You haven't answered my question. You've just asked me one. I'm still waiting. I will be happy to answer yours after you've answered mine:
"What policy did Clinton implement to help the economy?"
And really jimmac...your jobless claims number is absurd. Anyone who understand the absolute most basic things about our economy knows that jobless claims BELOW 400,000 are considered "good".
I'm still waiting.
WE'VE BEEN OVER THIS ALREADY! CAN YOU HEAR ME?????
The jobless claim came straight from CNN!
Besides concerning Clinton you still couldn't answer a question about the media from years ago!
During his campaign in 92' Clinton said he would " focus like a laser beam on the economy " and the buzz phrase was " It's the economy stupid! "
The result was the longest running bull market in US history.
He did have to raise taxes which wasn't popular at the time. However people were really sick of left over " Reaganomics ".
It happened. It's history. And it wasn't republican deficit hawks becuase they'd be doing the same now.
When we first talked about this almost 2 years ago you said there was no real boom it was all the dot com thing. Now it's there was boom but it was due to republican deficit hawks. Sheesh!
I know you guys are in say anything mode but this is just dumb and I'm growing tired of your excuses.
WE'VE BEEN OVER THIS ALREADY! CAN YOU HEAR ME?????
The jobless claim came straight from CNN!
Besides concerning Clinton you still couldn't answer a question about the media from years ago!
During his campaign in 92' Clinton said he would " focus like a laser beam on the economy " and the buzz phrase was " It's the economy stupid! "
The result was the longest running bull market in US history.
He did have to raise taxes which wasn't popular at the time. However people were really sick of left over " Reaganomics ".
It happened. It's history. And it wasn't republican deficit hawks becuase they'd be doing the same now.
When we first talked about this almost 2 years ago you said there was no real boom it was all the dot com thing. Now it's there was boom but it was due to republican deficit hawks. Sheesh!
I know you guys are in say anything mode but this is just dumb and I'm growing tired of your excuses.
It happened! Get over it!
Wow, jimmac. Just...WOW. You have STILL not answered my question. It's unbelievable, even for you.
1. I'm not disptuing the jobless claims. I'm saying the number is healthy. Anything under 400,000 is a good jobless claims number.
2. I understand Clinton raised taxes. My question is: How did this, or anything else Clinton did help the economy?
3. There was a boom. Much of it did, in fact, come about as a result of the internet bubble. This didn't just include dot-coms with their IPOs, it inlcuded a soaring global market for hardware, software, etc. Everything from home PCs to optical networking cable was exploding. Then it crashed, and before Clinton left office.
4. I never said it was due to Republican deficit hawks. You said that. What I AM SAYING about "the boom" is this:
A. The real boom did not begin until after 1996. The early to mid nineties was not as good as you'd like to make it out to be.
B. The boom was caused by 1) The natural business cycle 2) An expoding demand for techology 3) Low energy prices and 4) Low interest rates.
I am then asking you:
Question 1: What did Clinton do to create the boom?
Question 2: If the boom was helped by Clinton raising taxes, then why do you not give Bush 41 credit as well? He also raised taxes.
Question 3: Do you deny that after the 1994, the Republican lead Congress contributed greatly to the balanced budgets? Are you claiming this iniative and iniatives like welfare reform were Clinton's ideas?
Regardless of personal political opinions, everyone on this board can see that you have not answered my first question, much less any others. If you have questions to ask of me, I will be happy to provide the most complete answers possible, whether you happen to agree with them or not. But as usual, I suspect you're not interested in debating on the facts. What you're interested in is rhetorical nonsense like this:
originally posted by jimmac:
Quote:
He did have to raise taxes which wasn't popular at the time. However people were really sick of left over " Reaganomics ".
Do you have polling data to show us? Do you believe Bush 41's economic policies were the same as "Reaganomics"? Who exactly are "you guys" (i.e. "you guys are in say anything mode")?
I just realized you referenced the old "Clinton Media" question. I'm not sure how liberal media bias has anything to do with this discussion, but for the record, I answered that question about ten times over. Literally...ten times Yet, every time you are cornered, you whip it out. If I had actually dodged the question, I could almost understand (even thought it rarely has anything to do with the topic you're posting in). But I did answer it, and quite completely.
Question 1: What did Clinton do to create the boom?
I'm not interested in the "boom," which could also be disparagingly called a bubble if you wish. He had the longest expansion in modern American history. The boom only came at the end, and I think most people would agree that it was overheated. Presidents can't do too much to influence the economy, but he did what he could, and I think it did have an effect. He expanded trade, at some political risk to himself. He was a good caretaker of the federal budget - which included not just raising taxes but also keeping spending restrained - and that builds confidence and keeps long-term interest rates low. There were other issues, such as what business tax breaks and what he called investments in education and training, but I'm not as convinced that those did that much compared to the other two policies.
Quote:
Question 2: If the boom was helped by Clinton raising taxes, then why do you not give Bush 41 credit as well? He also raised taxes.
First, again, it's not the boom that's important. Second, it's not just raising taxes, it's what you do with spending too.
Quote:
Question 3: Do you deny that after the 1994, the Republican lead Congress contributed greatly to the balanced budgets? Are you claiming this iniative and iniatives like welfare reform were Clinton's ideas?
Clinton ran on welfare reform in 1992 before Gingrich took Congress, so yes, it was Clinton's idea. And I don't think you can credit just Clinton or the Repubs or Dems in Congress with balancing the budget, but not a single Repub voted for the 1993 budget bill that set the stage for the entire rest of the 1990s. Clinton and the Repub Congress stalemated for many years after the 1994 Repub takeover. It was only in 1998 that they came to an agreement, and their agreement increased the deficit, it didn't decrease it. Given that, and given what we now see happens when they have a Republican president, it's hard to give them much credit.
It really depends on how you define a tax increase. Reagan unquestionably slashed the marginal rates. It is true that with other reform acts, laws were passed that were intended to raise revenue by closing loopholes, eliminating dedecutions, etc. Just looking at the revenue side is problematic. For one, it depends on either predictions of revenue, or actual revene receipts. The problem with the former is obvious. The problem with that latter is that other factors (as you yourself have said) can contribute to the equation.
Reagan did not raise rates. To me, a tax increase is when rates are raised or even new types of taxes are passed. I think perhaps Reagan raised the gas tax, and perhaps others. But, as far as personal and corporate income go, Reagan was a not just a tax cutter but a tax slasher. There really isn't much argument against this.
Yes, he cut taxes in 1981 more than he raised them in 1982. Yes, he cut marginal income tax rates in 1981 and then raised other types of taxes in 1982. But we could apply the same type of analysis to Clinton's tax increase - there was only a very small increase in the very top rate, but he also passed tax reductions for the lower-incomes. There was also a gas tax. I don't know if you were old enough to be paying taxes at the time, but I'd be willing to bet that if you were, your income taxes wouldn't have gone up. I was in college at the time, but mine wouldn't have gone up even if it was passed today. So was his not a tax increase? But you said it was the largest tax increase in history!
Wow, jimmac. Just...WOW. You have STILL not answered my question. It's unbelievable, even for you.
1. I'm not disptuing the jobless claims. I'm saying the number is healthy. Anything under 400,000 is a good jobless claims number.
2. I understand Clinton raised taxes. My question is: How did this, or anything else Clinton did help the economy?
3. There was a boom. Much of it did, in fact, come about as a result of the internet bubble. This didn't just include dot-coms with their IPOs, it inlcuded a soaring global market for hardware, software, etc. Everything from home PCs to optical networking cable was exploding. Then it crashed, and before Clinton left office.
4. I never said it was due to Republican deficit hawks. You said that. What I AM SAYING about "the boom" is this:
A. The real boom did not begin until after 1996. The early to mid nineties was not as good as you'd like to make it out to be.
B. The boom was caused by 1) The natural business cycle 2) An expoding demand for techology 3) Low energy prices and 4) Low interest rates.
I am then asking you:
Question 1: What did Clinton do to create the boom?
Question 2: If the boom was helped by Clinton raising taxes, then why do you not give Bush 41 credit as well? He also raised taxes.
Question 3: Do you deny that after the 1994, the Republican lead Congress contributed greatly to the balanced budgets? Are you claiming this iniative and iniatives like welfare reform were Clinton's ideas?
Regardless of personal political opinions, everyone on this board can see that you have not answered my first question, much less any others. If you have questions to ask of me, I will be happy to provide the most complete answers possible, whether you happen to agree with them or not. But as usual, I suspect you're not interested in debating on the facts. What you're interested in is rhetorical nonsense like this:
originally posted by jimmac:
Do you have polling data to show us? Do you believe Bush 41's economic policies were the same as "Reaganomics"? Who exactly are "you guys" (i.e. "you guys are in say anything mode")?
Lots of questions. No answers.
You don't listen to what I say and are delusional.
I'm not looking up anything for you. When people do you don't accept it or you run and hide. So what's the point?
Your made up arguments for the economy past, present, and future have never held any water.
You say the " economy's surging ".
Translation : the economy looks better in some areas ( for the election ) but it's hardly surging and the fact that after all this time and all the jobs lost ( some of them high level ) which you then try to compare them with these new low level jobs ( most of them new young people entering the workforce ) that are being reported is just dumb.
You do know how to spin and ignore what you don't like.
I'll bet the gas prices go down a bit also just before the election.
I just realized you referenced the old "Clinton Media" question. I'm not sure how liberal media bias has anything to do with this discussion, but for the record, I answered that question about ten times over. Literally...ten times Yet, every time you are cornered, you whip it out. If I had actually dodged the question, I could almost understand (even thought it rarely has anything to do with the topic you're posting in). But I did answer it, and quite completely.
What is your strawman's name, jimmac?
By the way you didn't answer this once. You dodged it ten times.
How could the media be controlled by liberals and yet have made a circus about Clinton that cost the election?
I haven't forgot.
All that attention on Clinton really was one of the main factors. If liberals controlled the media they would have played it down. Which was hardly the case.
So basically that one sentence disproves your entire theory.
Your answers like one network delaying a report on this are just hilarious.
I'm not interested in the "boom," which could also be disparagingly called a bubble if you wish. He had the longest expansion in modern American history. The boom only came at the end, and I think most people would agree that it was overheated. Presidents can't do too much to influence the economy, but he did what he could, and I think it did have an effect. He expanded trade, at some political risk to himself. He was a good caretaker of the federal budget - which included not just raising taxes but also keeping spending restrained - and that builds confidence and keeps long-term interest rates low. There were other issues, such as what business tax breaks and what he called investments in education and training, but I'm not as convinced that those did that much compared to the other two policies.
First, again, it's not the boom that's important. Second, it's not just raising taxes, it's what you do with spending too.
Clinton ran on welfare reform in 1992 before Gingrich took Congress, so yes, it was Clinton's idea. And I don't think you can credit just Clinton or the Repubs or Dems in Congress with balancing the budget, but not a single Repub voted for the 1993 budget bill that set the stage for the entire rest of the 1990s. Clinton and the Repub Congress stalemated for many years after the 1994 Repub takeover. It was only in 1998 that they came to an agreement, and their agreement increased the deficit, it didn't decrease it. Given that, and given what we now see happens when they have a Republican president, it's hard to give them much credit.
I'm not interested in the "boom," which could also be disparagingly called a bubble if you wish. He had the longest expansion in modern American history...
Which had already begun sometime in 1991. This didn't prevent Clinton from running around telling everybody that Bush's economy was the worst since the Great Depression. Actually, the 1990-91 recession was one of the mildest on record and by the fourth quarter of 1992 the economy was posting growth rates of 5.4% GDP.
Which had already begun sometime in 1991. This didn't prevent Clinton from running around telling everybody that Bush's economy was the worst since the Great Depression. Actually, the 1990-91 recession was one of the mildest on record and by the fourth quarter of 1992 the economy was posting growth rates of 5.4% GDP.
This suggests that we didn't know the recession was over until Dec. 22nd, 1992 - after the election. Not that I'd put it past Clinton to lie or anything, but I don't think that is one of them.
But it is funny how it looks like the same thing is going to happen to Bush's son. War in Iraq: highest approval rating in history. Recession ends: but people still blame him. Democrat wins the election and takes credit for the growing economy. Must be that Bush luck.
I'm not interested in the "boom," which could also be disparagingly called a bubble if you wish. He had the longest expansion in modern American history. The boom only came at the end, and I think most people would agree that it was overheated. Presidents can't do too much to influence the economy, but he did what he could, and I think it did have an effect. He expanded trade, at some political risk to himself. He was a good caretaker of the federal budget - which included not just raising taxes but also keeping spending restrained - and that builds confidence and keeps long-term interest rates low. There were other issues, such as what business tax breaks and what he called investments in education and training, but I'm not as convinced that those did that much compared to the other two policies.
First, again, it's not the boom that's important. Second, it's not just raising taxes, it's what you do with spending too.
Clinton ran on welfare reform in 1992 before Gingrich took Congress, so yes, it was Clinton's idea. And I don't think you can credit just Clinton or the Repubs or Dems in Congress with balancing the budget, but not a single Repub voted for the 1993 budget bill that set the stage for the entire rest of the 1990s. Clinton and the Repub Congress stalemated for many years after the 1994 Repub takeover. It was only in 1998 that they came to an agreement, and their agreement increased the deficit, it didn't decrease it. Given that, and given what we now see happens when they have a Republican president, it's hard to give them much credit.
1. Being a good steward of the budget, which is false anyway, doesn't necessarily stimulate the economy.
2. Spendig under Clinton exploded.
3. I'd like some backing on the 1992 campaign welfare claim. Clinton certainly tried to run as a moderate democrat. He didn't govern that way. Nationlized Healthcare, anyone?
4. You can't make judgements and gneralizations about deficits like that. You also can't say that "1993 set the stage".
I do agree that our current spending levels are insane...which I assume you believe as well.
Yes, he cut taxes in 1981 more than he raised them in 1982. Yes, he cut marginal income tax rates in 1981 and then raised other types of taxes in 1982. But we could apply the same type of analysis to Clinton's tax increase - there was only a very small increase in the very top rate, but he also passed tax reductions for the lower-incomes. There was also a gas tax. I don't know if you were old enough to be paying taxes at the time, but I'd be willing to bet that if you were, your income taxes wouldn't have gone up. I was in college at the time, but mine wouldn't have gone up even if it was passed today. So was his not a tax increase? But you said it was the largest tax increase in history!
A small increase? From 31 to 36%? That's a "small" increase? A 39.6% rate for those earning over $250,000? Lowering the income levels for the upper brackets? Hmmm....
This does not include taxes on energy, telecommunications, etc. These exploded under Clinton.
You don't listen to what I say and are delusional.
I'm not looking up anything for you. When people do you don't except it or you run and hide. So what's the point?
Your made up arguments for the economy past, present, and future have never held any water.
You say the " economy's surging ".
Translation : the economy looks better in some areas ( for the election ) but it's hardly surging and the fact that after all this time and all the jobs lost ( some of them high level ) which you then try to compare them with these new low level jobs ( most of them new young people entering the workforce ) that are being reported is just dumb.
You do know how to spin and ignore what you don't like.
I'll bet the gas prices go down a bit also just before the election.
OUT THE DOOR IN 2004!
Well, once again...you have still not answered my question. BRussell did make an attempt.
Which arguments have I made that "don't hold water"? I will be happy to discuss them with you.
As for the economy, it's in very good shape. GDP growth is good. Unemployment is low. Home ownership is at record levels. Even job growth is now on track. The economy is good, jimmac...and pardon me, but there is not a damn thing you can do about it. If you have claims on the quality of jobs, I suggest you back them.
Well, once again...you have still not answered my question. BRussell did make an attempt.
Which arguments have I made that "don't hold water"? I will be happy to discuss them with you.
As for the economy, it's in very good shape. GDP growth is good. Unemployment is low. Home ownership is at record levels. Even job growth is now on track. The economy is good, jimmac...and pardon me, but there is not a damn thing you can do about it. If you have claims on the quality of jobs, I suggest you back them.
So that's how the budget got balanced! And considering the dems only controlled congress for 2 years in his first term...
Quote:
3. I'd like some backing on the 1992 campaign welfare claim. Clinton certainly tried to run as a moderate democrat. He didn't govern that way. Nationlized Healthcare, anyone?
Man. I love my Nationalized Health Care! I never thought it would work, and frankly, when he started his first term by trying to get the ball rolling, I figured that the right wing would launch a massive media campaign--complete with commercials featuring two "average" people trying to make sense of the plan, to which the Admin would have to respond, probably with the President and First Lady spoofing the right-wing ad campaign. I dunno. Something like that. But man, I'm glad that that liberal Clinton stuck to his guns and did what he, and millions of Americans, knew was right.
Comments
Originally posted by SDW2001
You haven't answered my question. You've just asked me one. I'm still waiting. I will be happy to answer yours after you've answered mine:
"What policy did Clinton implement to help the economy?"
And really jimmac...your jobless claims number is absurd. Anyone who understand the absolute most basic things about our economy knows that jobless claims BELOW 400,000 are considered "good".
I'm still waiting.
WE'VE BEEN OVER THIS ALREADY! CAN YOU HEAR ME?????
The jobless claim came straight from CNN!
Besides concerning Clinton you still couldn't answer a question about the media from years ago!
During his campaign in 92' Clinton said he would " focus like a laser beam on the economy " and the buzz phrase was " It's the economy stupid! "
The result was the longest running bull market in US history.
He did have to raise taxes which wasn't popular at the time. However people were really sick of left over " Reaganomics ".
It happened. It's history. And it wasn't republican deficit hawks becuase they'd be doing the same now.
When we first talked about this almost 2 years ago you said there was no real boom it was all the dot com thing. Now it's there was boom but it was due to republican deficit hawks. Sheesh!
I know you guys are in say anything mode but this is just dumb and I'm growing tired of your excuses.
It happened! Get over it!
anyways.. here's an article that supports my theory in my previous post:
http://www.safehaven.com/showarticle.cfm?id=1616
Originally posted by jimmac
WE'VE BEEN OVER THIS ALREADY! CAN YOU HEAR ME?????
The jobless claim came straight from CNN!
Besides concerning Clinton you still couldn't answer a question about the media from years ago!
During his campaign in 92' Clinton said he would " focus like a laser beam on the economy " and the buzz phrase was " It's the economy stupid! "
The result was the longest running bull market in US history.
He did have to raise taxes which wasn't popular at the time. However people were really sick of left over " Reaganomics ".
It happened. It's history. And it wasn't republican deficit hawks becuase they'd be doing the same now.
When we first talked about this almost 2 years ago you said there was no real boom it was all the dot com thing. Now it's there was boom but it was due to republican deficit hawks. Sheesh!
I know you guys are in say anything mode but this is just dumb and I'm growing tired of your excuses.
It happened! Get over it!
Wow, jimmac. Just...WOW. You have STILL not answered my question. It's unbelievable, even for you.
1. I'm not disptuing the jobless claims. I'm saying the number is healthy. Anything under 400,000 is a good jobless claims number.
2. I understand Clinton raised taxes. My question is: How did this, or anything else Clinton did help the economy?
3. There was a boom. Much of it did, in fact, come about as a result of the internet bubble. This didn't just include dot-coms with their IPOs, it inlcuded a soaring global market for hardware, software, etc. Everything from home PCs to optical networking cable was exploding. Then it crashed, and before Clinton left office.
4. I never said it was due to Republican deficit hawks. You said that. What I AM SAYING about "the boom" is this:
A. The real boom did not begin until after 1996. The early to mid nineties was not as good as you'd like to make it out to be.
B. The boom was caused by 1) The natural business cycle 2) An expoding demand for techology 3) Low energy prices and 4) Low interest rates.
I am then asking you:
Question 1: What did Clinton do to create the boom?
Question 2: If the boom was helped by Clinton raising taxes, then why do you not give Bush 41 credit as well? He also raised taxes.
Question 3: Do you deny that after the 1994, the Republican lead Congress contributed greatly to the balanced budgets? Are you claiming this iniative and iniatives like welfare reform were Clinton's ideas?
Regardless of personal political opinions, everyone on this board can see that you have not answered my first question, much less any others. If you have questions to ask of me, I will be happy to provide the most complete answers possible, whether you happen to agree with them or not. But as usual, I suspect you're not interested in debating on the facts. What you're interested in is rhetorical nonsense like this:
originally posted by jimmac:
He did have to raise taxes which wasn't popular at the time. However people were really sick of left over " Reaganomics ".
Do you have polling data to show us? Do you believe Bush 41's economic policies were the same as "Reaganomics"? Who exactly are "you guys" (i.e. "you guys are in say anything mode")?
Lots of questions. No answers.
I just realized you referenced the old "Clinton Media" question. I'm not sure how liberal media bias has anything to do with this discussion, but for the record, I answered that question about ten times over. Literally...ten times Yet, every time you are cornered, you whip it out. If I had actually dodged the question, I could almost understand (even thought it rarely has anything to do with the topic you're posting in). But I did answer it, and quite completely.
What is your strawman's name, jimmac?
Originally posted by Powerdoc
Keep the discussion civil please.
I'm challenging him to back his claims and not dodge questions. Explain to me how that's uncivil or approaching it please.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Question 1: What did Clinton do to create the boom?
I'm not interested in the "boom," which could also be disparagingly called a bubble if you wish. He had the longest expansion in modern American history. The boom only came at the end, and I think most people would agree that it was overheated. Presidents can't do too much to influence the economy, but he did what he could, and I think it did have an effect. He expanded trade, at some political risk to himself. He was a good caretaker of the federal budget - which included not just raising taxes but also keeping spending restrained - and that builds confidence and keeps long-term interest rates low. There were other issues, such as what business tax breaks and what he called investments in education and training, but I'm not as convinced that those did that much compared to the other two policies.
Question 2: If the boom was helped by Clinton raising taxes, then why do you not give Bush 41 credit as well? He also raised taxes.
First, again, it's not the boom that's important. Second, it's not just raising taxes, it's what you do with spending too.
Question 3: Do you deny that after the 1994, the Republican lead Congress contributed greatly to the balanced budgets? Are you claiming this iniative and iniatives like welfare reform were Clinton's ideas?
Clinton ran on welfare reform in 1992 before Gingrich took Congress, so yes, it was Clinton's idea. And I don't think you can credit just Clinton or the Repubs or Dems in Congress with balancing the budget, but not a single Repub voted for the 1993 budget bill that set the stage for the entire rest of the 1990s. Clinton and the Repub Congress stalemated for many years after the 1994 Repub takeover. It was only in 1998 that they came to an agreement, and their agreement increased the deficit, it didn't decrease it. Given that, and given what we now see happens when they have a Republican president, it's hard to give them much credit.
Originally posted by SDW2001
It really depends on how you define a tax increase. Reagan unquestionably slashed the marginal rates. It is true that with other reform acts, laws were passed that were intended to raise revenue by closing loopholes, eliminating dedecutions, etc. Just looking at the revenue side is problematic. For one, it depends on either predictions of revenue, or actual revene receipts. The problem with the former is obvious. The problem with that latter is that other factors (as you yourself have said) can contribute to the equation.
Reagan did not raise rates. To me, a tax increase is when rates are raised or even new types of taxes are passed. I think perhaps Reagan raised the gas tax, and perhaps others. But, as far as personal and corporate income go, Reagan was a not just a tax cutter but a tax slasher. There really isn't much argument against this.
Yes, he cut taxes in 1981 more than he raised them in 1982. Yes, he cut marginal income tax rates in 1981 and then raised other types of taxes in 1982. But we could apply the same type of analysis to Clinton's tax increase - there was only a very small increase in the very top rate, but he also passed tax reductions for the lower-incomes. There was also a gas tax. I don't know if you were old enough to be paying taxes at the time, but I'd be willing to bet that if you were, your income taxes wouldn't have gone up. I was in college at the time, but mine wouldn't have gone up even if it was passed today. So was his not a tax increase? But you said it was the largest tax increase in history!
Originally posted by SDW2001
Wow, jimmac. Just...WOW. You have STILL not answered my question. It's unbelievable, even for you.
1. I'm not disptuing the jobless claims. I'm saying the number is healthy. Anything under 400,000 is a good jobless claims number.
2. I understand Clinton raised taxes. My question is: How did this, or anything else Clinton did help the economy?
3. There was a boom. Much of it did, in fact, come about as a result of the internet bubble. This didn't just include dot-coms with their IPOs, it inlcuded a soaring global market for hardware, software, etc. Everything from home PCs to optical networking cable was exploding. Then it crashed, and before Clinton left office.
4. I never said it was due to Republican deficit hawks. You said that. What I AM SAYING about "the boom" is this:
A. The real boom did not begin until after 1996. The early to mid nineties was not as good as you'd like to make it out to be.
B. The boom was caused by 1) The natural business cycle 2) An expoding demand for techology 3) Low energy prices and 4) Low interest rates.
I am then asking you:
Question 1: What did Clinton do to create the boom?
Question 2: If the boom was helped by Clinton raising taxes, then why do you not give Bush 41 credit as well? He also raised taxes.
Question 3: Do you deny that after the 1994, the Republican lead Congress contributed greatly to the balanced budgets? Are you claiming this iniative and iniatives like welfare reform were Clinton's ideas?
Regardless of personal political opinions, everyone on this board can see that you have not answered my first question, much less any others. If you have questions to ask of me, I will be happy to provide the most complete answers possible, whether you happen to agree with them or not. But as usual, I suspect you're not interested in debating on the facts. What you're interested in is rhetorical nonsense like this:
originally posted by jimmac:
Do you have polling data to show us? Do you believe Bush 41's economic policies were the same as "Reaganomics"? Who exactly are "you guys" (i.e. "you guys are in say anything mode")?
Lots of questions. No answers.
You don't listen to what I say and are delusional.
I'm not looking up anything for you. When people do you don't accept it or you run and hide. So what's the point?
Your made up arguments for the economy past, present, and future have never held any water.
You say the " economy's surging ".
Translation : the economy looks better in some areas ( for the election ) but it's hardly surging and the fact that after all this time and all the jobs lost ( some of them high level ) which you then try to compare them with these new low level jobs ( most of them new young people entering the workforce ) that are being reported is just dumb.
You do know how to spin and ignore what you don't like.
I'll bet the gas prices go down a bit also just before the election.
OUT THE DOOR IN 2004!
Originally posted by SDW2001
To follow up:
I just realized you referenced the old "Clinton Media" question. I'm not sure how liberal media bias has anything to do with this discussion, but for the record, I answered that question about ten times over. Literally...ten times Yet, every time you are cornered, you whip it out. If I had actually dodged the question, I could almost understand (even thought it rarely has anything to do with the topic you're posting in). But I did answer it, and quite completely.
What is your strawman's name, jimmac?
By the way you didn't answer this once. You dodged it ten times.
How could the media be controlled by liberals and yet have made a circus about Clinton that cost the election?
I haven't forgot.
All that attention on Clinton really was one of the main factors. If liberals controlled the media they would have played it down. Which was hardly the case.
So basically that one sentence disproves your entire theory.
Your answers like one network delaying a report on this are just hilarious.
Originally posted by BRussell
I'm not interested in the "boom," which could also be disparagingly called a bubble if you wish. He had the longest expansion in modern American history. The boom only came at the end, and I think most people would agree that it was overheated. Presidents can't do too much to influence the economy, but he did what he could, and I think it did have an effect. He expanded trade, at some political risk to himself. He was a good caretaker of the federal budget - which included not just raising taxes but also keeping spending restrained - and that builds confidence and keeps long-term interest rates low. There were other issues, such as what business tax breaks and what he called investments in education and training, but I'm not as convinced that those did that much compared to the other two policies.
First, again, it's not the boom that's important. Second, it's not just raising taxes, it's what you do with spending too.
Clinton ran on welfare reform in 1992 before Gingrich took Congress, so yes, it was Clinton's idea. And I don't think you can credit just Clinton or the Repubs or Dems in Congress with balancing the budget, but not a single Repub voted for the 1993 budget bill that set the stage for the entire rest of the 1990s. Clinton and the Repub Congress stalemated for many years after the 1994 Repub takeover. It was only in 1998 that they came to an agreement, and their agreement increased the deficit, it didn't decrease it. Given that, and given what we now see happens when they have a Republican president, it's hard to give them much credit.
-----------------------------------------------------------
" Given that, and given what we now see happens when they have a Republican president, it's hard to give them much credit. "
-----------------------------------------------------------
Thank you!
Originally posted by BRussell
I'm not interested in the "boom," which could also be disparagingly called a bubble if you wish. He had the longest expansion in modern American history...
Which had already begun sometime in 1991. This didn't prevent Clinton from running around telling everybody that Bush's economy was the worst since the Great Depression. Actually, the 1990-91 recession was one of the mildest on record and by the fourth quarter of 1992 the economy was posting growth rates of 5.4% GDP.
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
Which had already begun sometime in 1991. This didn't prevent Clinton from running around telling everybody that Bush's economy was the worst since the Great Depression. Actually, the 1990-91 recession was one of the mildest on record and by the fourth quarter of 1992 the economy was posting growth rates of 5.4% GDP.
This suggests that we didn't know the recession was over until Dec. 22nd, 1992 - after the election. Not that I'd put it past Clinton to lie or anything, but I don't think that is one of them.
But it is funny how it looks like the same thing is going to happen to Bush's son. War in Iraq: highest approval rating in history. Recession ends: but people still blame him. Democrat wins the election and takes credit for the growing economy. Must be that Bush luck.
Originally posted by BRussell
Must be that Bush luck.
Ahh yes, like father like son.
Originally posted by BRussell
I'm not interested in the "boom," which could also be disparagingly called a bubble if you wish. He had the longest expansion in modern American history. The boom only came at the end, and I think most people would agree that it was overheated. Presidents can't do too much to influence the economy, but he did what he could, and I think it did have an effect. He expanded trade, at some political risk to himself. He was a good caretaker of the federal budget - which included not just raising taxes but also keeping spending restrained - and that builds confidence and keeps long-term interest rates low. There were other issues, such as what business tax breaks and what he called investments in education and training, but I'm not as convinced that those did that much compared to the other two policies.
First, again, it's not the boom that's important. Second, it's not just raising taxes, it's what you do with spending too.
Clinton ran on welfare reform in 1992 before Gingrich took Congress, so yes, it was Clinton's idea. And I don't think you can credit just Clinton or the Repubs or Dems in Congress with balancing the budget, but not a single Repub voted for the 1993 budget bill that set the stage for the entire rest of the 1990s. Clinton and the Repub Congress stalemated for many years after the 1994 Repub takeover. It was only in 1998 that they came to an agreement, and their agreement increased the deficit, it didn't decrease it. Given that, and given what we now see happens when they have a Republican president, it's hard to give them much credit.
1. Being a good steward of the budget, which is false anyway, doesn't necessarily stimulate the economy.
2. Spendig under Clinton exploded.
3. I'd like some backing on the 1992 campaign welfare claim. Clinton certainly tried to run as a moderate democrat. He didn't govern that way. Nationlized Healthcare, anyone?
4. You can't make judgements and gneralizations about deficits like that. You also can't say that "1993 set the stage".
I do agree that our current spending levels are insane...which I assume you believe as well.
Originally posted by BRussell
Yes, he cut taxes in 1981 more than he raised them in 1982. Yes, he cut marginal income tax rates in 1981 and then raised other types of taxes in 1982. But we could apply the same type of analysis to Clinton's tax increase - there was only a very small increase in the very top rate, but he also passed tax reductions for the lower-incomes. There was also a gas tax. I don't know if you were old enough to be paying taxes at the time, but I'd be willing to bet that if you were, your income taxes wouldn't have gone up. I was in college at the time, but mine wouldn't have gone up even if it was passed today. So was his not a tax increase? But you said it was the largest tax increase in history!
A small increase? From 31 to 36%? That's a "small" increase? A 39.6% rate for those earning over $250,000? Lowering the income levels for the upper brackets? Hmmm....
This does not include taxes on energy, telecommunications, etc. These exploded under Clinton.
Originally posted by jimmac
You don't listen to what I say and are delusional.
I'm not looking up anything for you. When people do you don't except it or you run and hide. So what's the point?
Your made up arguments for the economy past, present, and future have never held any water.
You say the " economy's surging ".
Translation : the economy looks better in some areas ( for the election ) but it's hardly surging and the fact that after all this time and all the jobs lost ( some of them high level ) which you then try to compare them with these new low level jobs ( most of them new young people entering the workforce ) that are being reported is just dumb.
You do know how to spin and ignore what you don't like.
I'll bet the gas prices go down a bit also just before the election.
OUT THE DOOR IN 2004!
Well, once again...you have still not answered my question. BRussell did make an attempt.
Which arguments have I made that "don't hold water"? I will be happy to discuss them with you.
As for the economy, it's in very good shape. GDP growth is good. Unemployment is low. Home ownership is at record levels. Even job growth is now on track. The economy is good, jimmac...and pardon me, but there is not a damn thing you can do about it. If you have claims on the quality of jobs, I suggest you back them.
Still waiting for my answer.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Well, once again...you have still not answered my question. BRussell did make an attempt.
Which arguments have I made that "don't hold water"? I will be happy to discuss them with you.
As for the economy, it's in very good shape. GDP growth is good. Unemployment is low. Home ownership is at record levels. Even job growth is now on track. The economy is good, jimmac...and pardon me, but there is not a damn thing you can do about it. If you have claims on the quality of jobs, I suggest you back them.
Still waiting for my answer.
================================================== =========
" Which arguments have I made that "don't hold water "
================================================== =========
Take your pick.
http://www.businessweek.com/careers/...6576_ca024.htm
http://money.cnn.com/2004/06/11/news...reut/index.htm
You really can't see what's been going on can you?
Man!
Originally posted by SDW2001
2. Spendig under Clinton exploded.
So that's how the budget got balanced! And considering the dems only controlled congress for 2 years in his first term...
3. I'd like some backing on the 1992 campaign welfare claim. Clinton certainly tried to run as a moderate democrat. He didn't govern that way. Nationlized Healthcare, anyone?
Man. I love my Nationalized Health Care! I never thought it would work, and frankly, when he started his first term by trying to get the ball rolling, I figured that the right wing would launch a massive media campaign--complete with commercials featuring two "average" people trying to make sense of the plan, to which the Admin would have to respond, probably with the President and First Lady spoofing the right-wing ad campaign. I dunno. Something like that. But man, I'm glad that that liberal Clinton stuck to his guns and did what he, and millions of Americans, knew was right.