Skip to comments.'Honest' PBS Clinton Documentary Lies About the Economy
Posted on 03/01/2012 4:10:36 AM PST by Kaslin
Public Television touted the Bill Clinton documentary as a long-awaited warts-and-all piece. USA Today called the two-parter a "solid and even-handed account ... of a remarkably skillful politician with an immense intellect." While calling it "tedious and predictable," The Washington Post described the documentary as "honest."
In the first hour, the documentary stumbled out of the gate. If it were a racehorse, they'd have to put it down. The whopper we get hit with right away and again and again is this: Clinton inherited a recession -- not an economy that long ago came out of a recession. Never mind that 1993 -- 19 years ago -- is within the living memory of many Americans. Yet we are repeatedly told that Clinton entered office under a full-on economic meltdown.
The narrator says: "Heading into the fall (of l992) ... with the economy still faltering. ..."
The narrator later says, "As Clinton took office in the winter of 1993, the economic crisis that had propelled him into office showed few signs of abating."
Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin adds: "We had had a recession. We had high unemployment. And it was a lot of uncertainty about whether the United States was going to get on its feet again or whether we could be in for a prolonged period of real difficulty. So he came into a very difficult environment."
Journalist Joe Klein describes Clinton's first budget battle, in the late summer of '93, as a gamble "in the midst of a recession."
And midway through the piece, the narrator informs us that "by the fall of 1994, the economy was growing again."
This is simply extraordinary, mind-boggling.
Whether Bill Clinton was a good president, whether he deserves the credit for balanced budgets and projected surpluses or whether he should have been impeached are matters about which reasonable people can and do disagree. But whether Bill Clinton entered office "in the midst of a recession" and whether, in the fall of '92 and the winter of '93, the economy was "still faltering" and "showed few signs of abating" -- these are matters of fact.
The National Bureau of Economic Research in Cambridge, Mass., is the official keeper of the U.S. business cycle. It defines a recession as "a period of diminishing (economic) activity." It tracks when recessions begin (a "peak" -- the month when a period of economic growth ends and a downturn begins) and when recessions end (a "trough" -- the month when the downturn bottoms out and the economy begins to grow again).
Bill Clinton entered office in January 1993. According to the NBER, did he inherit a recession? Not even close. The recession began in July 1990 and ended eight months later, in March 1991 -- a full 19 months before Clinton was even elected.
Let's be charitable. Perhaps the documentary used a different definition of recession. True, some experts use another standard: two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth. But during Bush-41's last year in office -- 1992, the year voters elected Clinton -- the economy grew every quarter, averaging 3.2 percent.
But today, nearly two decades after the fact, the PBS narrator solemnly states that "as Clinton took office in the winter of 1993, the economic crisis that had propelled him into office showed few signs of abating" -- even though the economy was then on its 22nd consecutive month of positive growth!
Really? "In the winter of 1993 ... the economic crisis ... showed few signs of abating"? Jan. 29, 1993, seven days after Clinton took office, The New York Times wrote, "U.S. Says Economy Grew at Fast Pace in Fourth Quarter: The economy grew at a faster-than-expected annual rate of 3.8 percent in the final quarter of 1992, the strongest performance in four years, the Commerce Department reported today."
The confusion is understandable. Many in the media suffer from CRAP -- Clinton Recession Amnesia Problem. CRAP spares few victims. Take MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, who once said she knows little about economics and, bless her, seems determined to prove it. In January 2009, the month President Obama took office, Maddow said: "Clinton took the oath during an economic downturn, but that was a romper room compared to today's down-crash."
In October 1992, as President George Herbert Walker Bush ran for re-election against Bill Clinton, the economy was 18 months into a recovery. But as Investor's Business Daily noted, 90 percent of the newspaper stories on the economy were negative. Yet the following month, when Clinton defeated Bush-41, suddenly only 14 percent of economic news stories were negative!
Given the media recitation of the false history of the state of the 1992-1993 economy -- when Clinton entered office -- why expect PBS to get it right?
Historical revisionism occurs when someone challenges a conventional point of view. But the Clinton documentary -- as to the state of the economy he inherited -- is not historical revisionism. This documentary simply recites the "facts" as the traditional media see it: Clinton inherited a recession left by his Republican predecessor -- and that's that.
...wasn't it Lenin who said we will provide them the rope to hang us with?
Two things made the ‘90’s economy boom- 1) The Internet, and 2) Gridlock caused by the GOP’s massive wins in the 1994 election. With Congress effectively shutting Clinton’s Socialist Agenda down, we all settled into 6 plus years of gridlock and “nothing got done”...which was fine by me.
I don’t know the technical name for it, but George HW Bush lost his re-election bid because the economy sucked (before we knew what “sucked” really meant). I remember looking for work back then, and though I voted for Bush I wasn’t surprised that he lost. The mood was very similar to that of Obama-McCain, in which the Repub seemed to lack ideas in front of people desperate for work (before we knew what “desperate for work” really meant).
"'We like your president. We want to see him reelected', former Chinese intelligence chief General Ji Shengde told Chinagate bagman Johnny Chung. Indeed, Chinese intelligence organized a massive covert operation aimed at tilting the 1996 election Clintons way."
The Idiot's Guide to Chinagate
By Richard Poe
May 26, 2003
CHINA WILL LIKELY replace the USA as world leader, said Bill Clinton in a recent Washington Post interview. It is just a matter of time. Clinton should know. He has personally done more to build Chinas military strength than any man on earth.
Most Americans have heard of the so-called "Chinagate " scandal. Few understand its deadly import, however. Web sites such as "Chinagate for Dummies" and its companion "More Chinagate for Dummies" offer some assistance. Unfortunately, with a combined total of nearly 8,000 words, these two sites like so many others of the genre offer more detail than most of us "dummies" can absorb.
For that reason, in the 600 words left in this column, I will try to craft my own "Idiots Guide to Chinagate," dedicated to all those busy folks like you and me whose attention span tends to peter out after about 750 words. Here goes.
When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, China presented little threat to the United States. Chinese missiles "couldnt hit the side of a barn," notes Timothy W. Maier of Insight magazine. Few could reach North America and those that made it would likely miss their targets.
Thanks to Bill Clinton, China can now hit any city in the USA, using state-of-the-art, solid-fueled missiles with dead-accurate, computerized guidance systems and multiple warheads.
China probably has suitcase nukes as well. These enable China to strike by proxy equipping nuclear-armed terrorists to do their dirty work, while the Chinese play innocent. Some intelligence sources claim that China maintains secret stockpiles of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons on U.S. soil, for just such contingencies.
In 1997, Clinton allowed China to take over the Panama Canal. The Chinese company Hutchison Whampoa leased the ports of Cristobal and Balboa, on the east and west openings of the canal respectively, thus controlling access both ways. A public outcry stopped Clinton in 1998 from leasing Californias Long Beach Naval Yard to the Chinese firm COSCO. Even so, China can now strike U.S. targets easily from their bases in Panama, Vancouver and the Bahamas.
How did China catch up so fast? Easy. We sold them all the technology they needed or handed it over for free. Neither neglect nor carelessness are to blame. Bill Clinton did it on purpose.
As a globalist, Clinton promotes "multipolarity" the doctrine that no country (such as the USA) should be allowed to gain decisive advantage over others.
To this end, Clinton appointed anti-nuclear activist Hazel OLeary to head the Department of Energy. OLeary set to work "leveling the playing field," as she put it, by giving away our nuclear secrets. She declassified 11 million pages of data on U.S. nuclear weapons and loosened up security at weapons labs.
Federal investigators [Cox Report] later concluded that China made off with the "crown jewels" of our nuclear weapons research under Clintons open-door policy probably including design specifications for suitcase nukes. Meanwhile, Clinton and his corporate cronies raked in millions.
In his book The China Threat, Washington Times correspondent Bill Gertz describes how the system worked. Defense contractors eager to sell technology to China poured millions of dollars into Clintons campaign. In return, Clinton called off the dogs.
Janet Reno and other counterintelligence officials stood down while Lockheed Martin, Hughes Electronics, Loral Space & Communications and other U.S. companies helped China modernize its nuclear strike force.
"We like your president. We want to see him reelected," former Chinese intelligence chief General Ji Shengde told Chinagate bagman Johnny Chung. Indeed, Chinese intelligence organized a massive covert operation aimed at tilting the 1996 election Clintons way.
Clintons top campaign contributors for 1992 were Chinese agents; his top donors in 1996 were U.S. defense contractors selling missile technology to China.
Clinton recieved funding directly from known or suspected Chinese intelligence agents, among them James and Mochtar Riady who own the Indonesian Lippo Group; John Huang; Charlie Trie; Ted Sioeng; Maria Hsia; Wang Jun and others.
Commerce Secretary Ron Brown served as Clintons front man in many Chinagate deals. When investigators began probing Browns Lippo Group and Chinagate connections, Brown died suddenly in a suspicious April 1996 plane crash.
Needless to say, China does not share Clintons enthusiasm for globalism or multipolarity. The Chinese look out for Number One.
"War [with the United States] is inevitable; we cannot avoid it," said Chinese Defense Minister General Chi Haotian in 2000. "The issue is that the Chinese armed forces must control the initiative in this war." Bill Clinton has given them a good start.
The Idiot's Guide to Chinagate:
(this version hasn't the necessary hyperlinks, but the above doesn't seem to be available any longer)
Richard Poe, "Chinagate: The Third-Way Scandal" (June 3, 1999)
Christopher Ruddy, "Russia and China Prepare for War: Parts I - VIII," NewsMax.com (March 9 -18, 1999)
From the Sino-Russian Joint Statement of April 23, 1997:
"The two sides [China and Russia] shall, in the spirit of partnership, strive to promote the multipolarization of the world and the establishment of a new international order."
"As a globalist, [Bill] Clinton promotes "multipolarity" the doctrine that no country (such as the USA) should be allowed to gain decisive advantage over others."
From a 2003 Washington Post article:
"...a statement [Bill] Clinton made in February 2002, in which he told an audience in Australia, 'This is a unique moment in U.S. history, a brief moment in history, when the U.S. has preeminent military, economic and political power. It won't last forever. This is just a period, a few decades this will last.'
'In all probability, we won't be the premier political and economic power we are now' in a few decades, he said, pointing to the growth of China's economy and the growing economic strength of the European Union.
Whether the United States maintains its military supremacy, he said, depends in part on how much those other entities invest in their militaries, and Clinton said working cooperatively is essential to U.S. interests.
But he said he did not want to be misunderstood. 'I never advocated that we not have the strongest military in the world...I don't think a single soul has thought I was advocating scaling back our military.'
Source: Washington Post article from May 2003:
or find his remarks here (Talon News):
Clinton Predicts America's Decline:
PBS lying? Any Clinton lying? It’s par for the course. PBS has long been the propaganda arm of the Left. Defund it.
“Honest” and “PBS” are two things that seldom go together.
Exactly and that is why Larry Elders has Honest is in quotes, in the title
Clinton did not inherit a recession. He came in just as the uptrending economic cycle started. There was 4% GDP growth the quarter before he was elected,more than Obama has been able to muster in his entire 3 years at the helm. When Clinton took over the economy stayed flat until the Republicans took charge of Congress 2 years later, reduced capital gains taxes over his objection and the stalled economy took off.I am surprised PBS did not also give Al Gore gain also for inventing the internet at that time and causing the technology economic boom.
The economy was actually getting better running up to the election. It was not reported until by the media until after the Clinton won. I remember Peter Jennings coming on TV the very next night to report it.
Also, Clinton NEVER won a majority in either election. If Ross Perot did not run and capture between 15%-19% of the vote GHW Bush would most definetly have won. He may have even been defeated by Bob Dole for his relection if Perot had not been a third party candidate.
People forget it was actually Newt and the republican controlled Congress that pushed through welfare and medicare reform against the scare tactics. I remember talking to an retirement age man who was convinced the republicans were going to take his medicare away.
However, Clinton was smart enough to see the trend and that if it was succesful he could take credit for it. If the sh#t hit the fan , he could blame republicans.
A reminder of how odious a person Clinton is. No matter how terrible and Communistic Obama is I still despise Clinton at least as much.”Put a little ice on it”.
Obama’s doing similiar crap with the Russians and ChiComs (on nukes, missile defense, etc).
Obama Pledges Cuts in Missile Defense, Space, and Nuclear Weapons Programs
February 29, 2008 :: News
A video has surfaced of Presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama talking on his plans for strategic issues such as nuclear weapons and missile defense.
The full text from the video, as released, reads as follows:
Thanks so much for the Caucus4Priorities, for the great work you've been doing. As president, I will end misguided defense policies and stand with Caucus4Priorities in fighting special interests in Washington.
First, I'll stop spending $9 billion a month in Iraq. I'm the only major candidate who opposed this war from the beginning. And as president I will end it.[not win it -etl]
Second, I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending.
I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems.
I will not weaponize space.
I will slow our development of future combat systems.
And I will institute an independent "Defense Priorities Board" to ensure that the Quadrennial Defense Review is not used to justify unnecessary spending.
Third, I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal, I will not develop new nuclear weapons; I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material; and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert [they are NOT on "hair-trigger alert" now -etl], and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals.
You know where I stand. I've fought for open, ethical and accountable government my entire public life. I don't switch positions or make promises that can't be kept. I don't posture on defense policy and I don't take money from federal lobbyists for powerful defense contractors. As president, my sole priority for defense spending will be protecting the American people. Thanks so much.
Article: Obama Pledges Cuts in Missile Defense, Space, and Nuclear Weapons Programs:
"MissileThreat.com is a project of The Claremont Institute devoted to understanding and promoting the requirements for the strategic defense of the United States."
"I will not weaponize space"
"I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems"
2008 Pentagon Report (March 2008):
China's Growing Military Space Power
By Leonard David
Special Correspondent, SPACE.com
March 6, 2008
GOLDEN, Colorado A just-released Pentagon report spotlights a growing U.S. military concern that China is developing a multi- dimensional program to limit or prevent the use of space-based assets by its potential adversaries during times of crisis or conflict.
Furthermore, last year's successful test by China of a direct-ascent, anti-satellite (ASAT) weapon to destroy its own defunct weather satellite, the report adds, underscores that country's expansion from the land, air, and sea dimensions of the traditional battlefield into the space and cyber-space domains.
Although China's commercial space program has utility for non- military research, that capability demonstrates space launch and control know-how that have direct military application. Even the Chang'e 1 the Chinese lunar probe now circling the Moon is flagged in the report as showcasing China's ability "to conduct complicated space maneuvers a capability which has broad implications for military counterspace operations."
To read the entire publication [29.67MB/pdf], see U.S. Dept of Defense:
From the Sino-Russian Joint Statement of April 23, 1997:
"The two sides [China and Russia] shall, in the spirit of partnership, strive to promote the multipolarization of the world and the establishment of a new international order."
"Joint war games are a logical outcome of the Sino-Russian Friendship and Cooperation Treaty signed in 2001, and reflect the shared worldview and growing economic ties between the two Eastern Hemisphere giants."
Appeasement: From ObamaCare to recess appointments, honoring the Constitution has not been an administration hallmark. But when it comes to betraying secrets to mollify the Russians, it becomes a document the president hides behind.
It was bad enough that the 2012 defense authorization bill signed by President Obama set America on a downward spiral of military mediocrity.
He also issued a signing statement, something he once opposed, saying that language in the bill aimed at protecting top-secret technical data on the U.S. Standard Missile-3 linchpin of our missile defense might impinge on his constitutional foreign-policy authority.
Section 1227 of the defense law prohibits spending any funds that would be used to give Russian officials access to sensitive missile-defense technology as part of a cooperation agreement without first sending Congress a report identifying the specific secrets, how they'd be used and steps to protect the data from compromise.
The president is required to certify that any technology shared will not be passed on to third parties such as China, North Korea or Iran, that the Russians will not use transferred secrets to develop countermeasures and that the Russians are reciprocating in sharing missile-defense technology.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.investors.com ...
Your recollection is, as the article is trying to point out, shaped by the news media stories and headlines of 1992, when the LSM were vigorously promoting the election of Bill Clinton -- that's the point of the article.
The media lie, they lie from story selection to headline composition, from beginning to end, for political ends.
In 1992 the economy was beginning to recover (it was a famously weak recovery, though, as international capital began to offshore American prosperity), but the media refused to give Bush credit for it.
They are showing us a photonegative of that situation now, in which a far-worse economy than anything Bush 41 saw during the Gulf War downturn (precipitated by the Kuwait oil shock) is being happy-talked by everyone from the Fed (trying to forestall a bigger train wreck than the Great Depression) to the business press (in the tank for Bernanke) to the general MSM (in the tank for Obama).
As someone looking for work at the time, I can tell you (and maybe it was regional) our economy here in the northeast wasn’t picking up. If it had been Bush would have won handily. Insiders claim the lack of a majority/mandate bothered Clinton a lot.
Perot redeemed himself 1) by being right when many dismissed his warnings - look at our economy today - and 2) by endorsing GW Bush as they were breaking the DWI story - it probably made a difference. In fact, Perot’s 19% shows he was more than just a spoiler, and things were as bad as people thought. The Dems were paid back in 2000 by Ralph Nader, who actively dissuaded his supporters for supporting Gore (”not a dime’s worth of difference”). He more than covered the 579 votes that would have delivered Florida (and the White House) to Gore.
My recollection is from job-hunting at the time; I’ve never bought the media line since my parents told me what is what as a child. Even today, Obama is in trouble because no matter what his media claims, the average person (read: voter) is in bad shape; they can fudge numbers, brag about a stock market (which is great if your income is solely generated by realizing gains on a huge equity portfolio - it really doesn’t help the average person in the near term), they can even claim Obama can walk on water. As long as our devalued dollars buy less at the pump or supermarket, and as long as the real number unemployed people (and their social circles) can’t be deceived into believing they’re actually working, Obama is done.
Prior economic indicators have to be looked at differently than in the past; today a company’s stock goes up when they lay off American workers and outsource work. Might be good for a sound-byte, but it is disastrous for American people “on the ground”.
The unemployment rate is a "coincident indicator" which improves after leading indicators, like stock prices, building permits, manufacturers' new orders, vendor delivery times, new unemployment claims, etc., have already improved.
If you were looking for a first job or were young, jobs would still be scarce even as the economy had begun to improve.
Well, you're quite right, and I think he is in trouble -- with the 53% or whatever it is who haven't been bought yet. (And I don't know if the "bought" voters will stay bought: some 60's history from Louisiana elections suggest maybe they won't, if the social issues are on the GOP's side.)
But there is a residual benefit from nonstop, organized, edited-and-concordance-tested Big Lying, and that is that, the voter may decide that it's all lies, but still be demoralized by the thought that masses of other people believe it. Now there is your propagandist's true art, methinks, and the true inducement for JournoList-type lying.
The so-called surpluses were based on projected(bogus)returns on over-inflated values on just about everything....except reality.
The slick one was a fraud-master, but the current WH resident makes him look like an amateur.
I'm no fan of GW Bush, but am sick of hearing the "poor Obama inherited this mess"...blah blah garbage.
Using that twisted logic then...Bush inherited Clinton's mess....9/11(when was the FIRST attack on the Trade Center?), and the bursting of all the criminally engineered/inflated bubbles/ponzi schemes(perps more than likely Clinton cronies....for the most part).
Frankly I don't think the Clintons gave two shtz if Bush ate the eventual collapse, or Gore.
Obama's so-called "improving economy" is based on similar rigged data....while printing trillions to bail out old Clinton crooks, union hacks and Soros investments.
The bank robbery of the United States didn't start with the Clintons, but they accelerated it, now it's been put into high gear.
“Possibly what’s at issue here are the “leading economic indicators” — the signs of economic health that point to recovery even before new jobs become more available.”
I understand how that works, but with this latest round we have a “jobless recovery”, and there was no reason to believe the same wouldn’t happen 20 years ago.
“the voter may decide that it’s all lies, but still be demoralized by the thought that masses of other people believe it.”
An electorate that was desperate enough to elect Obama will be desperate enough to get rid of him; any Repub challenger should trounce him, nad he seems to know it (so they threw out the red herring of Repubs opposing contraception on principle, etc.). He has governed for 3 years with contempt for the average Joe, and now he thinks he’ll play catch-up - but he has a LONG way to go.
When I say that the economy was picking up right before GHW Bush reelection bid, I mean that my business(the homebuilding market) was picking up. The homebuilding market has always been a leading indicator and precurser to the general economy picking up. It was back then and it is RIGHT NOW. Right now is the time to buy a house if you can.
After four plus years of doing nothing, building is picking up. Available new homes are at the lowest volume and the most affordable they have ever been. No matter what you hear from all the naysayers on this site who let politics cloud their judgement, the economy is getting better. This does not mean that Phoenix, Detroit and CA real estate are going to the moon. However, I can tell you from personal experience that a lot of markets are much better(TX, ND, SD MN, NH, MA , GA , WA ,IA, AL, CT, KY, NC, VA ,MD , LA , OR ,IN)
We sell into all these markets and their business is much better than last year and increasing.
Building might be picking up, but that doesn’t necessarily mean the “housing market”; I believe a growing number of people who don’t think they can afford children sure as heck aren’t going to commit to a 30 year mortgage just to watch the government let their neighborhood become Tijuana North to prevent de-population.
A lot of young people will never be caught in the mortgage/property tax mire they see around them (if they’d even be lucky enough to qualify for a mortgage, or get a job). Make sure you can differentiate between a temporary “bump” and demographic trends at work for decades.
The demographic trends you are talking about are resulting in a higher percentage of multifamily housing than in the past 20 years. This is also a result of the aging of our population. However, these are still housing starts. We have 300 million people in our country. Our population continues to increase. All those people have to live somewhere.
You are correct in that a lot of people can not qualify to buy a home. That is why they are moving into apartments. Investors are building apt complexes to satisfy this increase in demand. Young people will change their mind about signing for a mortgage when the fear that the price is going up enters into the market.
Fear and greed drive all markets. People have been afraid that if they invest their money in real estate they will lose it. A lot of them got caught up in the last bubble and lost their shirt. They are gun shy. They bought high and sold low. The sheeple will be back when it is running up. The smart money is buying now. They are making offers when the banks are vulnerable and want to remove these bad assets from their balance sheets. I think we already saw a bottom in the market here in NH over this winter. The cheap house are selling fast, usually within 2 months. Some of the Fannie Mae opwned houses are selling as soon as they hit the market. Please remember that all real estate is local. What is happening in NH, ND or Houston may have nothing to do with what is happening in your local area. I have the benefit because of my business of seeing more of a national view.
Always fun debating with another FReeper :)
I always learn from these discussions.
As less people can (at least in their opinion) 1) afford children, or 2) bank on their job or field still providing a living for 30 years, there is simply no incentive to buy a home. Much of the growth in the areas doing well is the result of the wholesale abandonment of other areas by corporate America, and the best off are the unattached (in terms of family & mortgage) who can follow their jobs south. Here in NJ if you were given a house outright, you’d be coughing up nearly $1K per month (in some neighborhoods far more) just for your tax bill; this has resulted in people unable to retire until they can unload their heavily taxed homes on people who are hesitant to buy - the jobs that had made that acceptable in the past have left NJ (with the exception of cops & teachers, and even these are only safe if you’ve got seniority).
People have learned a lot in the past few years, and it would be difficult to convince them that they’ll ever be “safe” in financial terms (relatively speaking).