Did Newt Gingrich help create the 90's prosperity?

[micrometers]

If you look at the Reagan years, the important thing to remember is that the Congress was still controlled by Democrats in those days, and while the Congress on a whole is of lower visibility than the President, in domestic affairs it has more impact obviously.

So in the 1990's Congress was in control of the Republicans. Could it be that the 90's boom was a result of Republican rule?

 

[sonambulo]

No.

 

[xj0hnx]

If you look at the Reagan years, the important thing to remember is that the Congress was still controlled by Democrats in those days, and while the Congress on a whole is of lower visibility than the President, in domestic affairs it has more impact obviously.

So in the 1990's Congress was in control of the Republicans. Could it be that the 90's boom was a result of Republican rule?

I am seeing partisan analysis coming into this thread, along with the typical "Republicans eat babies", and "Republicans can do no wrong" banter, I think we're going to find that somewhere in the middle is the truth.

 

[First]

You'll have to be specific. What laws passed between 94-99 aided the tech/Internet boom that was already well underway before 94?

 

[fskimospy]

You'll have to be specific. What laws passed between 94-99 aided the tech/Internet boom that was already well underway before 94?

Yes, this very much. What specific policies did Newt Gingrich implement that you believe were responsible for the 90's prosperity?

 

[Vic Vega]

You'll have to be specific. What laws passed between 94-99 aided the tech/Internet boom that was already well underway before 94?

Devil's Advocate: What proposed laws did he help stop which would have hampered progress?

Unfortunately, this thread is a complete troll post as NEITHER side can be proved whatsoever, positive or negative.

 

[theeedude]

No, he was stopped by Clinton from destroying it.

 

[micrometers]

Devil's Advocate: What proposed laws did he help stop which would have hampered progress?

Unfortunately, this thread is a complete troll post as NEITHER side can be proved whatsoever, positive or negative.

I'll be honest. I don't know much about politics before the year 2006.

So I'm wondering in this thread.

But if Clinton is credited with 90's prosperity, when all he could do was veto or sign whatever legislation came through Congress, well, I think maybe Gingrich deserves credit then. He has been claiming credit recently for the 90's boom and maybe there's something to it.

 

[werepossum]

Devil's Advocate: What proposed laws did he help stop which would have hampered progress?

Unfortunately, this thread is a complete troll post as NEITHER side can be proved whatsoever, positive or negative.

You are of course correct. One can point to Clinton raising taxes or the Republic Congress slowing down the growth of government, but neither can be isolated and examined in the absence of the other, or of many other factors.

 

[werepossum]

I'll be honest. I don't know much about politics before the year 2006.

So I'm wondering in this thread.

But if Clinton is credited with 90's prosperity, when all he could do was veto or sign whatever legislation came through Congress, well, I think maybe Gingrich deserves credit then. He has been claiming credit recently for the 90's boom and maybe there's something to it.

Gingrich certainly deserves some credit. That he deserves MOST of the credit is unknowable, but probably untrue. Whether his policies in 2013 would be better than Obama's for prosperity is also unknowable. The best one can do is to look at past history and try to divine patterns - and to use common sense. Beyond that you simply take your own preferences and pick your poison.

WRT Clinton's veto, it's worth repeating that Clinton vetoed only to force higher spending. But the effect of even that is unknowable because the two sides favored spending on different items, Republicans more on defense (though less than in the Cold War) and Clinton more on government giveaways. Liberals and Democrats will assert that the latter grows the economy while the former does not.

 

[fskimospy]

I'll be honest. I don't know much about politics before the year 2006.

So I'm wondering in this thread.

But if Clinton is credited with 90's prosperity, when all he could do was veto or sign whatever legislation came through Congress, well, I think maybe Gingrich deserves credit then. He has been claiming credit recently for the 90's boom and maybe there's something to it.

Our good friend Newt has also compared himself to Charles de Gaulle, Abraham Lincoln, Wellington, and a whole host of other people.

Needless to say he has a somewhat liberal (har!) approach to awarding himself credit for things. If he somehow does secure the nomination, expect him to take credit for a whole lot more.

 

[RampantAndroid]

Gingrich certainly deserves some credit. That he deserves MOST of the credit is unknowable, but probably untrue. Whether his policies in 2013 would be better than Obama's for prosperity is also unknowable. The best one can do is to look at past history and try to divine patterns - and to use common sense. Beyond that you simply take your own preferences and pick your poison.

WRT Clinton's veto, it's worth repeating that Clinton vetoed only to force higher spending. But the effect of even that is unknowable because the two sides favored spending on different items, Republicans more on defense (though less than in the Cold War) and Clinton more on government giveaways. Liberals and Democrats will assert that the latter grows the economy while the former does not.

Where do you figure capital gains tax cuts figure in here? IIRC, congress kept spending increases below 5% and we saw a surplus? Or do I remember wrong?

 

[micrometers]

Our good friend Newt has also compared himself to Charles de Gaulle, Abraham Lincoln, Wellington, and a whole host of other people.

Needless to say he has a somewhat liberal (har!) approach to awarding himself credit for things. If he somehow does secure the nomination, expect him to take credit for a whole lot more.

I find shit like this refreshing. At least he's specific and not giving a vague and utterly meaningless statement the type that you might hear from Bachmann or even Romney. That most of it is silly or meaningless is besides the point. It's colorful and intellectually provocative.

Like, Gingrich leaves me feeling intrigued whenever I hear him talk, even if it doesn't all add up. The rest of the Republicans make me feel dumber after listening to them.

 

[Ausm]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Actually he was instrumental in instituting the gridlock we have in Congress today.

 

[davmat787]

Aren't you supposed to post an article and/or link when creating a thread here in P&N? To be followed by some commentary by the OP? Or has that rule changed?

 

[fskimospy]

I find shit like this refreshing. At least he's specific and not giving a vague and utterly meaningless statement the type that you might hear from Bachmann or even Romney. That most of it is silly or meaningless is besides the point. It's colorful and intellectually provocative.

Like, Gingrich leaves me feeling intrigued whenever I hear him talk, even if it doesn't all add up. The rest of the Republicans make me feel dumber after listening to them.

You find grandiose and poorly considered proclamations of his genius refreshing? I agree that it's entertaining, but that's hardly what I would look for in a president. And while it's exceedingly unlikely that I would vote for any Republican that's running for president today due to how ideologically extreme the party has become, saying silly things makes me want to vote for someone less, not more.

 

[micrometers]

You find grandiose and poorly considered proclamations of his genius refreshing? I agree that it's entertaining, but that's hardly what I would look for in a president. And while it's exceedingly unlikely that I would vote for any Republican that's running for president today due to how ideologically extreme the party has become, saying silly things makes me want to vote for someone less, not more.

Compared to the rest of the field it is. I mean, otherwise they're talking about slashing government programs, firing thousands of government workers, and just cutting back overall, which is always demoralizing. Whether or not Gingrich would do the same I do not know, but he is also talking a better future, which the rest have not been doing.

 

[Corn]

Aren't you supposed to post an article and/or link when creating a thread here in P&N? To be followed by some commentary by the OP? Or has that rule changed?

Your first sentence was never a rule here.

 

[Matt1970]

The President and Congress actually worked together back then. Not hand & hand like best friends, but atleast some compromises could be reached.

Now both sides do everything they can to stop the other side from doing anything and then look for every opportunity to jump on TV and play the blame game.

 

[Thump553]

No, but as any other egotistical politician (and his ego is as big as they come) he will of course claim full credit for anything remotely positive.

I find it supremely ironic that the Tea Party is gravitating towards Newt, who is the ultimate Washington insider and has made a fortune sellling his influence and insider knowledge.

 

[Dman8777]

The President and Congress actually worked together back then. Not hand & hand like best friends, but atleast some compromises could be reached.

Now both sides do everything they can to stop the other side from doing anything and then look for every opportunity to jump on TV and play the blame game.

Exactly what I was thinking. Part of it has to do with the fact that Clinton was an experienced salesman/politician when he was elected and the following presidents both weren't. Compromise dissappeared with Bush and remains largely absent under Obama.

 

[fskimospy]

Exactly what I was thinking. Part of it has to do with the fact that Clinton was an experienced salesman/politician when he was elected and the following presidents both weren't. Compromise dissappeared with Bush and and remains largely absent under Obama.

I think that has far more to do with the increasing radicalization of Congress than the attributes of any particular president.

 

[blankslate]

As far as the internet boom is concerned I'd give more credit to the Administration on that one.

Vin Cerf was interviewed by Esquire about his role in creating the internet.

here is a quote from that article

Al Gore had seen what happened with the National Interstate and Defense Highways Act of 1956, which his father introduced as a military bill. It was very powerful. Housing went up, suburban boom happened, everybody became mobile. Al was attuned to the power of networking much more than any of his elective colleagues. His initiatives led directly to the commercialization of the Internet. So he really does deserve credit.

Read more: http://www.esquire.com/features/what-ive-learned/vint-cerf-0508#ixzz1fypfWJNi

The urban legend that Al Gore claimed to have invented the interwebs was only possible in a nation where a majority of people have the attention span of the dog in the movie up who is easily distracted by squirrels. If he actually made that claim I'm sure the people who were involved in the research would've lambasted him in public.

 

[zsdersw]

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/will120311.php3

Gingrich, however, embodies the vanity and rapacity that make modern Washington repulsive. And there is his anti-conservative confidence that he has a comprehensive explanation of, and plan to perfect, everything.

Granted, his grandiose rhetoric celebrating his “transformative” self is entertaining: Recently he compared his revival of his campaign to Sam Walton’s and Ray Kroc’s creations of Wal-Mart and McDonald’s, two of America’s largest private-sector employers. There is almost artistic vulgarity in Gingrich’s unrepented role as a hired larynx for interests profiting from such government follies as ethanol and cheap mortgages. His Olympian sense of exemption from standards and logic allowed him, fresh from pocketing $1.6 million from Freddie Mac (for services as a “historian&#8221, to say, “If you want to put people in jail,” look at “the politicians who profited from” Washington’s environment.

His temperament — intellectual hubris distilled — makes him blown about by gusts of enthusiasm for intellectual fads, from 1990s futurism to “Lean Six Sigma” today. On Election Eve 1994, he said a disturbed South Carolina mother drowning her children “vividly reminds” Americans “how sick the society is getting, and how much we need to change things. . . . The only way you get change is to vote Republican.” Compare this grotesque opportunism — tarted up as sociology — with his devious recasting of it in a letter to the Nov. 18, 1994, Wall Street Journal (http://bit.ly/vFbjAk). And remember his recent swoon over the theory that “Kenyan, anti-colonial” thinking explains Barack Obama.

Gingrich, who would have made a marvelous Marxist, believes everything is related to everything else and only he understands how. Conservatism, in contrast, is both cause and effect of modesty about understanding society’s complexities, controlling its trajectory and improving upon its spontaneous order. Conservatism inoculates against the hubristic volatility that Gingrich exemplifies and Genesis deplores: “Unstable as water, thou shalt not excel.”

 

[RampantAndroid]

The President and Congress actually worked together back then. Not hand & hand like best friends, but atleast some compromises could be reached.

Now both sides do everything they can to stop the other side from doing anything and then look for every opportunity to jump on TV and play the blame game.

Well, again...this is why I ask about the capital gains tax cuts. Clinton for whatever reason agreed to them, and you DO see a surplus then. I don't see gridlock forming here...