• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

"It’s Still the Economy, Stupid" by Bill Clinton

HendrixFan

Diamond Member
Saw this linked on Slashdot and thought it to be interesting.

http://www.newsweek.com/2011/06/19/it-s-still-the-economy-stupid.print.html

It’s Still the Economy, Stupid
Fourteen million Americans remain out of work, a waste of our greatest resource. The 42nd president has more than a dozen ideas on how to attack the jobs crisis.
by Bill ClintonJune 19, 2011
clinton-jobs-fe01-wide Andrew Hetherington for Newsweek

Bill Clinton
14 WAYS TO PUT AMERICA BACK TO WORK

Next week in Chicago, the Clinton Global Initiative will focus on America for the first time, inviting business and political leaders to make specific commitments in support of the former president’s jobs blueprint, which he details below.

1. SPEED THE APPROVALS

Harry Hopkins had nowhere near the rules and regulations we have now. (In 1933, Hopkins’s Civil Works Administration put 4 million to work in a month.) I don’t blame the people in the White House for problems in getting shovel-ready projects off the ground; sometimes it takes three years or more for the approval process. We should try to change this: keep the full review process when there are real environmental concerns, but when there aren’t, the federal government should be able to give a waiver to the states to speed up start times on construction projects. We gave states waivers to do welfare reform, so by the time I signed the bill, 43 of the 50 states had already implemented their own approaches. We need to look at that.

2. CASH FOR STARTUPS

If you start a business tomorrow, I can give you all the tax credits in the world, but since you haven’t made a nickel yet, they’re of no use to you. President Obama came in with a really good energy policy, including an idea to provide both a tax credit for new green jobs and for startup companies, to allow the conversion of the tax credit into its cash equivalent for every employee hired. Then last December, in the tax-cut compromise, the Republicans in Congress wouldn’t agree to extend this benefit because they said, “This is a spending program, not a tax cut. We’re only for tax cuts.” It was a mistake. The cash incentive worked. On the day President Obama took office, the U.S. had less than 2 percent of the world market in manufacturing the high-powered batteries for hybrid or all-electric cars. On the day of the congressional elections in 2010, thanks in large part to the cash—incentive policy, we had 20 percent of global capacity, with 30 new battery plants built or under construction, 16 of them in Michigan, which had America’s second—highest unemployment rate. We have to convince the Republican Congress that this is a good thing. If this incentive structure can be maintained, it’s estimated that by 2015 we’ll have 40 percent of the world’s capacity for these batteries. We could get lots of manufacturing jobs in the same way. I could write about this until the cows come home.

3. JOBS GALORE IN ENERGY

When I was president, the economy benefited because information technology penetrated every aspect of American life. More than one quarter of our job growth and one third of our income growth came from that. Now the obvious candidate for that role today is changing the way we produce and use energy. The U.S. didn’t ratify the Kyoto accords, of course, because Al Gore and I left office, and the next government wasn’t for it. They were all wrong. Before the financial meltdown, the four countries that will meet their Kyoto greenhouse-gas emission targets were outperforming America with lower unemployment, more new business formation, and less income inequality.


4. COPY THE EMPIRE STATE BUILDING

Just look at the Empire State Building—I can see it from my office window. Our climate-change people worked on their retrofit project. They cleared off a whole floor for a small factory to change the heating and air conditioning, put in new lighting and insulation, and cut energy-efficient glass for the windows. Johnson Controls, the energy-service company overseeing the project, guaranteed the building owners their electricity usage would go down 38 percent—a massive saving, which will enable the costs of the retrofits to be recovered through lower utility bills in less than five years. Meanwhile, the project created hundreds of jobs and cut greenhouse-gas emissions substantially. We could put a million people to work retrofitting buildings all over America.

5. GET THE UTILITIES IN ON THE ACTION

Let’s suppose you and I go to a blue-collar neighborhood in Rockland County, N.Y., about an hour north of midtown Manhattan. On each house we could do a simple job—in and out in a day—that would almost certainly save 20 percent in energy costs. You wouldn’t even need banks if states required the electric companies to let consumers finance this work through utility savings. At least 11 states allow the electric companies to collect the money saved and use it to pay the contractors. So why shouldn’t the utilities finance this? To give another example, our climate-change initiative worked with the state of Arkansas, with the support of the governor, to develop a program called HEAL (Home Energy Assistance Loan), in which a company first creates jobs by making its own building more energy-efficient. Then, with the savings from the utility bill, they establish a fund to offer interest-free loans to their employees to finance the same work on their homes. This could be done with a little government support by companies all over the country. You get 7,000 jobs for every billion dollars in retrofitting. Let’s start with the schools and colleges and hospitals, and state, county, and local government buildings. That would keep the construction industry busy for a couple of years, creating a million jobs that would ripple through the whole economy, spurring even more growth.

6. STATE-BY-STATE SOLUTIONS

There may be some things that the states can do to loosen this up. One of the reasons Harry Reid won in Nevada is that, right before the election, two big Chinese companies announced they were moving factories there to make LED lightbulbs and turbines for the big wind farms down in Texas. Nevada is a little state, and it gained more than 4,000 jobs.

The thing I really liked about it was that the Chinese guys played it straight. They said the decision was pure economics. They didn’t say, “We’re coming here because Harry Reid is the leader of the Senate.” They said, “We’re coming here because Nevada has the best state incentives to go with the federal incentives.” They were very clinical. They said labor costs in China are still cheaper, but these turbines are big and heavy, and higher transportation costs to the U.S. market would offset the labor gains—and there was a tax credit from the federal government for green-energy manufacturing, and extra credits in Nevada.

7. GUARANTEE LOANS

Before the last presidential election, I tried for a year to get both Congress and the administration to deal with the fact that the banks weren’t lending because they were still jittery about the economy, and worried about the regulators coming down on them for bad loans still on the books. It’s not much better now. Banks still have more than $2 trillion in cash uncommitted to loans.

So I suggested that the federal government set aside—not spend—$15 billion of the TARP money and create a loan-guarantee program that would work exactly the way the Small Business Administration does. Basically, the bank lends money to a business after the federal government guarantees 75 percent of it. Let’s say that the SBA fund has about a 20-to-1 loan-to-capital ratio, and it’s never come anywhere near bankruptcy. If we capitalized this more conservatively at 10-to-1, we could guarantee $150 billion in loans and create more than a million jobs. We should start with buildings we know will stay in use: most state and local government buildings, schools, university structures, hospitals, theaters, and concert halls. We could include private commercial buildings with no debt. Even if many are strapped for cash, allowing the costs of the retrofits to be paid only from utility savings means the building owners won’t be out any cash. It’s a “just say yes” system.

8. PAINT ’EM WHITE

Look at the tar roofs covering millions of American buildings. They absorb huge amounts of heat when it’s hot. And they require more air conditioning to cool the rooms. Mayor Bloomberg started a program to hire and train young people to paint New York’s roofs white. A big percentage of the kids have been able to parlay this simple work into higher-skilled training programs or energy-related retrofit jobs. (And, believe it or not, painting the roof white can lower the electricity use by 20 percent on a hot day!)

Every black roof in New York should be white; every roof in Chicago should be white; every roof in Little Rock should be white. Every flat tar-surface roof anywhere! In most of these places you could recover the cost of the paint and the labor in a week. It’s the quickest, cheapest thing you can do. In the current environment it’s been difficult for the mayors to get what is otherwise a piddling amount of money to do it everywhere. Yet lowering the utility bill in every apartment house 10 to 20 percent frees cash that can be spent to increase economic growth.

9. DEALS TO MAKE THINGS

Every analysis shows that TARP and the stimulus saved us from a second Great Depression. After the GM and Chrysler bailouts, we have something like 75,000 more jobs in the industry. Closure of the factories and the suppliers with them would have cost a million jobs. The stimulus should have been more vigorously defended in the last election. It did work, but it didn’t “fix the economy” because it was an $800 billion stimulus trying to fix a $3 trillion hole. Nobody can fill a $3 trillion hole with $800 billion, so it didn’t make ordinary people feel a lot better, but without it, the unemployment rate would have been 1.5 to 2 percent higher than it is.

I’m sympathetic with the objectives of the Bowles-Simpson commission; we do need to do something about long-term debt. It’s a question of timing, really. If we cut a lot of government spending while our economy still has so little private investment, we risk weakening the economy even more and increasing the deficit because tax revenues can fall more than spending is cut. That’s why the Bowles-Simpson report recommends we delay big spending cuts until next year. So what should we do? More infrastructure initiatives now would put a lot of people back to work. But President Obama doesn’t have the votes in the Congress to get another stimulus package. When asked why he robbed banks, Willie Sutton said, “Because that’s where the money is.” We have to unlock that money and take steps to get U.S. corporations to invest some of the $2 trillion they have accumulated.

Without regard to their party or their philosophy, Americans have always been great at the art of the deal. The real thing that has killed us in the last 10 years is that too much of our dealmaking creativity has been devoted to expanding the financial sector in ways that don’t create new businesses and more jobs and to persuading people to take on excessive debt loads to make up for the fact that their incomes are stagnant. That’s one reason why we’ve been suffering from anemic employment for years. In the seven years and eight months that preceded the meltdown, our economy produced a meager 4 million new jobs, far too few to cope with millions coming into the workforce, and virtually all those jobs were created in housing, finance, and consumer spending.

10. TRAIN ON THE JOB

Andrew Liveris’s book on how we can bring manufacturing back to America cites a company that interviewed 3,600 people for 100 jobs and hired 47; the others didn’t have the necessary skills. One answer to the skills roadblock comes from the former labor commissioner in Georgia, Michael Thurmond. After job vacancies go unfilled for a certain period of time, the state offers businesses the money to train potential employees themselves. During the training period, the companies don’t become employers, so they don’t have to start paying Social Security taxes or employer benefits. They train people their way, then hire those who succeed as regular employees, reducing the time lag between when a job is advertised and when it is filled. With unemployment at 9 percent and the real rate of those without full-time work higher, there are 3 million posted job vacancies. Filling them faster could make a big difference.

11. TEACH SKILLS WE NEED

I’m trying to figure out why job seekers don’t have the skills companies need; why the community colleges and vocational programs, which have done such a great job for America, are not providing more people with the skills to fill these vacancies. Do people just not enroll in the right programs or do they drop out because of the economy? I hope we can find out.

12. CUT CORPORATE TAXES

It’s true that our corporate rates are the second-highest in the world. But it’s also true that what our corporations actually pay is nowhere near the second-highest percentage of their real income in the world. So I’d be perfectly fine with lowering the corporate tax rates, simplifying the tax code, and saving some money on accountants, but broadening the tax base so that all of them pay a reasonable amount of tax on their profits. That’s what the Bowles-Simpson commission recommended, and it’s the right policy. Lower the rates to be competitive, but reduce the loopholes that cause unfair disparities. We all need to contribute something to help meet our shared challenges and responsibilities, including solving the debt problem.

13. ENFORCE TRADE LAWS

We lost manufacturing jobs in every one of the eight years after I left office. One of the reasons is that enforcement of our trade laws dropped sharply. Contrary to popular belief, the World Trade Organization and our trade agreements do not require unilateral disarmament. They’re designed to increase the volume of two-way trade on terms that are mutually beneficial. My administration negotiated 300 trade agreements, but we enforced them, too. Enforcement dropped so much in the last decade because we borrowed more and more money from the countries that had big trade surpluses with us, especially China and Japan, to pay for government spending. Since they are now our bankers, it’s hard to be tough on their unfair trading practices. This happened because we abandoned the path of balanced budgets 10 years ago, choosing instead large tax cuts especially for higher-income people like me, along with two wars and the senior citizens’ drug benefit. In the history of our republic, it’s the first time we ever cut taxes while going to war.

14. ANALYZE THE OPPORTUNITIES

I’m hosting this month’s CGI America meeting on the assumption that there will be no federal stimulus and no further tax incentives targeted directly toward creating new jobs. Going on these assumptions, we want to analyze America’s economy: What are our assets? What are our liabilities? What are our options? There must be opportunities to be tapped, given all the cash in banks and corporate treasuries. If we have some success, we might be able to influence the debate in Washington in a nonpartisan way because we’ll have economic evidence to show them. I don’t have any problem at all if Congress wants to give tax credits to companies that actually hire people. But I think we have to pay for them, so I’d be happy to go back to the tax rates people at my income level paid when I was president in order to pay for the tax incentives to put more people to work.

The whole purpose of CGI America is to highlight good ideas because not everyone is aware of what’s out there. I’m going to try to get enough commitments that are representative enough of the circumstances facing diverse industries and different cities and states to persuade people across America to try their own version of them in a discussion of our economic stagnation. There’s been a remarkable lack of attention to “microeconomics,” the untapped growth potential of American corporations, entrepreneurs, and workers.

Let’s be realistic here. This is a massive economy. No matter how many impressive commitments we get, we won’t move the numbers. They’ll move the numbers only if enough people say, “Wow, I wish I’d thought of that.”

This article is filled with job creation ideas. One of the things about Clinton's autobiography that surprised me was how much time he spent talking about small deals he made here and there as governor and president to keep factories up and workers employed.

The point of corporate taxes isn't to rake in revenue strictly, it is to provide tax breaks to encourage certain behaviors. We need to return to the 90s era of middle class growth in wages and employment. We need to return to the "Invest and Grow" policies that worked so well.
 
What an idiot!

His sole idea was more, bigger and more intrusive government.

Ya, like that's working now!
 
What an idiot!

His sole idea was more, bigger and more intrusive government.

Ya, like that's working now!

I won't even ask you. You obviously did not read it. Clinton offers several great ideas, drawing among other things on lessons learned during his Presidency. Of course you won't like some of those experiences because they demonstrate through success just how GWB and today's Republicans have failed.
 
I've been saying to paint roofs white for 7 years at least. It's just plain stupid that in Texas most houses have dark colored roofs, just because that's the fashion. Are most people just ignorant of the fact that dark colors absorb more solar radiation?
 
0. Government, move bitch, get out the way.

Actually, that was number 1. Of course the parrots around here will claim that without millions of pages of regulations we'd be living in Somalia, so they'll quietly ignore the fact that Clinton is saying maybe sometimes the red tape gets to be a bit onerous.
 
What an idiot!

His sole idea was more, bigger and more intrusive government.

Ya, like that's working now!
Pot meet kettle? He had actual evidence, real solutions, and arguments to support them. THAT is how you govern. You have a mantra. A massively flawed and thoroughly discredited one, at that.
 
DUH!!
12. CUT CORPORATE TAXES

It’s true that our corporate rates are the second-highest in the world. But it’s also true that what our corporations actually pay is nowhere near the second-highest percentage of their real income in the world. So I’d be perfectly fine with lowering the corporate tax rates, simplifying the tax code, and saving some money on accountants, but broadening the tax base so that all of them pay a reasonable amount of tax on their profits. That’s what the Bowles-Simpson commission recommended, and it’s the right policy. Lower the rates to be competitive, but reduce the loopholes that cause unfair disparities. We all need to contribute something to help meet our shared challenges and responsibilities, including solving the debt problem.
 
13 is huge. We can't have countries that impose greater tarriffs on our stuff than we impose on their stuff.

So you are saying the 90's was not a bubble?

Most of it seemed legit, didn't it? At the end there was a tech bubble but there was a lot of real tech growth too.
 
But dat der presodant is a liberal! BIG GOVERNMENT!!!!
Actually that is what Clinton suggested. Fixing shit and doing stuff = bigger government since companies aren't willing to do any of it.

I call shens. Everyone should sit back, do nothing, not upgrade anything, and just wait for the economy to get better for no reason at all.
 
Clinton taught economics, he knows what he is talking about. I still find it unfathomable that despite his fiscal conservatism he is such an enemy of the right.
Clinton taught economics?? When?

He taught law, the same as Obama.


The problem the right had with him is that he was a fiscal conservative only in name. His first act after taking office was to raise taxes. And when the time came for a balanced budget he fought it every step of the way.

The same with welfare reform. He vetoed two bills before finally signing the one he speaks about in this article.
 
13 is huge. We can't have countries that impose greater tarriffs on our stuff than we impose on their stuff.

In 1995 we had the tariff showdown with Japan over their luxury vehicles and us threatening a 100% tariff.

http://www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071029/ANA03/710290340/1128/ANA03&Profile=1128

Bold moves halt tariff stalemate, save Lexus brand
U.S. Trade Representative Mickey Kantor, left, jousted with Minister of International Trade and Industry Ryuichi Hashimoto in Geneva over America's proposed 100 percent tariff on imported Japanese luxury cars.
James B. Treece

Lexus was a mere 5 years old. It was gaining share and building the reputation that Toyota Motor Corp. had dreamed of. Then, suddenly, the brand's very existence was at risk.

The United States, Lexus' only market, was threatening to impose 100 percent import tariffs on Japanese luxury cars.

"Our forecast was for disaster, and we were preparing for disaster," says Yale Gieszl, who ran Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A. at the time.

The origins of the 1995 crisis lay in Japan's persistently large trade surplus with the United States. Most of the surplus resulted from Japan's exports of autos and auto parts.
REPEATED TRADE DISPUTES
Yoshimi Inaba: "How do we make sure Lexus dealers survive?"

U.S.-Japan trade disputes, often over cars, had been around since the 1970s. In 1981, Japan bowed to pressure from the United States and signed on to what was inaccurately known as a Voluntary Restraint Agreement. In a move that was by no means voluntary, Japanese carmakers' exports were capped by a series of annual quotas, starting in 1982.

The agreement expired in 1984 but was immediately replaced by a similar quota system known as voluntary export restraints. Those quotas, raised annually, continued until 1994.

Since the restraints only covered cars, Japanese automakers responded by selling trucks by the hundreds of thousands. It also prompted most of the Japanese companies to build factories in America.

But the trade gap kept growing. In 1995, President Bill Clinton's administration came up with a proposed cure for the trade imbalance. And this time, it was going to hurt.

On May 18, Clinton proposed the 100 percent tax on Japanese luxury cars, effective June 28. The tariff would have applied to three cars in Nissan's still-small Infiniti lineup, plus two nameplates each at Mazda and Honda's Acura brand and a single Mitsubishi nameplate.

Every Lexus would have been hit by the 100 percent duty. Toyota, more than any other company, was in the cross hairs.

Toyota's old strategy for dealing with trade disputes — let the government handle it — had fallen flat.

It had served the company well in the past. Japan's Ministry of International Trade and Industry had displayed a superb ability to judge the tripwires of Washington's patience.

U.S. representatives and senators might thunder that the growing trade gap would not be tolerated. But if it were not an election year, the Japanese bureaucrats would nod politely. If it was election season and Congress was inclined to demonstrate that it was taking action, Japan's trade ministry seemed to know just when the boiling point was approaching, and they'd reach an agreement on beef or oranges or airline routes.
LIVING WITH QUOTAS

Ministry officials had denounced the so-called voluntary restraints as damaging to free trade. But they, and the auto industry, could live with the quotas.

The ministry was in charge of doling out the quotas. So it now had an extra lever of authority over the auto industry in Japan. Both Mitsubishi and Honda had begun building cars years earlier in defiance of ministry instructions. Both companies were harshly limited under the quotas.

The carmakers, meanwhile, dealt with the quotas in an economically rational manner. If they couldn't raise their volumes, they would raise their profits on every unit they sold. They filled as much of their quotas as they could with their top-of-the-line models and piled on the expensive factory options.

That pushed up the prices of Japanese cars during the 1980s. Some U.S. dealers charged as much as a $2,000 premium for a $7,000 Toyota. Demand still outstripped supply. Free-trade advocates, led by the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal, blasted the quotas, saying they hurt American consumers more than they helped the American automakers.

Many Americans agreed. When the quotas finally expired in 1994, few in Congress called for them to be extended.
HURTING AMERICA, NOT JAPAN
Frustrated by the slow pace of negotiations, Toyota's senior management decided to outflank Japan's Ministry of International Trade and Industry to head off the proposed 100 percent tariff on Japanese luxury cars. Behind the decision were, from left: Honorary Chairman Eiji Toyoda, Chairman Shoichiro Toyoda, Vice Chairman Masami Iwasaki and President Tatsuro Toyoda.

But when Clinton proposed that every Lexus buyer also would have to buy the government a car, too, that was a different ballgame. For arguably the first time, the U.S. government was proposing a policy to address the automotive trade gap that would have hurt the Japanese carmakers, especially Toyota, more than it would have hurt American consumers.

After all, Lexus shoppers driven off by a 100 percent tax could have walked across the street to a Mercedes-Benz or Audi dealership. It was a different situation from the days of the second oil crisis, when small cars from Toyota and Honda were in short supply, and the Big 3's offerings did not match the fuel efficiency of a Corolla or Civic.

The U.S. Senate voted 88-8 in favor of a resolution supporting Clinton's proposed tariff.

Toyota went into crisis mode. It had just six weeks to ensure Lexus' future.

Said Jim Press, who was then Lexus general manager: "The issues were really based on the survival of the Lexus franchise. We had a war room, we had contingency plans. We had to mobilize every asset, from dealers to customers, to offset the protectionist pressure."

"My concern," says Yoshimi Inaba, "was how do we maintain the Lexus dealer network? They and we have invested so much money. How do we make sure Lexus dealers survive?"

At that time, Inaba was group vice president for Toyota Division. He went on to become a group vice president at the parent company before retiring in 2007.
A U.S.-BUILT LEXUS ES?

Toyota went so far as to discuss building the Lexus ES in the United States. The near-luxury sedan was the brand's volume leader. Toyota considered immediately starting U.S. assembly, largely using imported parts, and then slowly increasing the car's U.S. parts content.

Inaba recalls the reasoning: "By making it by local production, at least we could sustain the dealer network, so that in better days we could again bounce back."

It didn't come to that. (Indeed, the first Lexus wasn't assembled in North America until September 2003, when the first RX 330 was built in Cambridge, Ontario.) Instead, Toyota jumped into the trade talks directly.

Gieszl, an American, testified before Congress, and so did U.S. dealers, customers and suppliers. But what really turned the tide was some good old Japanese-American know-who and a decision to defy Japan's trade ministry.

Then-Toyota President Tatsuro Toyoda was a friend of Walter Mondale, the U.S. ambassador to Japan. When they met to discuss the crisis, recalled Press: "It was almost like a Noh play, in that both sides wanted a way out but with their dignity. We wanted to find the right solution where both sides could go home with something."

The U.S. administration had vowed to impose the tariffs unless Japan set numerical targets for reducing the trade deficit. The Clinton administration called it "results-oriented trade."

Japan's trade ministry — which had helped rebuild the Japanese economy after World War II with industrial policies that closely managed all aspects of the economy — denounced the U.S. proposal as "managed trade." It absolutely refused to go that route. It was a stalemate.

Then Toyota stepped in. It released numbers showing that it planned to increase sharply its purchases of American parts and increase production of cars in the United States.

Those plans were part of the company's already-conceived, but not yet unveiled, New Global Business Plan, which called for a dramatic increase in foreign manufacturing plants. The U.S. part of the plan called for another assembly plant; a new engine plant; an expansion of Toyota's Georgetown, Ky., factory; and the addition of two or three nameplates to Toyota's U.S. production lineup beyond what had previously been announced.

Toyota also said it would start buying more than 300 small- and medium-sized stamping parts from suppliers in America, replacing ones that it had been importing from Japan. The added factories and vehicles also implied a large increase in Toyota's purchases of U.S.-made parts.
POLITICS AND BUSINESS

Toyota had been preparing the plan to cope with a strong yen, which had made U.S.-built cars more competitive. "Because of those conditions, it was not only a political decision, it was also a business decision," says Inaba. The threat of a 100 percent tax "really reinforced that and maybe made it quicker."

Other Japanese automakers joined in. Toyota, Nissan, Honda, Mitsubishi and Mazda collectively said they would boost their purchases of American-made parts by nearly $9 billion by 1998 from 1995 levels, with $6.75 billion of that for use in their North American plants.

Toyota and others refrained from calling the numbers hard commitments, but the plan was presented as the quid pro quo for dropping the luxury-car import tariff.

By divulging the figures, Toyota satisfied Clinton's desire for numerical results, not just vague promises, in its trade negotiations.

In upstaging Japan's trade ministry, Toyota also infuriated Japan's bureaucrats.

Toyota's action turned the tide. The two sides reached an agreement June 28, just hours before the tariffs were to go into effect.

Lexus was saved. And Toyota had learned a valuable lesson.
 
The problem the right had with him is that he was a fiscal conservative only in name. His first act after taking office was to raise taxes. And when the time came for a balanced budget he fought it every step of the way.

The same with welfare reform. He vetoed two bills before finally signing the one he speaks about in this article.

Wow, shall I brink forth the links that disprove these statements that you have run from before? Or do you wanna hang around this thread for a while longer before disappearing?

Your ball.
 
So Clinton wants to raise the taxes corporations pay and you applaud it. Too funny!
Clinton wants to CUT tax RATES which is what the left has been bitching about for years when it comes to Bush.

His idea is exactly what the right wants to do. Cut rates and eliminate loopholes and deductions.

Cato came up with a plan to lower the top bracket to 25% and eliminate over $1 trillion in deductions.

The net result would be far lower rates and a far more simple tax system and yet one that raises the SAME amount of money as it does today.
 
13 is huge. We can't have countries that impose greater tarriffs on our stuff than we impose on their stuff.

It's not as simple as this. Farming is one case where American food is heavily subsidized, so it makes sense for other countries to put tariffs on US food. This applies to other things as well. It's never as simple as saying both countries should have the same percent import tariff.
 
Wow, shall I brink forth the links that disprove these statements that you have run from before? Or do you wanna hang around this thread for a while longer before disappearing?

Your ball.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Responsibility_and_Work_Opportunity_Act
A central pledge of President Clinton’s campaign was to reform the welfare system, adding changes such as work requirements for recipients. However, by 1994, the Clinton Administration appeared to be more concerned with universal health care and no details or a plan had emerged on welfare reform. Gingrich accused the President of stalling on welfare, and proclaimed that Congress could pass a welfare reform bill in as little as ninety days. Gingrich insisted that the Republican Party would continue to apply political pressure to the President to approve welfare legislation.[10]

In 1996, after constructing two welfare reform bills that were vetoed by President Clinton[11], Gingrich and his supporters pushed for the passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA), a bill aimed at substantially reconstructing the welfare system. Introduced by Rep. E. Clay Shaw, Jr., the act gave state governments more autonomy over welfare delivery, while also reducing the federal government's responsibilities. It instituted the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program, which placed time limits on welfare assistance and replaced the longstanding Aid to Families with Dependent Children program. Other changes to the welfare system included stricter conditions for food stamps eligibility, reductions in immigrant welfare assistance, and recipient work requirements.[12]

Gingrich and Clinton negotiated the legislation in private meetings. Previously, Clinton had quietly spoken with Senate Majority Whip Trent Lott for months about the bill, but a compromise on a more acceptable bill for the President could not be reached. Gingrich, on the other hand, gave accurate information about his party’s vote counts and persuaded more conservative members of the Republican Party to vote in favor of PRWORA.[11]

President Clinton found the legislation more conservative than he would have preferred; however, having vetoed two earlier welfare proposals from the Republican-majority Congress, it was considered a political risk to veto a third bill during a campaign season with welfare reform as a central theme.[11] As he signed the bill on August 22, 1996, Clinton stated that the act "gives us a chance we haven't had before to break the cycle of dependency that has existed for millions and millions of our fellow citizens, exiling them from the world of work. It gives structure, meaning and dignity to most of our lives.
As I said, Clinton vetoed two bills before he signed one.

He also spoke about welfare on the campaign trail and yet did NOTHING once in office.

Meanwhile welfare reform was part of the Contract with America and poof! They magically got it passed...
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Responsibility_and_Work_Opportunity_Act

As I said, Clinton vetoed two bills before he signed one.

He also spoke about welfare on the campaign trail and yet did NOTHING once in office.

Meanwhile welfare reform was part of the Contract with America and poof! They magically got it passed...

So Clinton campaigned on getting welfare reform done, then vetoed Republican proposals that he didn't like, and worked to get common ground and passed it.

The next week, I vetoed the Republican welfare reform bill, because it did too little to move people from welfare to work and too much to hurt poor people and their children. The first time I vetoed the Republican welfare reform proposal, it had been a part of their budget. Now a number of their budget cuts were simply put in a bill with the label "welfare reform" on it. Meanwhile, Donna Shalala and I had already gone far in reforming the welfare system on our own. We had given fifty separate waivers to thirty seven states to pursue initiatives that were pro-work and pro-family. Seventy three percent of America's welfare recipients were covered by these reforms, and the welfare rolls were dropping.

He was for welfare reform and got it. How is that not fiscally conservative?
 
Clinton wants to CUT tax RATES which is what the left has been bitching about for years when it comes to Bush.

No, Clinton wants to raise taxes by getting rid of deductions, as does Simpson-Bowles. Lowering tax rates won't offset the increased taxes people will pay from lack of deductions. It's a tax increase. People (not liberals, smart people) complained about the Bush tax cuts because they cut rates without getting rid of deductions, which has significantly harmed revenue generation and provided zero (yes, 0) economic benefit for the U.S. economy.

His idea is exactly what the right wants to do. Cut rates and eliminate loopholes and deductions.

Except the right doesn't want to do that and it's why many Tea Party House members will not vote for it because they don't want to get rid of tax loopholes. They are on the record saying this; no new taxes even in the form of getting rid of corporate tax loopholes.

Cato came up with a plan to lower the top bracket to 25% and eliminate over $1 trillion in deductions.

The net result would be far lower rates and a far more simple tax system and yet one that raises the SAME amount of money as it does today.

You are seriously retarded, lol.
 
Back
Top