It Really is Bush's Fault

[SwingVoter]

just looking at some budget data

8 years under Clinton - gov't receipts rose from 1.2 trillion to 2 trillion, 8 years under Bush, just 2 to 2.1

8 years under Clinton - spending rose from 1.4t to 1.9 trillion, under Bush 1.9 trillion to 3.4 trillion

8 years under Clinton - 20 million jobs created in the private sector, 1.5 million in all government sectors, under Bush, 600,000 jobs created in the private sector, 2 million in government

moreover, Clinton's 93 tax increase was followed by a huge economic expansion, Bush's 2001 tax cuts were followed by job losses, and then very anemic private sector growth from 04 to 07

so what's the problem if we repeat this with Obama raising taxes, and then GOP Congress blocking spending bills, divided government and constant fighting on the Hill led to great economic results in the 90s, because it made government impotent and inactive, while taking it out of the business of borrowing massively, think how much worse off we'd be if we were carrying another trillion or two of debt from the 90s

GOP limits government by blocking Dem spending bills, not by actually running government, and as long as they keep promising to cut taxes while not cutting medicare, pensions, defense, or social security, best to keep them out of the White House, but well represented in Coingress

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Clinton's Tax increases did not create a single Job, that occurred after the Republicans took over Congress and CUT taxes. Further Clinton did not save a dime, the Republicans in Congress did that.

By the way, dumb ass, President's do not create jobs unless they hire more people in the Government. Their actions and words CAN cause jobs to be lost though.

 

[SwingVoter]

President's do not create jobs unless they hire more people in the Government.

which is what Bush did, while blowing up the budget with Medicare Drug, and crushing small business with Sarbanes-Oxley

Clinton eliminated 270,000 fed positions, one reason why spending grew much more slowly than it did under borrow-and-spend Socialist Bush

also 5.5 million jobs created, virtually all in private sector, in 93-94 as tax increases were enacted

 

[SwingVoter]

after the Republicans took over Congress and CUT taxes.

you need a history lesson old man

Republicans did not cut income taxes at any point during Clinton's presidency, only capital gains in his 2nd term, after 10 million private sector jobs had been added since his tax increase had gone into effect

 

[Truthmatters]

The 1993 budget reduction act is credited by the CBO with creating the major share of the deficit reductions of the 1990s.

That bill was written by a dem majority congress and passed without one single R vote.

 

[SwingVoter]

The 1993 budget reduction act is credited by the CBO with creating the major share of the deficit reductions of the 1990s.

Clinton econ advisor Laura D'Andrea Tyson created a fury when she said the performance of the economy does not depend on level of taxation. But she was right. As long as you don't go crazy with 60% marginal rates, very little evidence to show higher taxes on high earners do anything but reduce deficits.

At the same time, capital gains tax increases have not shown to have the same effect as increases on salaried income, and state governments that raise taxes aggressively just send revenue to other states as people move away.

 

[MIPS]

just looking at some budget data

8 years under Clinton - gov't receipts rose from 1.2 trillion to 2 trillion, 8 years under Bush, just 2 to 2.1

8 years under Clinton - spending rose from 1.4t to 1.9 trillion, under Bush 1.9 trillion to 3.4 trillion

8 years under Clinton - 20 million jobs created in the private sector, 1.5 million in all government sectors, under Bush, 600,000 jobs created in the private sector, 2 million in government

moreover, Clinton's 93 tax increase was followed by a huge economic expansion, Bush's 2001 tax cuts were followed by job losses, and then very anemic private sector growth from 04 to 07

so what's the problem if we repeat this with Obama raising taxes, and then GOP Congress blocking spending bills, divided government and constant fighting on the Hill led to great economic results in the 90s, because it made government impotent and inactive, while taking it out of the business of borrowing massively, think how much worse off we'd be if we were carrying another trillion or two of debt from the 90s

GOP limits government by blocking Dem spending bills, not by actually running government, and as long as they keep promising to cut taxes while not cutting medicare, pensions, defense, or social security, best to keep them out of the White House, but well represented in Coingress

President Clinton presided over an inflationary economic bubble which popped right after he left office, President Bush presided over an inflationary economic bubble which popped right before he left office. Neither of these Presidents deserve credit for any sort of economic achievement, although both were accessories to the government interventions that caused the post bubble economic pain neither is singularly responsible for it.

If you want to find the most culpable culprit you need to look in the halls of the Federal Reserve not the Oval Office in the White House, since the Federal Reserve has far more power when it comes to influencing the state of the economy than the President does.

 

[Truthmatters]

There is going to be recessions in any eocnomy.

You can not avoid them in a caplitalistic state.

The economy expands and contracts.

The idea is to make it a more shallow expansion and contraction so that people are not distroyed every couple of years.

That can be done with regulation.

Every time we deregulate we get fucked.

 

[SwingVoter]

since the Federal Reserve has far more power when it comes to influencing the state of the economy than the President does.

the economy added as many jobs in 93-94 when Greenspan was raising rates 50 points a clip, as it did in 97-98 when he was cutting them because of the Asian Contagion

I know the Paul-heads go Cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs anytime the Fed, Greenspan, or Bernanke get mentioned, but the Fed isn't really the problem, massive borrowing created by President and Congress is

 

[SwingVoter]

That can be done with regulation.

I agree if that regulation is a mandatory balanced budget in any year in which GDP growth is positive

 

[SwingVoter]

President Clinton presided over an inflationary economic bubble .

inflation was under 2% much of his presidency, remember the late 90s concerns about deflation?

problem is fed still believes in outdated Phillips Curve unemployment - inflation trade off, but that's less of a problem than massive gov't spending

 

[Truthmatters]

Regulation on the lending industry and lack of it is what caused this mess.

 

[MIPS]

since the Federal Reserve has far more power when it comes to influencing the state of the economy than the President does.

the economy added as many jobs in 93-94 when Greenspan was raising rates 50 points a clip, as it did in 97-98 when he was cutting them because of the Asian Contagion

I know the Paul-heads go Cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs anytime the Fed, Greenspan, or Bernanke get mentioned, but the Fed isn't really the problem, massive borrowing created by President and Congress is

Obviously you're not privy to how the money supply works or how it effects the economy, the financial system and credit. I suggest you do a bit of research before making such sweeping statements out of ignorance.

You could start your edification process here Ludwig von Mises Institute - Homepage if you like, have fun.

 

[dilligras]

[FONT=&quot]

just looking at some budget data

8 years under Clinton - gov't receipts rose from 1.2 trillion to 2 trillion, 8 years under Bush, just 2 to 2.1

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]This is indicative of what, exactly? That Dems are better focused on grabbing more money from the hard-working taxpayer, in order to fund their lobbys?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]

8 years under Clinton - spending rose from 1.4t to 1.9 trillion, under Bush 1.9 trillion to 3.4 trillion

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]This is exactly why we need to purge the Rep Party from all RINOs, because they are as clueless as the Dems when it comes to the concept of freedom from government interference and oppression. Hint: IT’S NOT YOUR MONEY!!![/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

8 years under Clinton - 20 million jobs created in the private sector, 1.5 million in all government sectors, under Bush, 600,000 jobs created in the private sector, 2 million in government

Wouldn’t you agree that such statements should be supported with a link to a source? Otherwise, wisdom dictates that the information be viewed with skepticism--if not discounted entirely--due to our reluctance to “suspend disbelief,” n’est-ce pas?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]

moreover, Clinton's 93 tax increase was followed by a huge economic expansion, Bush's 2001 tax cuts were followed by job losses, and then very anemic private sector growth from 04 to 07

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Nonsense. It is completely counter intuitive to suggest that taking more money from those who offer jobs will result in more jobs being offered. Besides, if the tax cuts were so bad, why are some Dems currently CALLING FOR THEIR EXTENSION???

so what's the problem if we repeat this with Obama raising taxes, and then GOP Congress blocking spending bills, divided government and constant fighting on the Hill led to great economic results in the 90s, because it made government impotent and inactive, while taking it out of the business of borrowing massively, think how much worse off we'd be if we were carrying another trillion or two of debt from the 90s

What “GOP Congress?” Pelosi and Reid are DNC nitwits, aren’t they? Or maybe they’re CPUSA (Communist Party USA—check their website and see that their agenda mirrors that of the Democrat Party) nitwits.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]

GOP limits government by blocking Dem spending bills, not by actually running government, and as long as they keep promising to cut taxes while not cutting medicare, pensions, defense, or social security, best to keep them out of the White House, but well represented in Coingress

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Would that part of this were actually so… the part about limiting government—conservatives have revolted against the Reps acting like Dems when it comes to spending money on their pork-laden agendas. It is disingenuous to suggest that Rep officeholders are representing conservatives in the party with this behavior. The solution is to cut spending along with taxes, not just one or the other. Only an ignorant fool would think otherwise, so I’m confident that one exhibiting such wisdom as yourself will readily agree.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]As you were, pilgrim.[/FONT]