• 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."

Bill Clinton Speech!

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,321
2
0
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?
Was the worst of it in 1999-2000? Yes. Was there a bubble before that? Yes. I remember my Intel Stock doubled in less than 2 months in 1996.
 

HendrixFan

Diamond Member
Oct 18, 2001
4,649
0
71
Was the worst of it in 1999-2000? Yes. Was there a bubble before that? Yes. I remember my Intel Stock doubled in less than 2 months in 1996.
Intel was not a part of the bubble. They have always been strong and were in no way overvalued. Their stock dipped with runs from the market but their stock doubling at any point in no way indicates an industry wide bubble.

BTW the worst of it was in 2001-2002. It started in 1999. Well after 15+ million jobs had been created and we were already running a surplus.
 

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,471
423
126
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
That's funny when you quote me it looks like I said wrote these words "Bill Clinton's tax increase dropped the Deficit by a whopping $45 Billion in 1993"

However if you go back to my post via the tiny view post arrow next to the quoted posters name I didn't write that.

What gives?
Seems like a weird error or something.

As for the deficits you quote year by year the trend is indeed lower deficits from 1993 to 1997.
 
Last edited:

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,321
2
0
Intel was not a part of the bubble. They have always been strong and were in no way overvalued. Their stock dipped with runs from the market but their stock doubling at any point in no way indicates an industry wide bubble.

BTW the worst of it was in 2001-2002. It started in 1999. Well after 15+ million jobs had been created and we were already running a surplus.

Intel lost 70% of it's value in the crash and never recovered to pre 2000 levels.

 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,321
2
0
That's funny when you quote me it looks like I said wrote these words "Bill Clinton's tax increase dropped the Deficit by a whopping $45 Billion in 1993"

However if you go back to my post via the tiny view post arrow next to the quoted posters name I didn't write that.

What gives?
Seems like a weird error or something.

As for the deficits you quote year by year the trend is indeed lower deficits from 1993 to 1997.
This is your quote "A large reason for those surplus budgets is the fact that he had the balls and the votes in Congress to raise taxes."

Maybe I misunderstood what you meant by a "Large Reason". The tax increase was hardly the main reason we had a surplus as the tax increase only took $45 Billion off the deficit. It took the tax increase, the cuts in spending and the dot-com bubble to create the surplus.
 

HendrixFan

Diamond Member
Oct 18, 2001
4,649
0
71
Intel lost 70% of it's value in the crash and never recovered to pre 2000 levels.

It also had stock splits. It's market cap has fluctuated over time but was at the highest point a few years after the dot com bubble burst.
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,321
2
0
It also had stock splits. It's market cap has fluctuated over time but was at the highest point a few years after the dot com bubble burst.
That chart took into account splits. I owned the stock, it's highest value was right before the crash.
 

Angry Irishman

Golden Member
Jan 25, 2010
1,883
1
81
Why did you not respond to my other question of how many presidents you think didn't cheat on their spouse? Infidelity is very common, even more common amongst those in a position of power (not necessarily political), and even more common amongst those who are in a spotlight and have aggressive admirers.

I doubt you will find many of our history's vast collection of presidents meet up to your standard. Moreover, it shows you are preoccupied with petty detail over the "stuff that matters".
Other presidents deserve criticism as well. I'm not discussing other presidents.

Petty details? Really?
 

Angry Irishman

Golden Member
Jan 25, 2010
1,883
1
81
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
What in the hell does Bush (who you obviously are referring to) have to do with my comments? Also, are you suggesting that I'm a "teabagger"? You draw a lot of conclusions. I could say the same of you based on your shotgun comments?

As far as I'm concerned both candidates are worrisome to me and I try not to affiliate too much with one party.
 

HendrixFan

Diamond Member
Oct 18, 2001
4,649
0
71
Other presidents deserve criticism as well. I'm not discussing other presidents.

Petty details? Really?
You are creating a standard that nobody adheres to. They are petty details because they in no way affect his (or any other president) job performance.
 

Angry Irishman

Golden Member
Jan 25, 2010
1,883
1
81
You are creating a standard that nobody adheres to. They are petty details because they in no way affect his (or any other president) job performance.
I'm creating the ideals of morality and integrity? Adhering to and setting those standards are part of his "job". ....I really do worry about this country.
 

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,471
423
126
Maybe I misunderstood what you meant by a "Large Reason". The tax increase was hardly the main reason we had a surplus as the tax increase only took $45 Billion off the deficit. It took the tax increase, the cuts in spending and the dot-com bubble to create the surplus.
I don't disagree but remember the tax increase came first.

And eventually the Republicans saw an opportunity to close the gap and President Clinton chose to work with them on that.


***If the tax increase did not happen then the Republicans couldn't have advocated for the program cuts as compellingly because by themselves the cuts would not have led to balanced budgets.

Spending cuts that would, in combination with the tax rates and the increased federal intake from the internet boom, achieve the goal of balancing budgets was a more compelling argument.

One that could be made very convincingly.***



^^^that's what I mean when I say that Bill Clinton's taxes made made a significant contribution.
Additionally one should remember that the tax rates also had a bolstering effect to the Federal tax revenue as the economy grew.


As for the dot.com bubble. Ironically Al Gore was the premier advocate of the internet which was the main driver of the bubble... After the bubble popped the resulting recession was, fortunately relatively mild and short.

My main economic issue with President Bush is that his tax cuts removed Clinton's tax rates. If those Tax rates had stayed in place the recession would have still happened but the debt would not have increased as fast.
 
Last edited:

HendrixFan

Diamond Member
Oct 18, 2001
4,649
0
71
I'm creating the ideals of morality and integrity? Adhering to and setting those standards are part of his "job". ....I really do worry about this country.
You should have been worrying about it for nearly 250 years then, because the idea that our leaders have been faithful husbands over that time is comical.
 

Angry Irishman

Golden Member
Jan 25, 2010
1,883
1
81
You should have been worrying about it for nearly 250 years then, because the idea that our leaders have been faithful husbands over that time is comical.
Are you telling me that this behaviour from any president is acceptable?

He wasn't the worst president; he sure as shit wasn't the best. If you think that his or other presidents lack of integrity or morality in office isn't important and doesn't effect this country or his "job performance" then lets just elect convicts.

Better yet, lets just elect convicted white collar bank executives who are very savvy with economic matters or war criminals who know all about genocide? ...as long as they get the job done!

We'll just have to agree to disagree about how petty details affect job performance. BTW...it's much more than a job...it's an office and a symbol that represents a lot more than the person with the title of POTUS.
 
Last edited:

sportage

Diamond Member
Feb 1, 2008
9,184
1,325
126
Clinton gave a great speech, but never forget, then senator Barack Obama speaking in 2004 at that DNC.
Obama also gave a great speech back then. The speech that brought him into the spotlight.
AND... and... for the first time, gave America a serious black man to consider for president.
Obama, as well as Bill Clinton, both have their heart in the right place.
Have vision. Uplift people. Great speakers.
Bill Clinton is amazing.
But don't forget that Obama has proven himself just as worthy.

Have the newly converted republican Clinton lovers forgotten Clinton, on his first term, tried to enact an open policy in the military with Gay service persons??? AND FAILED!!!!
And Bill Clinton along with Hillary tried to reform healthcare. Remember??? AND FAILED!!!
Where as President Obama has SUCCEEDED in doing BOTH during his first term.

Never short president Obama when giving him his just dues......
Both are great leaders. Both can get the job done.
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,321
2
0
Your chart goes back to 2011...
LOL, sorry about that. I didn't notice it was a .png

Try this one. Click on Max

http://investing.money.msn.com/investments/equity-charts?showchartbt=Redraw+chart&compsyms=&D4=1&DD=1&D5=0&DCS=2&MA0=0&MA1=0&CF=0&DC=1&D7=&D6=&PT=11&symbol=us:intc&SZ=0&nocookie=1

My Microsoft stock was the same way. I would love it if you were right though, but after watching it basically do nothing for 5 years I sold both my Microsoft and Intel stock.
 

Balt

Lifer
Mar 12, 2000
12,677
482
126
nobody watched. 0.9 on the broadcast/cable networks. They didn't watch because BC's credibility is lower then snail snot.
Which I'm sure had nothing to do with 20.2 million people watching the opening game of the NFL season.

And even with football on NBC, the 10pm hour of the DNC’s night two still topped night two of the RNC a week ago: 20,622,000 vs. 20,049,000
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/dnc-day-two-ratings-msnbc-tops-on-cable-abc-on-broadcast_b144670#more-144670
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
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.
Especially surprising since every single Clinton budget after the '94 election was DOA. Not even the Democrats would vote for his "invest and grow strategy", yet amazingly, he prevailed. At least in the simplest of minds.

BTW, Clinton's tax increase was retroactive.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
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.
I don't disagree but remember the tax increase came first.

And eventually the Republicans saw an opportunity to close the gap and President Clinton chose to work with them on that.


***If the tax increase did not happen then the Republicans couldn't have advocated for the program cuts as compellingly because by themselves the cuts would not have led to balanced budgets.

Spending cuts that would, in combination with the tax rates and the increased federal intake from the internet boom, achieve the goal of balancing budgets was a more compelling argument.

One that could be made very convincingly.***



^^^that's what I mean when I say that Bill Clinton's taxes made made a significant contribution.
Additionally one should remember that the tax rates also had a bolstering effect to the Federal tax revenue as the economy grew.


As for the dot.com bubble. Ironically Al Gore was the premier advocate of the internet which was the main driver of the bubble... After the bubble popped the resulting recession was, fortunately relatively mild and short.

My main economic issue with President Bush is that his tax cuts removed Clinton's tax rates. If those Tax rates had stayed in place the recession would have still happened but the debt would not have increased as fast.
I think it's safe to say that Clinton's tax increases played a part in balancing the budget, although it's worth repeating that we never really balanced the budget. We only made it look that way by seizing and spending the excess Social Security revenue and by neglecting to include some spending in the budget.

It's also probably safe to say that had Bush not cut taxes, or perhaps had done a temporary tax cut after the 9/11 recession started, we'd have owed less when the crash happened, so we'd have more room to cut and could afford more spending to fight it. There's no free lunch, and while tax cuts are good for their own merit, they can also have bad effects. Personally I'd like to see Clinton-era rates restored on everyone, as soon as we can be reasonably sure it won't crash the economy and as soon as Congress has exhibited the power to spend significantly less money.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY