MPP Dems Learn to Negotiate
MPP A Natural Experiment
G2A Correlation does not imply Causation
In particular, Bill P and I don't necessarily agree regarding who is responsible for the good times we experienced in the 1990's or why Bill Clinton was disapproved of by some folks. Here is Bill P's version of reality. What do you think?
"No, their problem with Clinton was not with his infidelity and the "cover up." That was a GOP pretense. They didn't have any grounds to object on the basis of "morality" or "covering up:" Gingrich and dozens of other conservative Republicans had done the same or worse as Clinton.
Gingrich's GOP found they couldn't stop Clinton through regular political channels. They were confronted with the spectacle of a popular liberal president--presiding over a longer period of US economic growth than under Reagan--and the GOP congress wasn't going to get any credit for the success of that economy, because they'd fought Clinton policy every step of the way...
...so Gingrich and the conservatives rolled the dice one more time, betting on a big fat juicy scandal easy-for-the-media-to-understand sex scandal that just guaranteed to bring down a popular Dem White House and secure a conservative future.
But the voters were smarter than they thought; the voters saw that the whole thing was hypocritical and politically (not morally or legally) motivated--and instead of Clinton, it was Gingrich booted out on his a**.
And Clinton stuck around to balance that damn budget, to leave office with a high approval rating, and only the Constitution stopping him from being voted in for a third term.
And then that guy all the conservatives promoted and voted for got in. And with the help of the conservative Republican Congress, he ran the country, the economy, and that balanced budget you want so much: right into the s***ter." Bill P.
_______________________________________
"I think I remember the Republican Congress giving him a hand. And quite a few fits...
Entitlement spending has to be brought in line with payroll tax revenues. I just don't think the Democrats are even dealing with that reality.
Or it becomes another welfare program. Which should have means testing and work requirements." John (G2A)Wiki Govt Shutdown
Wiki Clinton Impeachment
Wiki Welfare Reform
I like Bill Clinton, but I think he had a lot of help and good luck. The Soviet Union was reeling, Saddam was in his No Fly Zone prison, Al-Qaeda hadn't flown jets into US national treasures and killed thousands, etc. The internet, other technologies, and the Y2K scare was driving lots of work. The GOP helped minimize spending increases.
I won't bother defending Bush other than to say that he had lot more problems to deal with. The tax cut probably should have never happened, especially if he knew the war was coming. But of course he didn't because the towers had not been blown up yet... Bummer.
Wiki No Fly Zones
Wiki Terrorist Attacks
Wiki Bush Tax Cut (1st)
12 comments:
A large part of the good times of 90's, I will readily concede, were the result of Bush's tax increases, which basically helped get America's fiscal house in order after the disastrous Reagan presidency. Clinton benefited hugely from those.
--Hiram
I was just amazed by Bill P's almost hero worship of the man.
Is he the DFL's "Reagan"?
Consideringthe mess Reagan inherited from Carter, I thought he did okay. Except that he seemed to like to spend like Bush II.
Like Reagan, Clinton has had an excellent post presidency. Contemporary views of both presidencies weren't nearly as rosy. One thing Clinton has benefited from lately is conservative lip service they praise him in order to set up an unfavorable comparison with President Obama. Obviously also, Clinton has benefited from the comparison with the disastrous presidency that followed his. Conservatives thought they could get away with this because Bill can't run again. However, Bill burned them big time at the Democratic Convention.
I certainly have mixed feelings about Clinton. His involvement with Ms. Lewinsky was inexcusable. He is very much politician as tactician. After the first two years, his administration was better known for what it prevented being done than what it did.
--Hiram
People keep talking about the Bush tax cuts as if they were the cause of the overspending of the Bush years. Two facts to keep in mind: 1) with those cuts in place, we fought two wars and pulled the economy out of the "twin towers recession," and 2) the last four years saw the deficit rapidly decreasing. The first Obama budget had a deficit TEN TIMES the size! And it's been the same every year. If Obama and the Senate Democrats can't reduce the deficit from such outrageous and ruinous extremes in 4 years, they are either criminally incompetent or criminal masterminds. I think I know which way I would vote.
I agree that people forget that the 2001 recession was almost a non-starter due to the cuts. Especially given the tech bubble implosion, the towers explosion and everyone being scared to fly occurring...
Though don't let him off on the over spending. He was at fault for much of it. Obama's problem is that he seems in no hurry to reduce it again. In fact he seems to want to raise it..
Fact Check Bush Obama Spending
The chart I find most enlightening is a comparison of the deficits during the two presidencies. It shows clearly that Obama went nuts with spending, when he should have been cutting back. Your chart shows that Bush was cutting the deficit because revenues were increasing. Maybe due to the tax cuts?
Did you even bother to read the text???
Or did you just find a pretty graph that you could perceive incorrectly?
I read it, but didn't see anything to change my interpretation of the facts. The article couches it as "Obama didn't add much to the spending, but he didn't tamp it out" or words to that effect. Since revenues dropped because of the recession, spending should have been drastically cut, just as you or I would do if we took a cut in pay. Blame TARP for the huge initial increase in spending if you want, but you have to blame Obama and the Democrats who controlled Congress AND the Senate for perverting TARP and then continuing the spending binge, without ever passing an actual budget.
Now I am not much of a Keynesian, however even I can see that may not have been a good idea.
"Private sector is faltering, so gut the Public sector aggressively, and hope for something to jump start the economy."
Especially while still embroiled in 2 wars abroad.
Even Bush knew the Govt spending was needed to minimize the depth of the recession that the housing bubble burst helped to cause.
Obama's unwillingness to deal with the long term structural fiscal problems worries me more than the short term spending.
Obama's short term gross fiscal mismanagement is what is CAUSING the long term fiscal disaster, and bringing it on much more quickly. TARP, as originally sold, was the "troubled asset relief program" and it was supposed to "bail out" individuals who took on too much mortgage, thus keeping the banks afloat. Not exactly the best solution to a problem caused by government intrusion into private economic transactions, but not bad when faced with the bursting of the housing bubble. But what Obama did was to redirect that aid directly to the BANKS, and left the homeowners dangling.
"Private sector is faltering, so gut the Public sector aggressively, and hope for something to jump start the economy."
Yes! That's exactly what should happen. Sort of like how the Bush tax cuts stimulated the economy. Exactly how Obama cut Social Security taxes (making it MORE insolvent) to stimulate the economy, and how he now insists on "middle class tax cuts" (continuing the Bush cuts again) to avoid another recession. Exactly how Kennedy and Reagan cut taxes and stimulated the economy. I think Keynes was and will always be wrong. The answer to a faltering private economy is never to take more money OUT of the private economy for government spending. The government can only spend what the private economy first generates in tax revenue. Keynes would have us believe it is the other way around.
Neither Bush nor Obama took more liquid money out the economy. Though they did ring up the debt...
Money taken out of the capital markets is even more disruptive of the economy than "liquid money." And federal deficits are the worst, because they are not generally spent on capital projects at all, let alone those that will effectively generate future economic growth.
Post a Comment