Originally Posted by BRussell
If it's not the natural cycle, and instead it's tax cuts that create growth, then how did Clinton's tax increase lead to an even better economy than Bush's tax cuts have?
There's a very clear record, and the only thing tax cuts do is cause deficits. Oh, and gain votes.
Whoah. Slow down, champ. How do you define and support the notion of "better?" If it was, it was marginally so.
But let's assume for a minute that it was
better. How exactly did Clinton help it? You can perhaps argue that the economy was better in spite of
those tax increases on the middle class and rich, but not because of
. Really...is there anyone here who believes tax increases help
the economy? They may bring more revenue in the short term, thereby (possibly) decreasing deficits.
Clinton took little to no policy action that caused the economic boom of the later 1990's. So what was ia result of? Part of it was
the natural business cycle, but a good bit of it was the transition to a more service based economy and of course, the tech boom.
When the bubble burst and things finally slowed down, stimulus was needed. Tax and Fed. rate cuts pumped money into the system to be sure. Now, again I'm sure the natural business cycle was part of it. But this is one tangible thing that was done that had clear results.