Presidents and prosperity: Economy did best when Clinton was in office

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: irwincur
People seem to foget that Clinton left the economy in shambles, you know the worst economy since the Depression (according to Dean and Kerry). Well that was all because of Clinton front loading the federal treasury with tax hikes to pay down the debt. Classic reason as to why tax hikes are dangerous. The provide an initial boost (and may last through a presidents term) but they will always end in recession, convieniently usually just as the guy is leaving office.

Three cheers to the short term fix. Ask Europeans what happens after government continuously raise taxes over and over. You get backed into a corner with an economy that has not grown significantly in decades shouldered with an increasing debt load. In the end you are looking at technical government bankruptcy like many of the Northern European Welfare states are. Within 30 years they will have no money, zero economic growth, and more importantly nowhere to turn for more tax income. Effective tax rates today are above 90%. That leaves little fromm cash for economic development and consumer spending. It is simply the slow trek towards Socialism, or more accurately Communism.

Just wondering where you get the notion that tax hike boosts the economy initially and leaves it in recession. From my years of school, both undergrad and grad, I've never heard of tax hike being used as an instrument to boost the economy, most economist believes in the opposite where tax cut boost the economy. Clinton's tax cut was used to reduce deficit and manage the interest rate and USD exchange rate.

There is no one cause for the tech bubble. But from my years of experience in the technology sector, the reason most insiders believe had lots to do with the tech bubble had been the Y2k problem. Many companies rushed to buy new systems/hardware and hire technology consultant anticipating Y2k will bring down the old systems. The tech sector grew tremendously because of that and after Y2K the demand just evaporated and the tech companies, after years of expansion was not able to adjust to the sudden lost of demand.

This Y2K issue has nothing to do with Clinton or Bush in the White House. I don't think either President has anything do with the recession in 2001. What I do have problem with, are the policy President put forth to manage the fiscal health of a country.

Managing the finance of a country is not much different from managing personal finance. You get into trouble when you spend more than you earn. You can probably deal with temporally short fall, but no one can sustain long term deficit. Bottom line, Clinton recognized the need to balance the budget and manage the deficit. Bush spend and spend and spend. His tax cut may be necessary to boost the economy. But the dividend tax cut that accounted for almost half of the total package gives money to the wealthy when average Joe were the one suffering the most during this recession. His war with Iraq just put the country further into debt without any benefit. (unless you are Hilliburton)

There are many factors affecting the well being of national economy. A responsible President recognizes the importance of balanced spending that leads to low interest rate, stable currency and low inflation. Those indicators lead to a healthy environment for which the economy can sustain long term and healthy growth. Irresponsible President looks to spend and make special interest group happy so their party gets the vote during election. I think Bush belongs to the irresponsible side.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The country was in terrible hands under Clinton but under Bush we've gone from bad to disaster. Bush is a catastrophe and it doesn't help a bit that God is pissed the Chimp stole the election of the country under Him. You let it happen and you are paying, you US citizens here.

What about the smoting? When does that happen?

9/11, I think, is when it started and then we went into Iraq.

So the war in Iraq has God's tacit approval? Bush had to redeem himself in His eyes by waging a holy crusade against the heathens?

Oh no, the war in Iraq is part of the smoting. We're screwed because of it.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The country was in terrible hands under Clinton but under Bush we've gone from bad to disaster. Bush is a catastrophe and it doesn't help a bit that God is pissed the Chimp stole the election of the country under Him. You let it happen and you are paying, you US citizens here.

What about the smoting? When does that happen?

9/11, I think, is when it started and then we went into Iraq.

So the war in Iraq has God's tacit approval? Bush had to redeem himself in His eyes by waging a holy crusade against the heathens?

Oh no, the war in Iraq is part of the smoting. We're screwed because of it.

I do not believe God talks through Dubya. I do not believe God would mispronounciate so many words.

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: conjur
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5474580/

To create our rankings we looked at six measures of economic performance ? GDP growth, per capita income growth, employment gains, unemployment rate reduction, inflation reduction and federal deficit reduction ? for each of the ten postwar presidencies. For each measure we looked at whether the situation improved or got worse, and we ranked the presidents from 1 to 10. We then averaged the ranks to come up with a final score. (Click here for the complete underlying data.)

To be sure, there is a sharp debate as to the ability of any president ? or government ? to control the economy. But that doesn't prevent the heads of Wall Street firms such as Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley and Citigroup from rooting for one candidate over another based on expectations of economic performance. Fairly or not, each president was judged by how much prosperity is delivered on his watch. Some presidents, it seems, have watched a lot more effectively than others. (We did not rank the current president, whose term is not yet over.)

Since deficit reduction and jobs creation are two key components, I seriously doubt GWB will crack that Top 10.

Some people are not ready to judge Clinton on his accomplishments and his failures. Maybe it will take another generation before they can.

Did anyone in this thread mention that he got a bj in the oval office?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The country was in terrible hands under Clinton but under Bush we've gone from bad to disaster. Bush is a catastrophe and it doesn't help a bit that God is pissed the Chimp stole the election of the country under Him. You let it happen and you are paying, you US citizens here.

What about the smoting? When does that happen?

9/11, I think, is when it started and then we went into Iraq.

So the war in Iraq has God's tacit approval? Bush had to redeem himself in His eyes by waging a holy crusade against the heathens?

Oh no, the war in Iraq is part of the smoting. We're screwed because of it.

I do not believe God talks through Dubya. I do not believe God would mispronounciate so many words.

Bush says it's God, but is you are right then maybe it's somebody pretending to be God, maybe the guy on the other shoulder.

 

[Lazy8s]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: irwincur
People seem to foget that Clinton left the economy in shambles, you know the worst economy since the Depression (according to Dean and Kerry). Well that was all because of Clinton front loading the federal treasury with tax hikes to pay down the debt. Classic reason as to why tax hikes are dangerous. The provide an initial boost (and may last through a presidents term) but they will always end in recession, convieniently usually just as the guy is leaving office.

Three cheers to the short term fix. Ask Europeans what happens after government continuously raise taxes over and over. You get backed into a corner with an economy that has not grown significantly in decades shouldered with an increasing debt load. In the end you are looking at technical government bankruptcy like many of the Northern European Welfare states are. Within 30 years they will have no money, zero economic growth, and more importantly nowhere to turn for more tax income. Effective tax rates today are above 90%. That leaves little fromm cash for economic development and consumer spending. It is simply the slow trek towards Socialism, or more accurately Communism.

Just wondering where you get the notion that tax hike boosts the economy initially and leaves it in recession. From my years of school, both undergrad and grad, I've never heard of tax hike being used as an instrument to boost the economy, most economist believes in the opposite where tax cut boost the economy. Clinton's tax cut was used to reduce deficit and manage the interest rate and USD exchange rate.

There is no one cause for the tech bubble. But from my years of experience in the technology sector, the reason most insiders believe had lots to do with the tech bubble had been the Y2k problem. Many companies rushed to buy new systems/hardware and hire technology consultant anticipating Y2k will bring down the old systems. The tech sector grew tremendously because of that and after Y2K the demand just evaporated and the tech companies, after years of expansion was not able to adjust to the sudden lost of demand.

This Y2K issue has nothing to do with Clinton or Bush in the White House. I don't think either President has anything do with the recession in 2001. What I do have problem with, are the policy President put forth to manage the fiscal health of a country.

Managing the finance of a country is not much different from managing personal finance. You get into trouble when you spend more than you earn. You can probably deal with temporally short fall, but no one can sustain long term deficit. Bottom line, Clinton recognized the need to balance the budget and manage the deficit. Bush spend and spend and spend. His tax cut may be necessary to boost the economy. But the dividend tax cut that accounted for almost half of the total package gives money to the wealthy when average Joe were the one suffering the most during this recession. His war with Iraq just put the country further into debt without any benefit. (unless you are Hilliburton)

There are many factors affecting the well being of national economy. A responsible President recognizes the importance of balanced spending that leads to low interest rate, stable currency and low inflation. Those indicators lead to a healthy environment for which the economy can sustain long term and healthy growth. Irresponsible President looks to spend and make special interest group happy so their party gets the vote during election. I think Bush belongs to the irresponsible side.

How many years in school??

Econ1500: One of the 3 best ways to stimulate economy is to increase government spending. How do you do that? Raise the taxes.

It won't leave anyone in a recession as suggested, but it will boost the economy.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Lazy8s
How many years in school??

Econ1500: One of the 3 best ways to stimulate economy is to increase government spending. How do you do that? Raise the taxes.

It won't leave anyone in a recession as suggested, but it will boost the economy.

No Thank You, the U.S. Govt is way too big as it as well as the State and local Govt's way too big.

You may be a fan of Robinhood but that will only lead to the new American Revolutionary War against itself.

 

[Lazy8s]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Lazy8s
How many years in school??

Econ1500: One of the 3 best ways to stimulate economy is to increase government spending. How do you do that? Raise the taxes.

It won't leave anyone in a recession as suggested, but it will boost the economy.

No Thank You, the U.S. Govt is way too big as it as well as the State and local Govt's way too big.

You may be a fan of Robinhood but that will only lead to the new American Revolutionary War against itself.

You confuse my correction with my agreement. I didn't say I support tax cuts, I simply said that they are one of the fastest/best ways to stimulate an economy, but who wants more taxes?

 

[piasabird]

Clinton did such a good job passing bills that led to California being ripped off by the Electric Companies. He also was in office during one of the longest running economic upturns this country has ever seen. Even the economists kept saying this can last forever, it is time for a correction and then just scratched their head year after year.

It boggles the mind that under Clinton, who basically did nothing, the economy was great.

 

[sapiens74]

credting or blaming one man for our economy is an insult to those of who who work and pay taxes and make tis economy what it is.

good or bad it belongs to the people.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: Lazy8s

Econ1500: One of the 3 best ways to stimulate economy is to increase government spending. How do you do that? Raise the taxes.

It won't leave anyone in a recession as suggested, but it will boost the economy.

Raise tax equal to increase spending? How do you know that. Tax can be use to pay debts and the host of other thing. How do you know the tax money is going out back to the market? You can increase spending without increasing tax too. Increase tax and increase spending is two totally different matter.

 

[Acanthus]

we are fighting a 2 front war with deployments in 2 seperate countries, and paying for the reconstruction of both.

OF COURSE WE ARE GOING TO BE IN DEBT! ARE YOU PEOPLE RETARDED?!

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: Acanthus
we are fighting a 2 front war with deployments in 2 seperate countries, and paying for the reconstruction of both.

OF COURSE WE ARE GOING TO BE IN DEBT! ARE YOU PEOPLE RETARDED?!

Yeah and don't forget the tax cut, medicare package and the homeland security department.....The retarded guy is the one keep on opening American government bank without thinking who is paying for it down the road.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: Acanthus
we are fighting a 2 front war with deployments in 2 seperate countries, and paying for the reconstruction of both.

OF COURSE WE ARE GOING TO BE IN DEBT! ARE YOU PEOPLE RETARDED?!

Yeah and don't forget the tax cut, medicare package and the homeland security department.....The retarded guy is the one keep on opening American government bank without thinking who is paying for it down the road.

Yeah we didnt need any of those things. :roll:

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: Acanthus
we are fighting a 2 front war with deployments in 2 seperate countries, and paying for the reconstruction of both.

OF COURSE WE ARE GOING TO BE IN DEBT! ARE YOU PEOPLE RETARDED?!

Yeah and don't forget the tax cut, medicare package and the homeland security department.....The retarded guy is the one keep on opening American government bank without thinking who is paying for it down the road.

Yeah we didnt need any of those things. :roll:

Remind me again why we need to invade and rebuild Iraq?

 

[glenn1]

Managing the finance of a country is not much different from managing personal finance.

Oh really?

How many families own a printing press that they legally can use to create money at will? Or control an organization like the Federal Reserve, essentially being able to set their own costs for borrowing money? Or to have the ability to set their own income (via tax code), with a horde of enforcement agents (the IRS) to ensure they get paid? Or have annual family budgets that run tens of thousands of pages?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Acanthus
we are fighting a 2 front war with deployments in 2 seperate countries, and paying for the reconstruction of both.

OF COURSE WE ARE GOING TO BE IN DEBT! ARE YOU PEOPLE RETARDED?!

The most costly war (Iraq) is also the one that is /was the most unnecessary.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: glenn1

Managing the finance of a country is not much different from managing personal finance.

Oh really?

How many families own a printing press that they legally can use to create money at will? Or control an organization like the Federal Reserve, essentially being able to set their own costs for borrowing money? Or to have the ability to set their own income (via tax code), with a horde of enforcement agents (the IRS) to ensure they get paid? Or have annual family budgets that run tens of thousands of pages?

Sure a country has more option to managing its finance, but it is still all about balancing income and spending. A country can not print money at will, or inflation will skyrocket or the currency will go into free fall. A country cannot set their income via tax code arbitrarily, unless the government wants to get voted out, or face riots.

It doesn't matter how many pages the budget runs, as long as the country has enough revenue to pay for what it budget for, just like you need to have enough income to pay for what you spend in your personal life.