Bill Clinton was the beneficiary of a conservative Congress and an entirely new sector of the economy opening up (that he had nothing to do with)

It’s so interesting, because while it’s accurate, it casts a different hue on what kinds of things Clinton worked on.

During his first two years, when he had Democratic majorities in both houses, he proposed (and mostly got passed)

* Family and Medical Leave Act (1993): Required large employers to provide unpaid, job-protected leave for family and medical reasons. (No government cost, no taxes required)

* Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (1993): Raised taxes on high earners, reduced the federal deficit, and expanded the Earned Income Tax Credit. (Increased tax revenues)

* Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (1993): Imposed federal background checks on firearm purchasers. (No tax implications)

* National and Community Service Trust Act (1993): Established the AmeriCorps program for public service and college credit. (Some tax cost, less than loaning money to college slackers, I bet)

* Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act (1994): Funded 100,000 new police officers, expanded the federal death penalty, and included a 10-year ban on certain semi-automatic assault weapons (Again, some tax implications, but I don’t know many who opposed the concept.)

Once REepubloicans took over, it became tax cuts, particularly tilted toward the already wealthy.

As for your comment that “he had nothing to do with” I remind you that Al Gore was the Vice President, and Clinton put him in charge of privatizing the internet. Clinton was elected in 1992. “The internet” became a big thing around 1994. Yes, Al Gore had a significant role in bringing the internet to the masses. Internet pioneers—including Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn, who helped design TCP/IP—confirmed he was a key political champion who supported the network when it was still an academic and defense project.

In your version of “twisted history”, however, nothing good can ever have happened because of Democrats, and nothing bad ever comes from Republicans, so your posting remains remarkably consistent. Congrats.

PS: Social Security is an insurance program for all. It is not designed to maximize wealth for some and leave others destitute. We had that system before 1935, and more than 50% of all elders lived in poverty. That number today is 8%. And, in the “you didn’t think of this?” category, nothing stopped you from putting an equivalent amount of money into the stocks you mention, you just would have had to see a couple fewer movies, or drive your car a little longer, or whatever. If you didn’t, well that’s on you. Meanwhile, you have a monthly check that will keep you in the grocery store food section instead of the dog food aisle as your shuffle off into your dotage.