Clinton more fiscally responsible than Bush
- Thread starter BlueApple
- Start date
HendrixFan
Diamond Member
- Oct 18, 2001
- 4,648
- 0
- 71
Aside from social spending, Clinton was a fiscal conservative. He sought to balance the budget and pay down the national debt. Federal income tax was at a 35 year low as a percentage of income when Clinton left office in 2000.
Bush had a bad record in Texas for budget shortfalls, he really shouldnt be seen as a representative of a fiscal conservative.
Bush had a bad record in Texas for budget shortfalls, he really shouldnt be seen as a representative of a fiscal conservative.
More bullcrap! Clinton's agenda of spending was shut down when Congress became Republican in '94. He paid down CRAPOLA! It was economic expansion that led to the financial gains during his presidency and that was the result of a Republican majority as much as anything else.
Go bark up another Liberal Tree! This one is inhabited by those that were there.
glenn1
Lifer
- Sep 6, 2000
- 25,383
- 1,013
- 126
[sarcasm] but the republicans HAVE to spend lots of money now, so they can win back the Senate so that they can then pass all that responsible budget-minded, reduced government legislation they have in mind [/sarcasm]
Yep, Dubya is proving to be a true blue conservative. It'd do Barry Goldwater so proud.
It wasn't Clinton. The republicans took control of the House and Senate and actually played the role of an opposition party. Most of the fiscal responsibility stemmed from simply doing the opposite of what the Clinton administration desired.
Under Bush 1.0 and 2.0 there is no opposition party. The democrats are utter sheep. That's why any-and-all spending bills get through now.
Anyway the article is correct in saying republicans are Big Spenders. The next time you hear a federal R politician decry the spending habits of his D opponent, just refer back to this thread.
Under Bush 1.0 and 2.0 there is no opposition party. The democrats are utter sheep. That's why any-and-all spending bills get through now.
Anyway the article is correct in saying republicans are Big Spenders. The next time you hear a federal R politician decry the spending habits of his D opponent, just refer back to this thread.
I take it that you will then give credit to the DEMOCRATIC congress under Reagan for all the good tidings of the 1980's????
From the article:
It sure isn't, considering how Republicans control the House.
HendrixFan
Diamond Member
- Oct 18, 2001
- 4,648
- 0
- 71
Well, I seem to recall a different series of events.
This is culled from Clinton's farewell address:
"Now, first, we proposed a new economic strategy: get rid of the deficit to reduce interest rates, invest more in our people, sell more American products abroad.
We sent our plan to Congress. It passed by a single vote in both Houses. In a deadlocked Senate, Al Gore cast the tie-breaking vote.
(APPLAUSE)
Now, not a single Republican supported it. Here's what their leader said. Their leader said our plan would increase the deficit, kill jobs and give us a one-way ticket to a recession. Time has not been kind to their predictions.
(APPLAUSE)
Now, remember -- you remember, our Republican friends said then they would absolutely not be held responsible for our economic policies.
I hope the American people take them at their word."
In 94, after Republicans took control of Congress, there was a deadlock over the budget. Clinton and Gingrich stood face to face and neither would budge. It was an excellent display of principles by both men. For some reason, which I have never seen a reasonable explanation for, the public sided with Clinton that the deadlock was the Republican's fault, even though both were equally to blame. The Republicans had to fold (with concessions). Clinton continued his tight reign of the budget the following 6 years, vetoing a record number of bills, many of them having to do with the budget. You do remember that Clinton has the record number of vetoes, by far, right?
Do you deny, since you call my earlier assertions crapolla, that:
1)Federal income taxes as a percentage of income were at a 35 year low when Clinton left office
2)The balanced budgets and largest surpluses in US history took place when Clinton was the President, yet when those same Republicans remained in Congress and we got a new President we went back into deficits
This is culled from Clinton's farewell address:
"Now, first, we proposed a new economic strategy: get rid of the deficit to reduce interest rates, invest more in our people, sell more American products abroad.
We sent our plan to Congress. It passed by a single vote in both Houses. In a deadlocked Senate, Al Gore cast the tie-breaking vote.
(APPLAUSE)
Now, not a single Republican supported it. Here's what their leader said. Their leader said our plan would increase the deficit, kill jobs and give us a one-way ticket to a recession. Time has not been kind to their predictions.
(APPLAUSE)
Now, remember -- you remember, our Republican friends said then they would absolutely not be held responsible for our economic policies.
I hope the American people take them at their word."
In 94, after Republicans took control of Congress, there was a deadlock over the budget. Clinton and Gingrich stood face to face and neither would budge. It was an excellent display of principles by both men. For some reason, which I have never seen a reasonable explanation for, the public sided with Clinton that the deadlock was the Republican's fault, even though both were equally to blame. The Republicans had to fold (with concessions). Clinton continued his tight reign of the budget the following 6 years, vetoing a record number of bills, many of them having to do with the budget. You do remember that Clinton has the record number of vetoes, by far, right?
Do you deny, since you call my earlier assertions crapolla, that:
1)Federal income taxes as a percentage of income were at a 35 year low when Clinton left office
2)The balanced budgets and largest surpluses in US history took place when Clinton was the President, yet when those same Republicans remained in Congress and we got a new President we went back into deficits
It is on record that the Unions secretly conspired with the Clinton administration and PURPOSELY shut down the government to sway public opinion. That is undeniable public record.
Your last two assumptions are idiotic at best! The economy was headed down long before anyone knew who GW Bush was!
Income tax is one thing, but ask any small or large business if their tax burden went down? Small business is where most are employed and they took a beating in Clinton's last two years.
Clinton was a egotist who squandered his presidency. Had he been half a man concerned with his country instead of himself I'd need to shut up. He promised a lot and delivered very little.
Your last two assumptions are idiotic at best! The economy was headed down long before anyone knew who GW Bush was!
Income tax is one thing, but ask any small or large business if their tax burden went down? Small business is where most are employed and they took a beating in Clinton's last two years.
Clinton was a egotist who squandered his presidency. Had he been half a man concerned with his country instead of himself I'd need to shut up. He promised a lot and delivered very little.
cute assertions and opinions, but truth is republicans have NEVER been fiscally conservative in practice, only in words and theory.
Reagon gets elected on the promise of REDUCING the deficit and yet during his administration he took deficit spending to a whole new level.
only difference between republicans and democrats is that democrats give money to the poor (and a lot less of it to i might add) and the republicans give it to the rich (quite a bit more than what the democrats can give).
why is it considered entitlements when you give people just enough money to survive and conservative fiscal policy when you give billions and billions to large corporations who just mismanage and mispend the money? conservatives complain that poor people just take their "entitlements" and spend it on booze and cigarettes. so what, what about those billionaires that get stadiums built for them, that get highways built for them, that get tax incentives etc etc etc.
HendrixFan
Diamond Member
- Oct 18, 2001
- 4,648
- 0
- 71
"It is on record that the Unions secretly conspired with the Clinton administration and PURPOSELY shut down the government to sway public opinion. That is undeniable public record."
Public record where? I honestly have only heard that from Rush et al. Let me guess, the Republicans were in on it too, seeing as how it couldnt have happened without their support, right?
"Your last two assumptions are idiotic at best! The economy was headed down long before anyone knew who GW Bush was!"
You sure about that? Im not.
The Fed was so comfortable with Clinton's fiscal policy that there was a stretch of 43 consecutive months (roughly 45% of his presidency) where the discount rate didn't change by more than 50 basis points. I have always maintained that a good fiscal policy is to stay out of the way of monetary policy.
GDP Growth
1990 - 1.8%
1991 - (-0.5%)
1992 - 3.0%
1993 - 2.7%
1994 - 4.0%
1995 - 2.7%
1996 - 3.6%
1997 - 4.4%
1998 - 4.4%
1999 - 4.2%
2000 - 4.4%
Unemployment fell from 7.1% in Clinton's first month in office to 3.9% in December of 2000. It is currently up to 6.9%.
Where are these signs of a failing economy?
"Income tax is one thing, but ask any small or large business if their tax burden went down? Small business is where most are employed and they took a beating in Clinton's last two years."
I thought you said earlier that "during his presidency and that was the result of a Republican majority as much as anything else". I guess you mean to say anything good is the Republicans fault, anything bad is Clinton's? I will agree that there werent business tax reduction, and that SHOULD HAVE been the priority of Bush's $1.6 trillion tax cut if he was looking to use it to stimulate the economy. Bush DID NOT DO SO. Both of them failed in that regard. Of course, I personally believe the surplus should have been allocated to paying off the national debt...
Public record where? I honestly have only heard that from Rush et al. Let me guess, the Republicans were in on it too, seeing as how it couldnt have happened without their support, right?
"Your last two assumptions are idiotic at best! The economy was headed down long before anyone knew who GW Bush was!"
You sure about that? Im not.
The Fed was so comfortable with Clinton's fiscal policy that there was a stretch of 43 consecutive months (roughly 45% of his presidency) where the discount rate didn't change by more than 50 basis points. I have always maintained that a good fiscal policy is to stay out of the way of monetary policy.
GDP Growth
1990 - 1.8%
1991 - (-0.5%)
1992 - 3.0%
1993 - 2.7%
1994 - 4.0%
1995 - 2.7%
1996 - 3.6%
1997 - 4.4%
1998 - 4.4%
1999 - 4.2%
2000 - 4.4%
Unemployment fell from 7.1% in Clinton's first month in office to 3.9% in December of 2000. It is currently up to 6.9%.
Where are these signs of a failing economy?
"Income tax is one thing, but ask any small or large business if their tax burden went down? Small business is where most are employed and they took a beating in Clinton's last two years."
I thought you said earlier that "during his presidency and that was the result of a Republican majority as much as anything else". I guess you mean to say anything good is the Republicans fault, anything bad is Clinton's? I will agree that there werent business tax reduction, and that SHOULD HAVE been the priority of Bush's $1.6 trillion tax cut if he was looking to use it to stimulate the economy. Bush DID NOT DO SO. Both of them failed in that regard. Of course, I personally believe the surplus should have been allocated to paying off the national debt...
In times of economic difficulty, governments normally set a fiscal policy that runs a deficit in order to put more money into the economy, stimulating it. When the economy is doing well, governments are wise to have a balanced or surplus budget in order to remove money from the economy and prevent inflation.
HendrixFan
Diamond Member
- Oct 18, 2001
- 4,648
- 0
- 71
The problem with deficit spending, alphathree33, is that we have already gone so far into debt; and for the most part shown little interest in maintaining balanced budgets. Its always put off for the next year. That was why giving away so much of the projected surplus in tax cuts so soon was a bad idea.
Phokus
Lifer
- Nov 20, 1999
- 22,995
- 776
- 126
Libertarian Presidential Candidate Harry Browne on why Bush is the greater of two evils (when compared to Gore):
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27280
Why conservatives are hypocrites when it comes to government size:
<a target=new class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://
Why conservatives are hypocrites when it comes to government size:
[L=http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/ConservativesAndLiberals.htm]http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/ConservativesAndLiberals.htm">http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/ConservativesAndLiberals.htm</a>
*Cue in davesohmer to start trolling me a la texmaster
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27280
Why conservatives are hypocrites when it comes to government size:
<a target=new class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://
Why conservatives are hypocrites when it comes to government size:
[L=http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/ConservativesAndLiberals.htm]http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/ConservativesAndLiberals.htm">http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/ConservativesAndLiberals.htm</a>
*Cue in davesohmer to start trolling me a la texmaster
Most people aren't economists, and no president wants the legacy of ruining the economy. So they're willing to go into debt to make sure things stay afloat-- a bandage solution so that the next president can worry about actually fixing the problem.
I'm not sure that I wouldn't have done the same thing if I were in Bush's position. It's not like your national debt can be fixed in a decade. September 11th called for drastic measures. Tax cuts may not have been the best way to create fast economic stimulus but it was certainly a decent option.
That ain't saying much. Put a libertarian in there and we'll start seeing some real fiscal responsibility.
HendrixFan
Diamond Member
- Oct 18, 2001
- 4,648
- 0
- 71
Well, the tax cut going to citizens was a horrible idea, a political ploy. If there was any real interest in using a tax cut to stimulate the economy it would have been on business tax cuts, in order to keep the unemployment rate lower. Of course, following the large tax cut was news of thousands of layoffs at a time from many companies.
ok link now fixed, i thought he had just reversed em, not totally wacked it up
link fixed
and what did you expect republicans are for the most part hipocrites the religious rights control of their agenda destroys any ability for them to represent the moderates
link fixed
and what did you expect
republicans are for the most part hipocrites the religious rights control of their agenda destroys any ability for them to represent the moderatesBecome a Republican while you can. Armageddon is comming to town and only we will be saved. Fiscal conservatism is no longer necessary or relevant. The end is near.
So anyone who calls BS on your position and points out the fact that you are nothing more than a parrot of some half-assed web site set up by a wannabe joke of a political party is a troll? If you could even half-assed defend your parties position you would at least garner a little respect around here. You've proven time and again that you have absolutely no clue as to how your party would implement the policies that it spews forth (i.e. the military). If this makes me a troll, so be it, but you're still a joke and so is that so -called political party you support. Please keep supporting it though. With people like you in it, it has absolutely no chance of ever getting any serious consideration by intelligent people or gaining any serious power. Thank God.
Dave,
We both know the libratarian ideas are important. I think we both know it's important to have them out there speaking the parties line on the issues because some of what they say is valuable. God help us if they ever get elected though.
NOTE: My commentary did not mention on the champion of party you are harping on.
Yeah, of course the Democrats are big spenders
Only the Republicans spend $612 Million more per district than Democrats, and then call Democrats big spenders. If the federal government had a dollar for each Republican hypocricy, we could pay the debt down in about 1 month
Only the Republicans spend $612 Million more per district than Democrats, and then call Democrats big spenders. If the federal government had a dollar for each Republican hypocricy, we could pay the debt down in about 1 month
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 10K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
Facebook
Twitter