Clinton's foreign policy and its long term effect on the nation's economy. 155.212.247.186 13:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Overall the article's criticism section should be expanded- thank you Astuishin (talk) 04:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

That picture caption is wrong!

Can't be the Cabinet around 1993, because Madeleine Albright is there....she was appointed several years later. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.119.98.246 (talk) 08:04, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

It thought the same thing at first, but in My Life he shows the same picture and in the caption it says United States Secretary of State Warren Christopher is there. Madeleine Albright is there in her capacity as United States Ambassador to the United Nations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by K157 (talk • contribs) 19:50, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

With regards to Ashley Rovira's comment above, shouldn't the US Attorney's that Clinton appointed also be added to this article? I realize the discussion page isn't intended to be a POV forum, but I must say, this article is indeed posted from a particuler POV. Someone is obviously "protecting" this entry based solely on their political agenda. --AZ Gila Monster 07:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfounded and not cited

The statement "Clinton's presidency included the longest period of economic growth in America's history, credited to budget reforms." makes no sense and has no citation. This sounds more like an editorial than an encyclopedia. It is true that the economy absolutely boomed under Clinton and budget reforms played a role in this. However. to solely credit budget reforms for the growth is kind of ridiculous and shows the author's lack of knowledge of the relationship between fiscal policy and economic activity--apparently the federal budget determines the US economy. This either needs citation and further explanation or amendment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.148.226.137 (talk) 17:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The article also claims that there was a budget surplus and that this was used to pay down the debt - however the debt increased by 1.6 Trillion during the Clinton Presidency and debt increased in the "surplus" years by 281 billion. The existence of a surplus is debatable also, since the overall debt increased every year. This is due to a shift in debt from national debt to intra-governmental debt which is likely caused by government borrowing from itself or assuming debt in one area to create a paper surplus in another area. Overall, there was a real deficit each year. Still, the economy boomed - especially after 1997. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.89.41.44 (talk) 22:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Jewish-American Justices

Ruth Bader Ginsburg - 1993, making Clinton the first Democratic president to appoint a Jewish Supreme Court justice

What about Louis Brandeis (appointed by Woodrow Wilson), Felix Frankfurter (appointed by Franklin D. Roosevelt), Arthur Goldberg (appointed by John F. Kennedy), Abe Fortas (appointed by Lyndon B. Johnson. Weren't they a Jewish-American justices appointed by Democratic Presidents?

As far as I can determine the only Jewish-American Justice appointed by Republican President was Benjamin N. Cardozo (by Herbert Hoover) Darth Kalwejt (talk) 00:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Community Reinvestment Act

This article needs a mention of his home ownership policies (such as the changes to the Community Reinvestment Act) and their effects. IBD has an article [1], though there may be other and better sources. —Mike 06:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Pres38-42.jpg

The image Image:Pres38-42.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --22:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm missing something, but...

Perhaps I'm missing something, but...wasn't Bill Clinton impeached? Didn't his presidency have a whole host of scandals (Travelgate, Filegate, and Whitewater scandal)? I only saw 1 brief comment about this in the whole article...and the second half of his presidency was spent dodging all this information. Should be a little bit more explained, in my opinion (and no, this is not politically guided, anyone wanting to know a full scope of the Clinton presidency should have all the goods and bads of it). Thanks. Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.62.247.79 (talk) 18:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I just came here to post the very same sentiment, when I noticed your comment. This article is entitled "the Presidency of Bill Clinton". He was one of only two US presidents ever to be impeached. Certainly the impeachment issue merits mention in an article about his presidency. All of the scandals listed above in the previous post also constitute important and relevant components of his presidency. At the very least, the impeachment needs mention. Otherwise, the article violates the tenets of neutral reporting. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC))

Hillary Clinton, a professor?

"Many administration officials reported later that Clinton initially wanted to nominate the First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, a prominent attorney, professor..."

When was Hillary Clinton ever a professor? Sure I looked through her Wikipedia page but couldn't find anything supporting this, nor have I ever even heard of such a claim of her. Can anyone confirm, if she did, where and a reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.77.233.161 (talk) 05:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

comments on the deficit record and citations

A couple of bits I also mentioned on Bill Clinton's main page, but I wanted to address them here as well. The bit I don't agree with is:

The surplus money was used to pay down the national debt, which had risen to $5.4 trillion by 1997

I have found that in general in wikipedia, and specifically in Bill Clinton's articles, there is people are conflating the terms "public debt" (debt held by the public) and "national debt" (public debt + intragovernmental holdings), which is an important distinction because his budget surplus is with regards to public debt rather than the national debt.

Basically, the claim that surplus was used to pay down the national debt is simply not true, as can be seen by how the national debt increased every year of his presidency.

For now I am adding a tag to the claim. Apocryphal Libertarian (talk) 20:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Relevance of church bombings to Clinton's presidency

I had thought there was discussion here too, but I must have been thinking of what took place over at the main Bill Clinton article. Besides the now-blocked Cgersten (for edit-warring), is there any support for the addition of the church bombing material? IMO it was a minor topic touched on in part of a presidential speech, and does not have a place in a summary of Clinton's term in office. Tarc (talk) 16:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Undie weight. Removing.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I posted the following, which was removed by tarc because he/she felt of little importance. I countered that the issue of Black church burnings generated much controversy at the time.

Clinton in his June 8, 1996, Presidential Radio Address declared: “We do not now have evidence of a national conspiracy [to burn Black churches], but it is clear that racial hostility is the driving force behind a number of these incidents.” Three weeks later, USA Today published an article writing that there appears to be no conspiracy to burn Black churches. In Clinton’s January 18,1997, Presidential Radio Address, Clinton spoke of the “…progress we have made in response to last year's disturbing rash of arsons and other destructive acts directed at houses of worship throughout our country.”

Should this item be included in the article.? cgersten -- tuco_bad —Preceding undated comment added 03:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC).

The add it to an article about black church burnings. This was not enough of an issue to warrant a mention in this article. Tarc (talk) 18:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Trade(People's Republic of China)

I believe that there should be a whole brand new section on the the landmark trade agreement with the People's Replubic of China. This document is one of the reasons we as a country are facing our economic problems. When Clinton signed this document he forgot to take in account the low income that the chinese citzens make leading to the inability for them to purchase our prodcuts. I am proposing a new section on this or a sub-section into the previous one wiki already has going into futher details. Please take in consideration all the new knowledge people will gain by reading on this document if there was a sub-section on it under the trade section.SMITH BRENT (talk) 14:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe so, but what you tried to add to this article was a personal essay/rant and has zero chance of inclusion in Wikipedia. Read WP:V, WP:RS, etc. Read any of the Featured Articles or Good Articles and see how it's done. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Bill clinton "surplus"

Bill Clinton increased the National Debt every year of his office. (09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38) (09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32) (09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39) (09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73) (09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34) (09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62) (09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43) (09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86)

• http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/pd.htm

We can all argue about different kinds of debt, but talk of surplus can not overshadow the rising of the national debt during his or any administration. http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm look over these links and I hope anyone can see the last large period of decline of the debt was the 1920's. Any clam of Clinton to be on track to be debt free, should not be given undo credit without clear facts.

• http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/sep/23/bill-clinton/bill-clinton-says-his-administration-paid-down-deb/

Politifact gave Bill Clinton on paying down the debt a "Half True". Sheppard, the NewsBusters blogger, stood by his decision to base his post on gross federal debt. "If the public debt during those years was bought with other debt -- meaning by the Social Security trust and the Federal Reserve -- we didn't actually pay down any debt, did we? If you take out an equity line of credit on your home to pay off your car loan, your debt didn't decrease. Furthermore, if you take out an equity line of credit to pay off your car loan and buy a boat, it would be deceitful on your part to say you reduced your debt, right? This is what happened those four years: We did retire some debt held by the public, but we did so by increasing debt held by the government and the (Federal Reserve). That's not retiring debt. That's just shifting it from one lender to another." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.137.125.152 (talk) 10:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I've updated the article to reflect the discrepancy between the decreases in public debt from 1997–2001 and the increases in the federal gross debt at the same time. I've also fixed the CBO ref which shows the surpluses for the 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001 federal budgets, and added refs to the TreasuryDirect pages showing the increases in the overall debt. --Jatkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 12:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Jatkins, why did you put in "In the year 2000, the nation was on track to be debt free for the first time since 1835."? In edit history you put in "reverting removal of correct information. the administration did have surpluses, it did not add debt every year, and the nation was on track to be debt free by the end of the 2000s" in answer to when i removed it the first time in edit "the nation was on track to be debt free for the first time since 1835 Is a lie, he added debt every year he was in office" I request removal or rewording of that statement as it is false in its current form.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.137.125.152 (talk) 10:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I put in the edit summary that reverted your edits that you'd removed correct information because you deleted the statement about the 2000 balanced budget, which was balanced. There are multiple reliable sources verifying that which are in the article (from the BBC in June 1999 and January 2001, and from CBO in September 2008). I've removed the last mention of the nation being on track to be debt free and correcting some non-neutral parts of the article. But just to be clear: Clinton did pay down the public debt, and he did have four consecutive surpluses, but he did not decrease the gross federal debt, and there is no neutral source I can find saying that he had the nation on track to be debt free. --Jatkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 13:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Why no discussion of the murders he committed at Waco? N/T

67.10.228.53 (talk) 19:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

File:NAFTA signing.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:NAFTA signing.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Email

Is crediting Bill Clinton as the first president to use email noteworthy? [2] -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 00:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

yes a brief mention could be made.--JOJ ^Hutton 01:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

No mention of the stock market bubble and dollar bubble?

The Clinton surplus is attributable to capital gains tax revenue from the stock market bubble. When the bubble collapsed in 2000, so did the surplus. The productivity rises and the falls in unemployment are attributable to an equally unsustainable dollar bubble. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.2.203.142 (talk) 08:21, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I wonder about this as well. But I'm too lazy to create content about it. LaserWraith (talk) 23:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)