Greenspan says Clinton BEST!

Greenspan a loyal REPUBLICAN in his new book goes into many aspects of the 6 presidents he has served. For instance he personally thought the most of Gerald Ford... the least of Richard Nixon.

The guy is just a straight shooter... anybody any Party.

Best with the economy... President Bill Clinton!

President George W. Bush... not good!

The fact that he was most impressed with Clinton's management of our economy and very critical of the Bush handling should not be at all surprising.

To be honest the "tax cuts" so touted by the Bush administration are really tax put offs... We'll give tax cuts that mostly reduce upper income groups taxes and run the country on credit (deficit spending). We'll be out of office when future presidents have to deal with our children's tax burden to pay for the debt we've run up.

 

This coming from a man that has now with his rate cuts put the current market in the ****ter.

I wouldnt put to much stock in what he says anyway.

 

I am curious. Please describe for me how clinton "managed" the economy. I would be interested in hearing about anything that he did that could be characterized as "managing" the economy.

And if you make enough money to actually pay taxes, you got a tax cut. The myth that only the rich got tax cuts is true only if you believe that if you make enough money to actually pay taxes, you are rich. Further, the amount of money coming into the treasury is breaking all records as a result of the tax cuts.

 

Greenspan would be the man to ask about how Clinton actually managed the economy.

I would think that Alan Greenspan would know a little more about what he is talking about than the average person on the street would know.

Of course I don't need Greenspan to tell me that Bush is not as good a president as Clinton was. I figured that out years ago!

 

Nice attempt at a dodge. No one seems to be able to answer the question of what clinton did to "manage" the economy.

My best bet would be that any comments made about the economy during clinton's terms were only about the economy and not about clinton's "management" of it. The left has already demonstrated a willingness to take greenspan's words out of context in the matter of his (greenspan's) mention of iraq's oil. The left immediately came out saying that greenspan said that the war was about oil when he said nothing of the sort. The remarks on "clinton's" economy are, in all likelyhood, similar. If clinton did anything that created a good economy, everyone woudl know what those things were. Strange, don't you think, that no one can name them?

 

Bill Clinton was President during the longest period of peacetime economic expansion in U.S. history. We had a balanced budget and a federal surplus. Of course now, under the Bush administration, we are again running a deficit. As for Clinton's management, the Deficit Reduction Act of 1993 was passed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibus_Budget_Reconciliation_Act_of_1993 This over Republican objections, I might add. Clinton was good for the economy, I don't think that can be refuted.

 

The "Deficit Reduction Act" was just another piece of legistlation to increase the size of government, put some tax hikes on corporations (and drive productivity out of the country -- really good for the economy, by the way), and raised the income tax on certain individuals.

Clinton was simply lucky to have his presidency fall right in the middle of the internet, computer boom. He's not some great economist who single-handedly gave the country this great economy. He was just another adequate, mediocre, custodial president. In 200 years, his legacy will be similar to how we look at Franklin Pierce or Grover Cleveland today. A fine job, didn't do anything spectacular -- just presided over his 8 years adequately.

 

Claiming Clinton was "lucky" is not only not worthy of you, but it is, as a well known member of this forum would say, a dodge. It also does not change the fact that, under Clinton, there was a budget surplus. Created, in part by the Deficit Reduction Act. Sure, corporate tax levels were raised, as they needed to be, to create a budget surplus, something the Bush administration knows nothing about with their budget deficits.

 

I am still waiting for someone to name what clinton did to "manage" the economy other than simply be lucky enough to be president at a time when new technologies made it pretty difficult to bring it down. He did manage to create a recession which he left for bush, but what exactly did he do to "manage" the economy?

 

Let me get this straight, are you refusing to give Bill Clinton any credit for the robust economy under his presidency? What about the budget surplus? Claim he was "lucky" for the booming economy if you like, but with his Deficit Reduction Act he was clearly primarily responsible for erasing a deficit and creating a budget surplus. The definition of "manage" is, to handle or direct with a degree of skill. By putting forth the Deficit Reduction Act a good part of that definition is met. I also put forth, that if you refuse to give Clinton credit for the good economy while he was president, you certainly can't blame him for the recession as the same market forces were at work.

 

I love it when libs talk about "Clinton's" budget surplus. This was implemented as part of Newt Gingrich's Contract with America, which he proposed making a constitutional amendment that requires a balanced budget during times of peace.

Here's the text: http://www.house.gov/house/Contract/fiscrespb.txt

Too bad the Democrats didn't allow it.

 

I am not refusing anyting. I am asking what he did that could be construed as managing the economy. You don't seem to be able to come up with a thing and I have been asking this question for a number of years now and no one seems to be able to come up with a thing.

Right now, tax revenues are pouring into the treasury at a rate that is beyond anything we have ever seen. I can tell you why that is happening and who engineered it. If indeed, clinton did something that contributed to the economy during his administration, someone should be able to name it.

Exactly what budget surplus are you talking about? Surely not the one that showed up when he added the social security funds to the general budget calculation? Are you talking abou the one that happened for a short while after the republican congress drug him kicking and screaming into the balanced budget amendment; the one he vetoed twice when democrats were in charge?

I remember the clinton administration touting the drop in the budget deficit from 290 billion to 107 billion in 1994. They claimed that the 4 year drop of 63% was all clinton. How is your math? The fact is that in 1994, clinton was only in his 3rd budget year. Of the 183 billion drop in the deficit over the previous 4 years, over 75% of it was achieved in either the last year of bush 1's presidency or the first year of the republican's takeover of congress and the senate. Working for two years with a democrat congress, the clinton administration only managed a 45 billion reduction in the budget deficit.

Now I am still waiting for you to describe exactly what clinton did to "manage" the economy.

 

Yeah, I remember it well. Clinton was drug kicking and screaming into the ballanced budget amendment promising that people would be starving in the streets as a result. He had already vetoed a the bill twice while the democrats were in charge.

 

Speaking of myths

Maybe you should read what the CBO has found as a result of their study.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/08/washington/08tax.html?ex=1325912400&en=e1dc82f54ac7eacb&ei=5090

And one more myth just to bust for you.

While the poor do not pay any federal INCOME taxes, they still pay federal taxes. And the Social Security and Medicare taxes are 7.5% for the Employee and 7.5% for the employer, so even the poorest person is paying 15% of their wages to the federal government. And considering that this money is put in to the general slush fund of the federal government and not spend any differenly than the other federal income taxes, this is really a 15% tax rate on the poor.

 

Neo-cons slaaaaaaaaaaaaay me!

President Bill Clinton was so dedicated to the economy that he actually has a sign on his desk the read "It's the economy stupid!".

It's the Democrats that fostered "pay as you go" in Congress in 1990 and something they reinstated in 2007 after they took back control.

Like Republican Senator Larry Craig groping for toilet paper on the floor and sliding his foot under the stall Republicans must have their signals crossed... again!

U.S. Congress

An important example of such a PAYGO system in this first sense is the use of PAYGO rules in the United States Congress. First enacted as part of the Budget Agreement of 1990, PAYGO required all increases in direct spending or revenue decreases to be offset by other spending decreases or revenue increases. It was thought that this would control deficit spending. Direct spending is largely comprised of "entitlement spending" which means that a group of beneficiaries are entitled to a benefit and without further legislative action, the government must provide that benefit -- hence it is considered to be "mandatory." Only by legislative action can the benefit be either expanded or reduced. In terms of revenue, PAYGO largely is designed to control tax reductions. If revenue is estimated to be reduced through a reduction in tax rates of any kind, that effect on the deficit must be offset either through increased revenue collection elsewhere, or spending reductions of the same amount.

In the initial PAYGO regimen, enacted in the 1990 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA '90), by statutory requirement, any increases in the deficit were to be offset by an across the board "sequestration" of programs. This means an automatic cut in non-exempt mandatory spending programs -- this was calculated by the Office of Management and Budget at the end of the year.

These rules were in effect from 1990-2002 and are widely seen as having assisted the US Congress in maintaining budget discipline. "Those rules were allowed to lapse in the House and watered down in the Senate, which made it easier for lawmakers to approve President George W. Bush's tax cuts and a Medicare prescription drug plan". The system was reestablished in January of 2007 by the 110th Congress.

Background of who was in charge of Congress in 1990:
WASHINGTON - Democratic and Republican strategists view this year's election as a lull before the 1992 campaign storm that the GOP hopes will seriously erode Democratic control of Congress.

Republican "tax cutting" in reality is not cutting taxes... it's only "postponing taxes" especially on upper income levels by HUGE deficit spending increasing the deficit "debt", hence taxes in the future on not only us... but our kids.