Did Newt Gingrich help create the 90's prosperity?

[Fern]

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?

The 90's boom is attributable to Andy Grove (Intel), Bill Gates (Windows) and the internet.

Having worked in business before computers etc. were widespread I think most of you would find how we did things back then unimaginable. No pc's, no fax machines, no email etc. Ever done a big spreadsheet? Think about doing it manually (make sure to have a lot of erasers on hand). The simple process of drafting a letter was a heck of a lot more time consuming back then. IMO, it's hard to overstate the amount of increased productivity those technologies new to the 90's brought.

In the 90's we also had the so-called "Peace Dividend".

Fern

 

[micrometers]

The 90's boom is attributable to Andy Grove (Intel), Bill Gates (Windows) and the internet.

Having worked in business before computers etc. were widespread I think most of you would find how we did things back then unimaginable. No pc's, no fax machines, no email etc. Ever done a big spreadsheet? Think about doing it manually (make sure to have a lot of erasers on hand). The simple process of drafting a letter was a heck of a lot more time consuming back then. IMO, it's hard to overstate the amount of increased productivity those technologies new to the 90's brought.

In the 90's we also had the so-called "Peace Dividend".

Fern

at the same time, there is a reason why the tech industry DIDN'T develop in highly Democratic areas like Philadelphia, where it likely would have been taxed to death before getting off the ground.

 

[Ausm]

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?

Better be careful you might be able to tell what the moderator had for lunch.

 

[werepossum]

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?

I'm sure they helped. I have a moral problem with capitals gains being taxed at a lower rate than wage income, but I won't deny that spurs economic growth and investment. Of course, it also spurs day trading.

The 90's boom is attributable to Andy Grove (Intel), Bill Gates (Windows) and the internet.

Having worked in business before computers etc. were widespread I think most of you would find how we did things back then unimaginable. No pc's, no fax machines, no email etc. Ever done a big spreadsheet? Think about doing it manually (make sure to have a lot of erasers on hand). The simple process of drafting a letter was a heck of a lot more time consuming back then. IMO, it's hard to overstate the amount of increased productivity those technologies new to the 90's brought.

In the 90's we also had the so-called "Peace Dividend".

Fern

I suspect you have the largest factors right here. We began drawing down the military under Bush I and really drew it down under Clinton; that has to make a LOT more money available for productive investment. And while there were many companies who were building personal computers, it was American companies whose designs won in the marketplace. Not only did PCs increase productivity, but sales brought money to the USA rather than taking money away from our economy. Similarly, our decline was caused in large part by shipping those jobs offshore and by the rise of the Internet. Case in point, what we're all doing here.

 

[Craig234]

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.

This is an old fallacy coming from schoolbooks on how it works. In fact, the President is typically the dominant force in major congressional legislation. Technically, he has his legislation introduced by a member of his party in Congress, but the decisions on policies and the bills often come from the White House.

This is how you hear the President in his state of the unions say he'll do this and do that that Congress has to pass, and hear him ask Congress to do this and that.

This is why you see legislative programs radically change when the President changes even though the Congress is largely the same people.

On rare occasions Congress does more 'its own thing' when the opposite party from the President, and Gingrich can get some credit for that, if you can call his main policy being to shut down the federal government, and his crappy almost entirely failed 'Contract with America' gimmick 'credit'.

The fact is IMO, there were a couple main factors. One was Clinton's anti-deficit bill in 1993, which raised taxes on the top 1.2% and cut them for many others, and which EVERY Republican I can find screamed loudly would destroy the economy - they all said it would lower growth, raise unemployment and increase the deficit if passed.

It did, and growth went up, unemployment went down and the deficit decreased.

Even the Wall Street Journal admitted "most" of the deficit reduction came from Clinton's anti-deficit policies.

The plan was to reduce the deficit; the second factor was that the economy - some legitimate, some bubble - did better than expected and eliminated the deficit.

This is often called the 'internet boom' - as I said, some real and some nonsense valuation of companies. The bubble part led to a recession in 2000.

The Republican Congress did fight for Republican policies, creating some gridlock; whether the spending they opposed was good or bad for the country is a question.

But the facts show, Clinton reduced the REPUBLICAN mega deficits similarly all eight years; that includes the first two under a Democratic congress.

The Republicans did not increase deficit reduction.

So, I'd say Gingrich deserves no credit - the deficit reduction not increasing, opposing good spending, increasing some costs such as the cost of the shutdown.

Gingrich is lying about the history - which led to his being driven from Congress.

 

[werepossum]

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?

As I understand it, the prohibition is only against posting articles and/or links without commentary, not against starting threads without articles and/or links.

 

[Craig234]

at the same time, there is a reason why the tech industry DIDN'T develop in highly Democratic areas like Philadelphia, where it likely would have been taxed to death before getting off the ground.

Ya, it developed in the right-wing San Francisco Bay Area. Secondarily, Massachusetts. Hate to have those taxes THAT PAID FOR THE INTERNET DEVELOPMENT. /boggle

 

[Craig234]

The 90's boom is attributable to Andy Grove (Intel), Bill Gates (Windows) and the internet.

Having worked in business before computers etc. were widespread I think most of you would find how we did things back then unimaginable. No pc's, no fax machines, no email etc. Ever done a big spreadsheet? Think about doing it manually (make sure to have a lot of erasers on hand). The simple process of drafting a letter was a heck of a lot more time consuming back then. IMO, it's hard to overstate the amount of increased productivity those technologies new to the 90's brought.

In the 90's we also had the so-called "Peace Dividend".

Fern

Mostly wrong as usual.

You're right that the 'internet boom' was a factor - some real and some bubble (which led to the 2000 crash).

The Wall Street Journal said that 'most' of the deficit reduction was Clinton's anti-deficit program - which you fail to even mention.

A smaller factor was the short-lived 'peace dividend' - the military soon got it all back. It was not that big a decrease or factor.

Look at the blue line, the decrease was trivial considering the end of the cold war:

 

[micrometers]

Hmm,

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...ew_effort_to_hit_gingrich_where_it_hurts.html

I asked Talent, who served with Gingrich in the House during the mid-'90s, whether the budget would have been balanced or welfare reformed without the Speaker's leadership. Talent, who repeatedly said he regretted saying negative things about Gingrich, proceeded to give Gingrich no credit at all. House Republicans did accomplish a lot, but Gingrich's erratic behavior had imperiled future progress. "You were in a situation where you would get up in the morning, and you would have the to check the newspaper, the clippings, that was before the Internet, to see what the Speaker had said that day that you were going to have to clean up after in your own district."
I asked Talent how Romney's career demonstrated conservative principles. He mentioned Romney's record as governor in Massachusetts in which he limited spending, cut regulations, and turned improved the economy.

btw, my OP is premised on the idea that maybe the Reagan years could be better understood as the Tip O'Neil years, since the liberal Tip O'Neil controlled the House in those days, and if so, then the Clinton years were also the Gingrich years.

 

[micrometers]

Ya, it developed in the right-wing San Francisco Bay Area. Secondarily, Massachusetts. Hate to have those taxes THAT PAID FOR THE INTERNET DEVELOPMENT. /boggle

well, it is true that those areas are higher education hubs and actually receive heavy government support through educational aid as well as health (medicare and so on).

I dunno, I spent some time in Philadelphia and they actually proposed taxing businesses based on their total income BEFORE EXPENSES. Meaning that you could be operating your business at a loss and still be hit by a high tax bill.

 

[Matt1970]

This is an old fallacy coming from schoolbooks on how it works. In fact, the President is typically the dominant force in major congressional legislation. Technically, he has his legislation introduced by a member of his party in Congress, but the decisions on policies and the bills often come from the White House.

This is how you hear the President in his state of the unions say he'll do this and do that that Congress has to pass, and hear him ask Congress to do this and that.

This is why you see legislative programs radically change when the President changes even though the Congress is largely the same people.

On rare occasions Congress does more 'its own thing' when the opposite party from the President, and Gingrich can get some credit for that, if you can call his main policy being to shut down the federal government, and his crappy almost entirely failed 'Contract with America' gimmick 'credit'.

The fact is IMO, there were a couple main factors. One was Clinton's anti-deficit bill in 1993, which raised taxes on the top 1.2% and cut them for many others, and which EVERY Republican I can find screamed loudly would destroy the economy - they all said it would lower growth, raise unemployment and increase the deficit if passed.

It did, and growth went up, unemployment went down and the deficit decreased.

Even the Wall Street Journal admitted "most" of the deficit reduction came from Clinton's anti-deficit policies.

The plan was to reduce the deficit; the second factor was that the economy - some legitimate, some bubble - did better than expected and eliminated the deficit.

This is often called the 'internet boom' - as I said, some real and some nonsense valuation of companies. The bubble part led to a recession in 2000.

The Republican Congress did fight for Republican policies, creating some gridlock; whether the spending they opposed was good or bad for the country is a question.

But the facts show, Clinton reduced the REPUBLICAN mega deficits similarly all eight years; that includes the first two under a Democratic congress.

The Republicans did not increase deficit reduction.

So, I'd say Gingrich deserves no credit - the deficit reduction not increasing, opposing good spending, increasing some costs such as the cost of the shutdown.

Gingrich is lying about the history - which led to his being driven from Congress.

Damn Craig, do you take yourself seriously? You are basicly denying the internet Bubble.