Clinton's Accomplishments???

[palerider]

Why ...because the amazing coincidence runs counter to comrade bush record?

If your going to claim the economy ran itself despite Bill Clinton ...then tell us why it did'nt do so for bush with the same results they presented.

Have you looked at the economy? The GDP today dwarfs the GDP of clinton's administration. The market towers over the days of clinton. In the face of tax cuts, the tax revenues collected by the government dwarf those collected during the clinton administration and in the face of record collections, unlike during clinton's term, the increasing tax revenues are an ever smaller portion of the GDP.

Like it or not, the economic figures we are living with today make the clinton years look rather shabby. And if you were to ask me how it was done, I could tell you in two simple words.

Now, how about you tell me what clinton did to "handle" his economy.

 

[top gun]

Popeye, Top_Gun, maybe you should try showing how a president directly affects the economy.

The highlighted (actually this whole piece but for this post the highlighted part) is the truth. One can admit to it or not... but it still remains the truth either way.

PPI | Front & Center | October 18, 2004
Bush vs. Clinton: An Economic Performance Index
By Robert D. Atkinson and Julie Hutto

According to public opinion polls, most Americans feel the U.S. economy has been moving in the wrong direction. Indeed, an analysis of several important economic indicators shows they're right. In apples-to-apples comparisons of annualized data, these indicators of the country's economic well-being show mostly negative change during President George W. Bush's administration, compared to mostly positive change during President Bill Clinton's administration. Presidents obviously do not control everything that happens on their watch. But it is fair -- and entirely appropriate -- to judge how they play the economic hands they are dealt. Bush's economic policies have diverged dramatically from Clinton's, and PPI believes the disparities in economic outcomes under each administration are attributable at least in part to those policy choices.

So many pages have now been posted my so many on the great economy under President Clinton and on the relationship that warranted that credit (by world renowned experts and major financial magazines no less) that for anyone to say President Clinton did not do the things needed to help mold a good economy requires the willful suspension of disbelief.

Presidents can never completely control an economy good or bad. But they have the Bully Pulpit. The can put out their vision, the course they want the country to take, and make the sale to the American people. They set up economic goals and establish ideas on how best to get there. They arm twist at times but also have to be able to work with the Congress for their support. And they let it be known what policies will be or not be subject to their veto. The President of The United States of America always has great effect on economic policy. That's just a given.

 

[Popeye]

Have you looked at the economy? The GDP today dwarfs the GDP of clinton's administration. The market towers over the days of clinton. In the face of tax cuts, the tax revenues collected by the government dwarf those collected during the clinton administration and in the face of record collections, unlike during clinton's term, the increasing tax revenues are an ever smaller portion of the GDP.

Like it or not, the economic figures we are living with today make the clinton years look rather shabby.

Here's an interesting site with charts and graphs, debunking the myth that Bush's tax cuts have helped the economy. Quote, " tax cuts are largest contributer to reemergence of large budget deficits". The site demonstrates, once again, that the Bush economic policy has been an abject failure in comparison to the success of Bill Clinton. http://www.cbpp.org/9-27-06tax.htm

 

[Coyote]

That is an interesting link Popeye - thanks for posting it

In terms of deficits, it notes the following: http://www.cbpp.org/5-22-06bud.htm

Under The Deficit As a Percentage of GDP During Specified Time Periods:

2006 2.3%
2002-2006 Bush 2.7%
1994-2001 Clinton 0.1%
1982-1993 Reagan/Bush 4.3%
1797-2006 Washington-Bush 1.2%
1797-2006 Excluding 3 wars
& Great Depression 0.3%

This seems to be a good thing: 0.1% under Clinton.


It also notes:

Increase or decrease in debt held by the public as a percentage of GDP during specified time periods

2001 - 2006 Bush +4.4%
1993 - 2001 Clinton -16.4%
1981 - 1993 Reagan/Bush +23.6%
1947 - 1981 from Truman through Carter -70.4%


I fail to see how the current economy is so much better then Clinton's economy. Deficit spending and public debt can not possibly be a good thing.

 

[Coyote]

You really aren't very bright are you. Prior to bush being elected, the top 8 deficits of all time belonged to bill clinton and prior to his election, the top deficits of all time belonged to ghw bush and prior to that they belonged to regan and prior and prior and prior. Since the 60's each and every year has set a new record for deficits.

Clinton inherited a skyrocketing deficit and national debt and brought it down. It went up again under Bush.

 

[Coyote]

Here's an interesting comparison from http://zfacts.com/p/480.html on presidential contributions to the national debt:

 

[USMC the Almighty]

The problem I have with all of these graphs and charts is that it assumes the President handled the economy in order to produce these results.

The fact of the matter is that the President does not influence the economy as much people would like to believe.

 

[Coyote]

The problem I have with all of these graphs and charts is that it assumes the President handled the economy in order to produce these results.

The fact of the matter is that the President does not influence the economy as much people would like to believe.

I think the president does to the extent that he can set policies and goals. Clinton made it a goal to pay down the deficit. This happened. It didn't happen accidently.

 

[Hard Driver]

Republican revisionism:

The republicans also never were claiming that we should do more to attack Bin Laden.

When Clinton did launch missles at Afghan terrorist camps targeting Bin Laden, the republicans either said it was "just right" or claimed he was doing it to deflect attention from Monicagate. I don't see ANY republicans claiming we should do more.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/react082198.htm

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.htm

 

[palerider]

Here's an interesting comparison from http://zfacts.com/p/480.html on presidential contributions to the national debt:

I am afraid that I am going to have to call you on those numbers coyote. Either topgun or popeye provided a link to figures that matched my own research and they clearly indicate that the debt has increased under every president since johnson.

I think the president does to the extent that he can set policies and goals. Clinton made it a goal to pay down the deficit. This happened. It didn't happen accidently.

Clearly, clinton did not pay down the deficit as it increased every year he was in office as it has since johnson's days.

 

[top gun]

Contributions of Presidents to the Gross Federal Debt

The Presidential contributions to the gross federal debt are computed from data available from the White House.gov in the Historical Tables, Table 7.1 (PDF), p. 118, for FY 2005. The graph and data are also available in this XLS source file.

For each term in office, the President is responsible for four fiscal year budgets starting Oct. 1 of the year they take office and ending Sept. 30, eight months after they leave office. Table 7.1 gives the gross federal debt as a % of GDP at the end of every fiscal year since 1940. Each President's federal debt contribution was computed by simply subtracting the value at the start of his first FY from the value at the end of his last FY.

All Presidents prior to Reagan contributed to paying off the huge WWII debt. The graph also credits the drop in federal debt as a percent of GDP under Clinton towards repayment of the remaining WWII debt and not towards paying off the Reagan-Bush debt. That would simply hide their impact by making it appear that more of the current federal debt was left over from WWII. Had Reagan-Bush simply managed to break even, the WWII debt would have been as low as it's shown to be.

Debt held by the Federal Reserve System is purchased by printing money; the purpose of these "open market operations" is to put more currency into circulation. The most recent figures used for this part of the federal debt are available from the St. Louis Fed. This was divided by GDP figures provided by the Department of Commerce.

Since all Presidents from Truman on have reduced the gross federal debt except Reagan and the Bushes, the part remaining from WWII is found by subtracting their debt contributions (and the FRS contribution) from the current federal debt total.

 

[Bunz]

Palerider

Clearly, clinton did not pay down the deficit as it increased every year he was in office as it has since johnson's days.

Palerider, I figured you knew better. Deficit and Debt are two different things. Deficit comes from spending more money than you take in annually. Debt is increased by interest payments and incurring more deficit spending.
Clinton did reduce the federal deficit by spending less money than the federal government brought in through revenue, or by having a balanced budget and some surplus which could be used to pay back the debt. Compare apples to apples and not to something else.

 

[palerider]

Palerider, I figured you knew better. Deficit and Debt are two different things. Deficit comes from spending more money than you take in annually. Debt is increased by interest payments and incurring more deficit spending.
Clinton did reduce the federal deficit by spending less money than the federal government brought in through revenue, or by having a balanced budget and some surplus which could be used to pay back the debt. Compare apples to apples and not to something else.

I understand perfectly the difference between deficit and debt.

Clinton never had a surplus. He had projected surplusses that the democrats gleefully called actual surplusses, but they never materialized.

 

[top gun]

Bunz... I guess we're suppose to somehow acknowledge it as a "good" thing we got Republican Bush to really jack both the debt & the deficit up to the sky.

A Clinton stabilized a Republican spending mess before. I think we're looking at another Clinton having to clean up their mess again.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

A Clinton stabilized a Republican spending mess before. I think we're looking at another Clinton having to clean up their mess again.

Unfortunately, I think you're right. Madame Clinton will be the next President of the U.S., though I don't believe she's qualified to be near a position of power for the rest of her life..