Deltaflyertoo From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 1667 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (12 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 1698 times:
Yeah, CLinton was so great that all his economic theories started falling apart before he left office. He never captured Osama, the stock market and economy was well on its way to recession as of the summer of 2000, airlines started suffering their first losses then.
Nice informative post 727Lover. You know a lot about history, economics and civics!
Jaysit From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (12 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 1674 times:
Yes, and GW Bush is going to save us from all of that !!
If your notions of economic theories and history are correct, deltaflyertoo, then Reagan should be blamed for the runaway inflation, budget deficits and the rise of Saddam Hussein and anti-Americanism all over the Middle East.
What goes for the Goose goes for the Gander, I say.
727LOVER From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 6694 posts, RR: 20
Reply 3, posted (12 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 1663 times:
Deltaflyertoo, you're right: I DO KNOW ABOUT HISTORY, ECONOMICS & CIVICS
Everything I printed was T R U T H
On Osama, gee maybe if he would have captured Osama, but he was too busy defending his sex life. Attacks on US embassies were in summer 1998, but HEY! Congress was more concerned about investigating the Comm. in Chief!
Gee, the 95% of the time he was Prez, we had everything I listed above.
I feel woozy....what did you put in that Pudding Pop?
B757300 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 4114 posts, RR: 22
Reply 4, posted (12 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1639 times:
Obviously you know very little about which you speak. It takes years for a President's policies to effect the economy. If anyone is to blame for the current problems with the economy, it is bin Laden for forcing us to increase defense spending and Klintoon because his economic policies are finally catching up with us.
Cba From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 4531 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (12 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1632 times:
I find it amusing how republicans find ways to link all of our nations problems to Clinton. According to the republicans, 9/11 is Clinton's fault because he didn't capture Bin Laden, the recession is his fault (even though Dubya blew away our surplus). You guys never cease to amuse me. Well, I've got news for you. The economy sucks, our surplus is gone, and the whole Bush administration has ties to the Enron scandall, which makes Clinton's blowjob look like nothing at all. Dubya's going to have a tough time getting relected in 2004.
PPGMD From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 2453 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (12 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1619 times:
Suplus- There should never be a Surplus. And when there is one then the money must be returned to the people who paid it. Evenly by the amount that they paid in.
It is proven fact that econimic policies take years to come into effect. The powerful ecnomy that Clinton had was because of the tax cut that Reagan was able to get though. And one of the reason that it took so long to take effect was because at the time he had to get it though the Democrats, and the only way to do that was a long term tax cut plan. Which took effect, during Clintons presidency.
Now while Clinton was in the office, he pormised all these social programs. But with the taxes being cut there was only two ways to get it done, raise taxes, and make cuts in the military. That is what he did, that thus put us in the postion that we are in now.
The ression in the early 90's can be linked to Carter, and the fact that Reagan couldn't get any sort of immediate tax cut in place. Bush W on the other was and the economy is slowly imporving. Also the Stock market shouldn't be a factor of the ecnomy postion (nor should the airlines be), in the past one thing has proven to be a reliable indicator of economic improvement. Durable goods and house building. When those are up the others are sure to improve.
The reason why Bin Bin wasn't captured (or detected for that matter) is because of cuts to the budgets to the CIA and the NSA (before Clinton came to office the NSA, No Such Agency [Note: For those that don't know it is actually National Security Agency] was able to stay secret, but because of Clinton's cuts the NSA had to come out in the open to the people to ask for money). If the CIA has been allowed to continue its human intellgence assests (which during Clintons years were at all time lows) we might (might being the operative word) have been able to stop 9/11, or at least been able to capture Bin Bin more easily.
Oh god the investigation again. Personally I don't care who the POTUS is doing, but in the end he lied to a Grand Jury, that is a crime and as such should be prosecuted.
Inflation and the economy is not something that the POTUS has any real control over. He can't just say get better and it will. Instead he can put laws into to effect that might influence, but he has little control what so ever over what happen. Alan Greenspan, has much more control over the economy, but even his control, is once again more like whispering in their ear than anything else.
AerLingus From China, joined Mar 2000, 2371 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (12 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1606 times:
I say that the good economy was more or less a fluke. Somehow, conditions were perfect for a huge stock market gain and a rise in productivity. I'm not giving any president credit for that.
I will say that Clinton did NOT:
-Piss away the surplus.
-Fray diplomatic relations with several countries.
-Long for the glory days when he would be able to say "This is wartime, do as I say!"
-Create citizen soldiers to spy on other Americans (TIPS).
-Make library records accessable to the Federal government.
-Keep what our government is doing in the dark.
-Attempt to destroy North and South Korean relations.
-Let pass a move to install Whale killing sonar on US naval vessels.
-Relax EPA air pollution standards for manufacturing facilities.
-Allow Congress to store Nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain, Nev.
-Say repeatedly how much easier things would be if he were a dictator.
Guess who did.
Since when the hell did Americanism become some kind of religion?
BH346 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 3265 posts, RR: 14
Reply 10, posted (12 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1587 times:
Clinton brought shame to the Office and the country. Perhaps an inspiration to corporate criminals who thought they could get away with scandal just like Clinton did. The economy was in decline before Bush took office and 9/11 didn't help which would've happened if Gore or Bush was president.
Northwest Airlines - Some People Just Know How to Fly
We're Nuts From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5722 posts, RR: 18
Reply 12, posted (12 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1572 times:
Shame? His personal life is none of your business. And let's not forget which party corporate CEO's give their millions to. If anything, the Democrats protect consumers, or at least they would have, if Republicans hadn't put the brakes on every piece of legislation which would have stopped accounting fraud.
Face it, you have no argument. Clinton was the best.
Cfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (12 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1574 times:
Come on guys, economies are cyclical. A boom like the one in the 90's was bound to go bust eventually.
Why did the economy boom all through the 1990s, while Clinton was in office?
There are a number of reasons. One of the biggest ones is that the computer and software industry finally came into play, full swing. Before Windows, computers were for secretaries, some number crunchers and some engineers. There were also some home uses, but not that much. Most PC's were high priced 'originals' like IBM and Apple. With the launch of Windows, leading to the increasing availability of inexpensive computers through clone manufacturers like Dell, Compaq and Gateway, huge portions of the U.S. population finally got computers, bought lots of software and learned to use them in order to accelerate their work productivity. This provided a quantum boost to the economy.
Then in the early-mid 90s, something new came up - Internet. Another quantum leap in the computer-related industry which led to entire new business sectors to be born, including the likes of Amazon. All these companies started to do IPOs, and flush with cash, created more jobs, built beautiful houses for themselves (employing the construction industry and roadbuilding to connect them, etc etc. ) Internet increased the usage of the telephone system many times over, and pushed communications companies to invest in finding faster ways of transferring data. E-mail provided another jump in productivity.
This post just barely touches the very tip of the iceberg in what has been an incredible decade of economic change. The last time something like this happened was the advent of common air transportation and direct-dial phones in the 50's (in the U.S. anyway.)
All these huge increases in business result in increased corporate revenue (and employment), which lead to increased tax collection, which leads to budget surpluses, and the high employment lowers the need for lots and lots of unemployment and welfare checks.
In short, the economic boom of the 90's.
What did Clinton-Gore do to cause this economic powerhouse decade? Zero. Zilch. They just happened to be lucky enough to be in office at the time and reap the benefits. They were lucky to have a guy like Greenspan who could deal with the incredible monetary growth needed to keep up with the nation's newly found capacity. And they were lucky to have had the Reagan-Bush years to follow, where the sound, pro-business environment was once again established, enabling private enterprise to come up with all these wonderful toys we now wonder how we could have ever done without.
However, we now know that the "New Economy" of the 90's was in large part a mirage. PE ratios of 100-to-1, even 1000-to-1 were common (Microsoft is now trading at a PE of around 30 to 35, having dropped from astronomical levels. I consider this still to be a little high, but not too bad).
The U.S. economy was hit by the equivalent of a boxing 1-2-3 combination. One was the cyclical downturn which, as was mentioned before, started during Clinton's presidency. Two was the 9/11 attacks. As much as I despise Clinton, I don't see how you can pin that one on him. Three, and probably the most damaging of all, were the corporate accounting scandals, starting with Enron. One and Two hurt the economy, which however still had a solid base. This solid base collapsed when investors realized that "audited" financials were not so trustworthy after all.
People foolishly believed that this was sustainable, even a necessity to the point that shareholders insisted on absurd targets that their managements had to meet, by hook or by crook, or loose their jobs.
Here is one issue where I feel that the Clinton Administration truly failed in their duty. During these booming 90's, when the dynamics of the market were changing due to internet trading, new industries were going through the roof, CEO salaries were being increasingly tied to "performance" through options, etc. etc., Clinton SHOULD have told the SEC to become ever more vigilant to abuse, and should have pursued legislation to ensure that growth was based upon the same valid, trustworthy basis as were applicable before. Instead, he chose to ignore the potential problems, and instead basked in the results of the boom. Clinton truly dropped the ball here.
The stock market is the biggest driver of the U.S. economy, and what drives it is the faith of investors in a company's statements. Auditors were instituted generations ago in order to ensure their reliability. Without this faith, people would not give their money to a company - they would probably feel safer stuffing it under the mattress. This effectively withdraws the money from circulation. Investing means the money stays in circulation, being used to pay salaries, buy new equipment, develop new technologies, etc. That faith MUST be restored as rapidly as possible.
The SEC and the current administration must continue, and accelerate their policy of arresting and imprisoning the leaders of those corporations which falsified their books. They should also imprison the heads of the auditing firms which do the same. Laws should be put in place that make the CEO, CFO, Controller, and even members of the board (perhaps) criminally responsible for what goes on in the company, even if they were "not informed". Same goes for the CEO of Arthur Andersen. It upsets me that he is walking free, and passed the blame on a junior auditor. HE was the boss, and therefore HE is responsible for creating the corporate environment that told this junior guy that the contract was more important than the auditor's integrity.
The last part of my rant: People complain that the "budget surplus" is gone.
What is a budget? It is an estimate of receipts and expenditures. In 1999-2000, just before the economy started going belly-up, Clinton-Gore put forward these projections, based on the "mirage economy" which showed sky-high revenues, and therefore surpluses, from taxes on high corporate profits, which in turn paid good salaries and kept people out of unemployment lines. The "surplus" beyond 2000 was never there to begin with, therefore it was never lost. It was a fiction based on wishful thinking that the boom would last forever.
B757300 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 4114 posts, RR: 22
Reply 22, posted (12 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1527 times:
Amazing how all the DemoRats have to bring up things long before Bush was President. Klintoon, WHILE HE WAS President, was getting BJ's in the Oral office, lying under oath and to the American people and had a chance to have bin Laden turned over to the U.S. by Sudan but refused for some unknown reason.