Greenspan says Clinton BEST!

[USMC the Almighty]

Come on top gun, you're smarter than that. Your post didn't address a single point of either mine or palerider's posts. Just because he had a dumb sign on his desk doesn't mean that he actually "managed the economy".

 

[top gun]

Come on top gun, you're smarter than that. Your post didn't address a single point of either mine or palerider's posts. Just because he had a dumb sign on his desk doesn't mean that he actually "managed the economy".

I beg to differ...

It addressed the fact that President Bill Clinton saw the functioning of the economy as VERY important both from a "right thing to do" and political perspective. Something he wanted to be reminded of every day when he sat at his desk and made decisions.

He realized that promoting a strong economy by cutting, "eventually eliminating and building a surplus" out of the monstrous deficit mostly built up by Reagan's arms race deficit spending then past to Bush #1 was extremely important. The Deficit push off that Bush #1 had dropped in his lap tanked Bush #1 and any chance of re-election.

The Democrats in Congress initiated and brought back "pay as you go". These are just facts. 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.

The truth is Republicans and Democrats alike are equally big spenders without it. Bush has proven that without question.

 

[palerider]

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.

Thank the democrats for including social security and medicare to the general fund. It was their accounting trick and look what "progress" got them.

As to the tax cuts, I make considerably less than a million per year and still I got a tax break. You did too if you make enough to pay taxes. It stands to reason that if you make more, you would get more of a break. The math of socialism is as silly as it could possibly be.

 

[palerider]

The facts are what they are. When clinton was working with a democrat congress, they only managed to cut the budget by 45 billion and the bulk of that was achieved by gutting the military.

 

[Popeye]

Come on top gun, you're smarter than that. Your post didn't address a single point of either mine or palerider's posts. Just because he had a dumb sign on his desk doesn't mean that he actually "managed the economy".

The mere fact that Clinton presided over the largest peacetime economic expansion in US history and leaving the country with a budget surplus says volumes about his competence in economic matters. Remember, this was something both his Republican predecessors and one successor couldn't or can't do. A Republican president has become synonymous with large deficits. This fact alone, cannot be refuted. You and palerider are hiding behind semantics, in your obsession with the word "managed", and using luck and a Republican congress for reasons as to not give Bill Clinton any credit. I ask you this, if Bill Clinton is to be blamed, as Republicans frequently do, for every failure that happened under his watch, should he not be given credit for every success under his watch as well?

 

[top gun]

Anyway you slice it, it all comes down to... "pay as you go" is a good thing and President Clinton did as good a job as any president ever has, in whatever capacity a president has, at running "influencing" the economy of the United States.

And there were military spending cuts. There should have been military spending cuts. After the fall of the USSR and the end of the Cold War if America had kept the military at... fight and possibly invade a superpower levels... that would have been a huge breech of fiduciary duty.

And if some of that money was used to help pay off a HUGE Republican built deficit...more power to him. Greenspan was and still is adamant in pointing out that long term high deficits are economy killers. It often takes more than one president's time in office... but high deficits eventually hurt an economy substantially.

The times called for less troops, decommissioning some outdated equipment and more focus on quicker mobility with improved weapons & technology. That's exactly what Clinton purposed and helped to implement.

Military spending is meant to be enough to keep American citizen safe. Not so that we could at the drop of a hat invade every possible adversary on the planet at the same time and fight a full blow world war.

As Greenspan (a lifelong Republican) said... Clinton had a great mind.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

The facts are what they are. When clinton was working with a democrat congress, they only managed to cut the budget by 45 billion and the bulk of that was achieved by gutting the military.

Exactly.

And I really get a kick out of how liberals portray tax cuts as bad thing. "People keeping their own money. That's an outrage!"

 

[Popeye]

Exactly.

And I really get a kick out of how liberals portray tax cuts as bad thing. "People keeping their own money. That's an outrage!"

Sure, did you ever think that those "tax cuts" are part of the reason the Bush administration is running up a huge deficit. The interest payment, alone, in 2006 was some 406 billion.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

The mere fact that Clinton presided over the largest peacetime economic expansion in US history and leaving the country with a budget surplus says volumes about his competence in economic matters. Remember, this was something both his Republican predecessors and one successor couldn't or can't do.

Perhaps that was because of a little thing called the Soviet Union.

A Republican president has become synonymous with large deficits. This fact alone, cannot be refuted. You and palerider are hiding behind semantics, in your obsession with the word "managed", and using luck and a Republican congress for reasons as to not give Bill Clinton any credit.

Which you cannot refute. Prove to me that Clinton did anything but sit around while the regular Americans went to work to achieve this budget surplus.

I ask you this, if Bill Clinton is to be blamed, as Republicans frequently do, for every failure that happened under his watch, should he not be given credit for every success under his watch as well?

Economic matters are one thing. But it would be fair to blame him for Somalia, bin Laden, etc.

 

[drippinhun]

Blame Clinton for bin Laden? No, I blame him for supporting New World Order Republican crap legislation like NAFTA, GATT and the Telecommunications Act.

 

[top gun]

This was a pretty insightful article in its day... sounds about how I remember it.

Republicans for Bill Clinton

President Bill Clinton is more Republican than Republicans
Being a Republican isn't just joining a party, it's a point of view. And when you look at the issues Republicans stand for and then compare our elected officials to our beliefs, President Clinton is the one who is delivering what traditional Republicans are looking for. To me it's more important what a candidate does and what he stands for than what party label he runs under.

What is a Republican?
What is a Republican and what do we believe in? A Republican is supposed to be for fiscal responsibility, small government, keeping the government out of people's private business, traditional family values, and a sense of basic morality. The government and the Republican Party are here to serve the people, not the other way around. The Republican Party is here to serve us, not for us to serve them. We are not here to be loyal to the party, but for the party to be loyal to us. It's not just about talking the talk, but you have to walk the walk. And when you look at President Clinton's Record, you'll see a record that would make any Republican proud.

If President Clinton is doing a good job and passing bills that Republicans support, then why shouldn't Republicans vote for him? What's wrong with voting for someone who's doing a good job?

I, Marc Perkel am a member of both political parties. I am A Republican and a Democrat. I'm non partisan and refuse to limit myself to one party. And I refuse to describe my views in terms of party membership. I'm a local anti-tax activist who was successful at defeating two local sales tax issues. I have actively supported and confronted all candidates regardless of part affiliation.
I am tired of the right wing extremists and the Moonies trying to redefine what a Republican is. Republicans are not moving away from the party. The party is moving away from Republicans. My Republican views haven't changed. I still support traditional Republican Values. But the Republican party is turning into a bunch of self serving slobs who only care about being elected and the power it brings.

I'm creating this page to put the Republican Party on notice that America comes first. We will no longer tolerate our party putting it's self interest ahead of the citizens of our country. We will no longer tolerate petty partisan political bickering. We are not stupid and we deeply resent what our party is doing and the direction the party is heading.

Standing here with my Mouth Open
I stand in utter amazement at the antics of the Republican Party. I can't believe it when I hear that Republicans are angry because Clinton fixed the economy. How can Republicans be angry at a good economy regardless of who did it? How can Republicans be angry because Clinton balanced the federal budget for the first time in 30 years and cut the deficit to zero? How can Republicans be angry because Clinton has cut the size of government? These are things that Republicans are for, and if a Democrat did it, then in my view that Democrat is a good Republican!

It really pisses me off when Bob Dole sits on a health care bill that both parties want to pass and he won't let come to the floor because Bob Dole doesn't want to do anything that Clinton might get credit for. Now Bob Dole wants to poison the bill that passed unanamously in the Senate so that Clinton won't sign it and Dole can blame Clinton. Who the hell is Bob Dole to screw over America because of who looks good? This pisses me off!

Then there's the budget crisis. This budget should have been done by October 1st of 1995 and here it is 1996 and for the first time in history, the is no federal budget until April. The 1997 budget is supposed to be done by October 1st of this year and how are we going to get it done when we're 7 months late on this year's budget? And somehow we're suppose to convince the country it's Clinton fault - how the hell are we going to do that? It's insulting that the Republican Party thinks we're that stupid.

The Party of Hate and Bigotry
I'm tired of the right wing extremists defining the Republican Party as a bigoted hateful intolerant party. That is not what the Republican Party stands for. Rush Limbaugh, Pat Buchannan, Ralph Reed, Jerry Falwell, Sun Myung Moon, and Olie North do not represent the soul of the Republican Party. These are the people who have stolen the party from us. I want to make it clear to our party leaders that it is you who have left us Republican voters, and not us voters leaving you. We Republicans will not be defined by these extremists.

The Republican party is about limited government. That is, heeping the government out of things they shouldn't be in. Clearly any conservative can see that freedom of religion is central to our beliefs. And freedom of religion includes freedom from religion. To not have the religous beliefs of others thrust upon us. I do not want to live under the moral thumb of right wing Bible Thumpers, the Moonies, nor left wing New Age freaks. You can believe what you want, but get it out of my face and my government.


I am tired of seeing the Republican Party dividing Americans against ourselves. We are one people, one country, and we have to learn to live together as one nation.

 

[Bunz]

Granted I have come into this debate fairly late in the game, but will throw some thoughts around. I think few will disagree that Greenspan is certainly an expert in this field and I think we ought to take his statement at face value. Now the question is, does the President assume the praise or criticism of the economy when they are in power? I ask that we look at this objectively. I have the sinking feeling that some of the right wing posters here would give all the credit in the world to a GOP President if they were in office at the same time with the good fortune of having the economy Clinton did.

 

[drippinhun]

Granted I have come into this debate fairly late in the game, but will throw some thoughts around. I think few will disagree that Greenspan is certainly an expert in this field and I think we ought to take his statement at face value. Now the question is, does the President assume the praise or criticism of the economy when they are in power? I ask that we look at this objectively. I have the sinking feeling that some of the right wing posters here would give all the credit in the world to a GOP President if they were in office at the same time with the good fortune of having the economy Clinton did.

There is a lag between the time a President enters office and how the market performs. Carter was brave enough to take the heat of Volker's prescription to tackle the inflation we were suffering and lost his Presidency over it. Bush I suffered some of Reagan's final years' policy, Clinton enjoyed some of the turnaround that Bush I started getting in place with the military drawdown. But Bush II started off with Reagan-style deficit spending and now we are about to reap what he and the GOP Congress have sown.

 

[top gun]

There is a lag between the time a President enters office and how the market performs. Carter was brave enough to take the heat of Volker's prescription to tackle the inflation we were suffering and lost his Presidency over it. Bush I suffered some of Reagan's final years' policy, Clinton enjoyed some of the turnaround that Bush I started getting in place with the military drawdown. But Bush II started off with Reagan-style deficit spending and now we are about to reap what he and the GOP Congress have sown.

Bunz & drippinhun... both excellent posts.

I think there's little doubt that the 1979 oil crisis also hurt the Carter economy.

Truer words have never been spoken then the observation that Reagan's huge deficit spending funding the arms race did not make his economy look bad, but the lag time crashed and burned on Bush #1. This isn't an attack on Reagan because at least the spending did help bankrupt the Soviets... but still it's not sound economics to push everything off to deficits as Greenspan has also stated.

And Bush #1 actually wasn't that bad with his own economic policies... although publicly calling out chastising the Fed (Greenspan) because he wouldn't do what he wanted interest rate wise in hind site wasn't helpful.

There's something to be said for being at the right place at the right time and doing the right things at the right time. I think that's exactly what Clinton did and he was very smart to take advantage of the situation at the time. The Cold War was over. Some of the shock of the economy being on the downside had subsided during the administration of Bush #1 and Clinton came in as a charismatic leader that boosted consumer confidence. It was a great time to, instead of growing the government pay off the debt. Clinton had some war "conflict" spending issues to deal with in Bosnia and he also bombed Iraq but these situations had a lot of international involvement and support so the costs were not that high.

Sometimes just being able to do the needed maintenance to a ship and steer a ship clear of problems, making sure not to wreck & sink the ship... is very good indeed.

 

[dragonfly5]

This thread is hilarious! First some right-wing nuts ask for proof concerning Clinton's ability to handle the economy, as Alan Greenspan alleges.

Proof is offered in triplicate, yet these right-wing brainiacs just ignore and overlook the facts and continue to yell for some proof.

I guess some people are just blind to the truth no matter how many times they are confronted with it!