• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

Bill Clinton Speech!

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,471
423
126
Ummm he stuck cigars up some fat ladies twat, lied about it, and that's OK? That makes him a political superstar? Maybe in France; shouldn't be OK here.
No what make him a political superstar is this...

He actually had surplus budgets that if allowed to continue would have been lowering the Debt.

You know that thing which the teabaggers always complain about, while conveniently forgetting which party contributed the most to it in recent years.

A large reason for those surplus budgets is the fact that he had the balls and the votes in Congress to raise taxes.

I'll forgive lying about sex much more readily than I'll forgive someone who lied about the reasons for going to war....

But then based on your attitude maybe it would have been better to just tell you this
Oh shut up. Then grow up.
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,321
2
0
No what make him a political superstar is this...

He actually had surplus budgets that if allowed to continue would have been lowering the Debt.

You know that thing which the teabaggers always complain about, while conveniently forgetting which party contributed the most to it in recent years.

A large reason for those surplus budgets is the fact that he had the balls and the votes in Congress to raise taxes.

I'll forgive lying about sex much more readily than I'll forgive someone who lied about the reasons for going to war....

But then based on your attitude maybe it would have been better to just tell you this
It had a lot more to do with the cuts in spending and added revenue due to the dot-com bubble. Factor in the money borrowed against SS and there were no surpluses.

EDIT* BTW, if it was due to the tax hike in 1993, why did it take till 1998 to have a "surplus" ?
 
Last edited:
Nov 29, 2006
14,500
2,210
126
LOL at the fanboiz! :awe:

It was a defense speech, it was a history speech, it was Clinton explaining Obama's failures.

Obviously Romney/Ryan have gotten under the Dems skin big time, they can't even come up with a coherent vision for the future from the guy that used to define the future for the Dems.

Oh well, Obama is on tomorrow. Hope I can stay awake to listen to part of that one.

Go have a glass of shut the fuck up, fanboy shill.
 

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,471
423
126
It had a lot more to do with the cuts in spending and added revenue due to the dot-com bubble. Factor in the money borrowed against SS and there were no surpluses.
Quit spinning the initial tax increases did put the U.S. in striking distance of balanced budgets and Clinton responded favorably to Republicans who suggested cuts to accomplish that.

You know. that cooperation that he mentioned in his speech.

But make no mistake that without the tax hikes in 1993 there would have been no balanced budgets, because it took both cuts and increased intake from taxes to accomplish that.

As for the dot.com boom that became a bubble. The initial heavy promotion of the internet started under his Administration.
A lot of companies failed but the internet produced some mainly internet based companies that became successful like Google and Amazon after most of the cruft fell away in the short recession.
Even though there are only a few big name internet companies one shouldn't discount the fact that many traditional brick and mortar companies also take advantage of the internet in various ways.

As much as reality hurts your alternate universe world view the fact remains A large reason for those surplus budgets is the fact that he had the balls and the votes in Congress to raise taxes.

 

HendrixFan

Diamond Member
Oct 18, 2001
4,649
0
71
What gets me about the situation is he lied UNDER OATH. that's it. For the President to lie under oath makes a mockery of his position and the justice system.
It wasn't perjury though, so I don't see a problem. Perjury requires a lie about something relevant or material to the case.

If you recall, with three intensely partisan independent counsels, Clinton was exonerated of wrongdoing in all but the sex scandal. And that one involved a conscious deception, but something less than perjurous lie, in answer to a convoluted question about an extraneous matter in a sexual harassment suit involving something that happened a couple years before Clinton took office and which itself was finally dismissed since the plaintiff had no legal claim.
 

HendrixFan

Diamond Member
Oct 18, 2001
4,649
0
71
EDIT* BTW, if it was due to the tax hike in 1993, why did it take till 1998 to have a "surplus" ?
Because there was a $290B deficit when he took office and it is stupid to try and erase it all at once, you know, if stability is a concern.
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,833
1
0
Because there was a $290B deficit when he took office and it is stupid to try and erase it all at once, you know, if stability is a concern.
You mean to tell me that George Herbert Walker Bush, a Republican, left Clinton with a $290 billion deficit?
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,321
2
0
Quit spinning the initial tax increases did put the U.S. in striking distance of balanced budgets and Clinton responded favorably to Republicans who suggested cuts to accomplish that. Bill Clinton's tax increase dropped the Deficit by a whopping $45 Billion in 1993
It's not spin, it's fact.

1992 $290 Billion Deficit
1993 $255 Billion Deficit
1994 $203 Billion Deficit
1995 $164 Billion Deficit
1996 $107 Billion Deficit
1997 $22 Billion Deficit
 

HendrixFan

Diamond Member
Oct 18, 2001
4,649
0
71
It's not spin, it's fact.

1992 $290 Billion Deficit
1993 $255 Billion Deficit
1994 $203 Billion Deficit
1995 $164 Billion Deficit
1996 $107 Billion Deficit
1997 $22 Billion Deficit
Tax increases were part of the equation, as was reduction in government spending/size, but the main driver of the surplus was growth. You have to understand the tax increases wouldn't have their full impact until growth took off though. A tax increase in a recession won't bring in much cash, but higher taxes during periods of growth do.

As far as feeding off the dot com bubble for surpluses, that is just silly.



The bubble didn't start to "bubble" until 1999 or so. Well after 15+ million jobs had been created and by FY98 we were already running a surplus. See page 22.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/hist.pdf
 

IGBT

Lifer
Jul 16, 2001
17,699
47
91
nobody watched. 0.9 on the broadcast/cable networks. They didn't watch because BC's credibility is lower then snail snot.
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,321
2
0
Because there was a $290B deficit when he took office and it is stupid to try and erase it all at once, you know, if stability is a concern.
What the fuck are you talking about? The full effects of the tax increase would have been felt that year. He didn't put any increased revenue in the bank because reducing a deficit too fast is bad.
 

HendrixFan

Diamond Member
Oct 18, 2001
4,649
0
71
What the fuck are you talking about? The full effects of the tax increase would have been felt that year. He didn't put any increased revenue in the bank because reducing a deficit too fast is bad.
You completely lost me there.

You asked why it took until 1998 to get a surplus. I answered because we had a $290B deficit when Clinton took office (largest in history at the time) and his invest and grow strategy took time to bear fruit. The targeted tax increases paid increased dividends as the economy grew, bringing in increased revenue year after year until it hit the tipping point and became a surplus.
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,321
2
0
Tax increases were part of the equation, as was reduction in government spending/size, but the main driver of the surplus was growth.
Tell that to BlankSlate pal, not me.

The bubble didn't start to "bubble" until 1999 or so. Well after 15+ million jobs had been created and by FY98 we were already running a surplus. See page 22.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/hist.pdf
You gonna try and re-write history?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com_bubble
The dot-com bubble (also referred to as the Internet bubble and the Information Technology Bubble[1]) was a historic speculative bubble covering roughly 1995–2000 (with a climax on March 10, 2000, with the NASDAQ peaking at 5132.52 in intraday trading before closing at 5048.62)
Do you not see the massive curve in your own chart that started in 1995?
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,321
2
0
You completely lost me there.

You asked why it took until 1998 to get a surplus. I answered because we had a $290B deficit when Clinton took office (largest in history at the time) and his invest and grow strategy took time to bear fruit. The targeted tax increases paid increased dividends as the economy grew, bringing in increased revenue year after year until it hit the tipping point and became a surplus.
That's not how a tax increase works, especially combined with cuts in spending, not reinvesting.
 

Pens1566

Diamond Member
Oct 11, 2005
7,557
671
126
nobody watched. 0.9 on the broadcast/cable networks. They didn't watch because BC's credibility is lower then snail snot.
I'm guessing it had infinitely more to do with the fact that the NFL opening game was on at the same time.
 

HendrixFan

Diamond Member
Oct 18, 2001
4,649
0
71
You gonna try and re-write history?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com_bubble


Do you not see the massive curve in your own chart that started in 1995?
There was real growth in the tech industry after Clinton took office. The internet started to take off (thanks Al Gore!) and computers became common in households. Intel and Microsoft were no bubble but carried the Nasdaq in those days. Real companies with real products, ideas and revenue helped that massive curve that started in 1995. Think Amazon, ebay, yahoo, etc.

It wasn't until 1999 that is spiraled into a bubble and companies with no income stream were going IPO and making money doing it. In response, the Fed raised interest rates on six separate occasions over a two year span to try and stem the runaway growth. Why did that corrective action start in 1999? Because that is when it started to go beyond normal growth and instead formed a bubble. A bubble that was not fanned and broadened by the administration, one that was cooled.

Did you live in the 90s?
 

HendrixFan

Diamond Member
Oct 18, 2001
4,649
0
71
That's not how a tax increase works, especially combined with cuts in spending, not reinvesting.
?

I have no idea what you are talking about. You don't think that as the economy picks up and GDP grows, whatever tax rates we have (any number is fine) will bring in an increased revenue?
 

feralkid

Lifer
Jan 28, 2002
15,149
2,545
126
It had a lot more to do with the cuts in spending and added revenue due to the dot-com bubble. Factor in the money borrowed against SS and there were no surpluses.

EDIT* BTW, if it was due to the tax hike in 1993, why did it take till 1998 to have a "surplus" ?

One word: Arithmetic.
 

Paul98

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2010
3,690
133
106
I thought it was a great speech, we will see if it really helped over the next week when new polls come out. It really put most points home that the republicans were trying to attack.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY