I don’t think we want to turn this into a “who’s the better president” thread. That certainly wasn’t my intention. I’m also not one of those Clinton bashers who sees fault in everything he did.
However, all the items in bold above are simply the result of the 90’s booming technology fueled economy. Yes, Clinton had a great economy during his presidency. And, yes, a booming economy brings lots of other good stuff along with it. This doesn’t have anything to do with Clinton and his presidency, though.
Even if you want to give Clinton credit for the 90’s economy, I still can’t see how anyone can say that Clinton was nearly as aggressive with his agenda as Bush has been. What project did Clinton take on that is nearly as big as a reform of Social Security? Clinton wasn’t a bad president, IMO. He was a populist. He did at all times what he thought 51% or more of the people wanted. He ran the ship OK, but wasn’t much of a risk taker. He didn’t really try and do anything. He was a caretaker president.
Like him or hate him, Bush has used his political capital and his office to do much more than Clinton ever tried to.
There was that aborted effort at health care reform. If enacted, that would have been a huge accomplishment. But he soon saw that the turkey wouldn’t fly and he put it out of its misery. And that’s exactly what will happen to the SS proposal.
If Bush had been in office during the Clinton years, perhaps the economy would have had a good ride as well. But I don’t think that Bush could have resisted the temptation to raid the treasury and its positive cash flow the way Clinton resisted. Sometimes the lack of action is the mark of a better leader.