Former President Bill Clinton was interviewed by George Stephanopoulos this Sunday. He said a lot of things, most of which were pretty straightforward and not easily disputed unless you subscribe to the theory that former Presidents should never criticize subsequent administrations, which I think is a pretty questionable argument. But he also made several pronouncements in response to Stephanopoulos's softball questions that express key Democratic Party misrepresentations or - if you prefer - lies, which will be at the heart of the campaigns in 2006 and 2008.
"About half of these tax cuts since 2001 have gone to people in my income group, the top 1%." They, of course, pay 95% of the taxes, so that means that the tax cuts went disproportionately to those not in the top 1%, so it was actually a tax cut for the middle class, since the poor pay no taxes.
"What if they just got tired of buying our debt? We depend on Japan, China, the United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia and Korea, primarily to basically loan us money every day of the year to cover my tax cut and these conflicts and Katrina and I don't think it makes any sense. I think it's wrong." It certainly is wrong. These aren't loans, they're debt instruments that these countries chose to buy because they are good investments. If they didn't buy them then someone else would eagerly snap them up because US debt is a great thing to put your investment money in.
"If you give your tax cuts to the rich and hope everything works out all right and poverty goes up and it disproportionately effects brown and black people, that's a consequence of the action made." Good point, but again completely untrue. The rate at which 'brown and black' people have come out of poverty - as reflected by employment growth - has been substantially higher under Bush than it was under Clinton, while whites have lagged behind economically and as he pointed out earlier, the tax cuts went to the middle class, not the rich.
Article comments
1 - DrPat
apres moi, le deluge
In more than one sense, Dave...
2 - Dave Nalle
One more thing I didn't want to include in the article. George Stephanopoulos is a bit of an idiot. Right after the Clinton interview he began talking about government spending and while there was a chart on the screen clearly showing the Nixon administration with a higher percentage budget increase than the current administration he referred to our current spending increases as the largest since the Johnson administration. The man can apparently can't even read a bar chart.
Dave
3 - Robert T. Atwood
Bill Clinton proved once again that he is a liar. His distortions of the facts clearly show that he may not be as smart as he thinks. It was indeed intended to stick in the minds of those who watched the interview and will be brought up during the 06 and 08 elections. The important thing is that those on the right need to expose the lies again and again to change the public's preception of the Democratic ideologies.
During the Clinton administration over 13% of the american population lived in poverty.
During the Bush administration just over 12% live in poverty.
More programs are offered to the poor and an estimated 368 billion dollars is budgeted for these programs under the current administration.
The american public needs to look beyond the lies. Bill Clinton is a snake charmer who used smoke and mirrors and phoney boyish charm to hypnotize the american people.
The president has made a poor judgement call in bringing Clinton into the limelight. He is a constant companion of Bush 41 and is using this opportunity to make himself and his wife Hillary,look more moderate. The closer the 2006 election comes, the more hype and reteric will be heard from slick Willy. My hope is that the truth about his administrations failures in the war on terror, and able danger is properly exposed.
4 - billy
During the Clinton administration over 13% of the american population lived in poverty.
During the Bush administration just over 12% live in poverty.
even the most biased, lying right winger, admits bush has done NOTHING while in office.
5 - A Different Dave
Sorry, billy, you can't say he did NOTHING.
He has done plenty:
• He lied to get us into a needless and wasteful war in Iraq, killing thousands of US soldiers and tens of thousands of Iraqis
• He continued the decades-long redistribution of wealth to the wealthiest Americans
• He damaged the international reputation of the United States
You call that nothing?
6 - tony
Overall, the poverty rate dropped steadily during the Clinton years and rose steadily under Bush.
7 - DrPat
Arrgghh! People, PLEASE make your URLs into real links! All of you, no exceptions!
8 - Dave Nalle
>>Overall, the poverty rate dropped steadily during the Clinton years and rose steadily under Bush.<<
Tony, from the very link you provided it's totally clear that Clinton played no role in the decline of the poverty rate. The decline began under Reagan and continued steadily until Clinton took over, then it increased for a while and started going down again, declining well into Bush's first term before going up again slightly. It's clearly a cyclical pattern and we can expect it to go down again in a few years.
Dave
9 - Scott
Declining well into Bush's first term? Dave, Bush's first term began January 2001. Poverty has gone up every year since then. The numbers, ehhhh, they do not a-lie.
10 - Bob A. Booey
So he misread a bar graph.
Dave, Stephanopoulous was a Rhodes Scholar and summa cum laude graduate from Columbia. Are you?
That is all.
11 - Whit Grobeck
People aren't allowed to call Stephanopoulous anidiot because he went to Columbia? Does that mean they're also not allowed to call Bush an idiot because he wnt to Yale?
12 - Bob A. Booey
Bush was a legacy who was a below-average student in high school and got in as part of the last generation before the Ivy League became meritocratic. He also had poor grades at Yale, where he was a C-student in the era of the "gentleman's C."
Stephanopoulos was the son of middle-class immigrants from the Midwest who excelled academically at Columbia and was selected as a Rhodes Scholar.
He read a chart wrong, but he's not an idiot and he's much more academically accomplished than Bush is.
I don't think Bush is an idiot either, he's just an anti-intellectual with little curiosity about the world or ideas.
That is all.
13 - Will Clark
You can build up (or put down) Stephanopoulos all you like. The simple fact is, that anyone who would support a lying, poll-watching coward like Clinton is not the type of person that anyone with any shred of common sense would lend credence to. Rhodes Scholar ?? Columbia ?? Yale ?? Who cares ???!!?? It's what you do with what you've been given that counts. Stephanopoulos has done nothing. As for Clinton ? He has shown himself to be a liar on more than one occasion. He had a chance to take out Bin Laden and pussed out. He had a chance to take out Saddam and pussed out. If he hadn't been a former President, it is very likely he'd be in jail for exposing himself to women. Yes, two of them passed polygraph tests. If you want to buy into the lies of a sexual deviant who doesn't give a damm about you - please go ahead. I'll stick with a guy who puts in an honest day's work, who is faithful to his wife and who has the balls to finish the job - George Bush.
14 - michael
Dave, I cant believe you tried to spin the numbers. It does show you can not make a rational case.
Reagan Poverty
1981-14% to 1988-13%
Bush I Poverty
1989-12.8% to 1992-14.8%
Clinton
1993-15.1% to 2000-11.3%
Bush II
2001-11.7% to present-12.7%
I do not see a cyclical pattern at all. I do not see how the reagan years had any bearing on the clinton years.
The pattern I do see is the bush family and its support of tax cuts and corporate welfare is not a good thing for americans. The other pattern I see is Clinton inherited an economic and social mess from Bush I and reduced the poverty level nearly 4% points.
If we can not even agree on this, than this country is doomed based on the fact that "common sense" logic shows how well clinton did, and how poorly the bush family performs.
15 - phil
It is abundantly clear that no president could ever do that much to change the poverty level anyway because ( He can't undo history...more events have an effect ...ie katrina and 9-11 which is not Bush's fault cause a few idiots think so and can't be constructive about anything they do or say. i wish these things had occurred during Clinton's terms so we could have seen...I think Bush has done a hell of a good job just keeping is nose clean with all you angry pit bulls about. his mistakes if ANY have been of the acceptable type...Clintons mistakes were proof of his real character
16 - adam
If 9/11 and Katrina had occurred with Clinton in charge, he'd have been a whole lot more competent than the Incompetent Chimp and his monkeyhead stumblebum cronies.