posted on February 6, 2004 01:21:15 PM newClinton didn't bring good times
by Daniel T. Griswold
President Clinton and Vice President Al Gore never miss a chance these days to tout America's "record economic expansion," now barreling through its 10th year of non-inflationary growth. They obviously hope voters will credit the administration for the good times and reward Al Gore with the White House in November.
Just how much of the credit for the good economy can the Clinton administration rightly claim? The objective answer is, "Some, but not much."
The first problem is a matter of chronology. Vice President Gore recently declared, "It is not recession time in America, like it was back in 1992." But the National Bureau of Economic Research, the official keeper of the business cycle, dates the end of the last recession to March 1991, a full year and a half before Bill Clinton and Al Gore took the oath of office. Indeed, every time Clinton and Gore refer to the record length of the current expansion, they implicitly acknowledge its pre-Clintonian origin.
Contrary to Gore's claim, this administration inherited an economy that was already growing at more than 3 percent a year, including a 5.4 percent annualized burst of real GDP in the fourth quarter of 1992. [/b]Unemployment, inflation and interest rates were all heading south before Clinton and Gore arrived on the scene[/b].
The idea of a Clinton-Gore expansion is further discredited by the fact that the president's economic agenda was largely frustrated from the beginning. His own Democratic Congress denied him the "stimulus package" and the sweeping nationalization of health care he sought during his first two years in office. He did manage to coax passage of a huge tax increase in 1993 (minus the broad energy tax he and Gore wanted), but this was not a unique feature of Clintonomics. His predecessor George H.W. Bush had also signed a tax increase of similar magnitude in 1990.
The election of a Republican Congress in November 1994 all but wiped out what was left of the Clinton economic agenda. By the beginning of 1995, tax increases and Hillarycare were out, spending restraint and deficit reduction were in (with Clinton resisting the former and reluctantly agreeing to the latter).
With the president's economic agenda in check, the economic expansion only gained steam. Growth picked up to more than 4 percent, inflation stayed subdued, and unemployment continued to fall. Congress even managed to pass a modest cut in the capital gains tax in 1997, an item conspicuously absent from the president's agenda. The expansion has endured not because the administration's economic agenda was enacted but because so much of it wasn't.
A stock market that had languished during the first two years of the administration moved sharply upward when it became clear that the new Republican Congress had brought an end to Clintonomics as we knew it. Since the beginning of 1995, the broad New York Stock Exchange Index has appreciated at an annual rate of 18.7 percent, compared to an anemic 2.2 percent rate during the two years when Democrats controlled both Congress and the White House.
http://www.freetrade.org/pubs/articles/dg-8-20-00.html
-------------
Re-elect President Bush!!
[ edited by Linda_K on Feb 6, 2004 01:22 PM ]
posted on February 6, 2004 01:26:58 PM new
Hey, Linda, have you got a breakdown on the types of new jobs that were created last month? I mean, did Burger King and Wal-Mart open up a bunch of new outlets paying minimum wage, or did Silicon Valley hire a bunch of techs, or what?
posted on February 6, 2004 01:59:05 PM newWhich was exactly the same way it was when the unemployed fell off the 'count' during the clinton administration....as their unemployment count went down. No different now than it was then
There is a huge difference now. We had a president who had an IQ higher than a rock and a President who was smart enough to handle a world economy, as well as international affairs.
posted on February 6, 2004 02:09:02 PM new
76% of these 112,000 jobs were in the retail "service" sector. Many say this rise in retail was due to a hold off in hiring during the holiday season, and then a hiring bump in Jan.
Anyone who can compare the prosperity brought about by Clinton's policies to this dolt Bush's disaster economy needs their head examined.
Not only did Clinton understand and manage the world economy better, the US prospered with higher taxes and a BUDGET SURPLUS.
Bush has been a train wreck compared to Clinton's tenure.
posted on February 6, 2004 02:20:15 PM new
I don't think a President could have ruined an economy more if he had actually tried.
By the way, for those of you who insist that Clinton inheirited the great economy from Bush Sr., then I guess you must concede that Reagan inheirited his economic pluses from Carter. As a matter of fact, Reagan's policies were all started by Carter, including derugulation.
posted on February 13, 2004 11:13:40 AM newThe US trade deficit with the rest of the world widened more than expected last month, disappointing hopes that the fall in the dollar would provide a consistent boost to exports.The deficit rose from $38.4bn to $42.5bn – compared with analysts’ expectations of a more modest increase to $40bn.
Exports of goods and services actually declined by 0.2 per cent or $200m to $90.4bn. This was despite the fact that the dollar declined by 3.3 per cent on a trade-weighted basis during the fourth quarter, and close to 2 per cent during January. Imports rose by 3 per cent during December from November to $132.8bn. This left imports 7.7 per cent higher on the year.
What ??? US exports actually declined in light of record weakness of the dollar? How can that be?
If we don't get a smarter team into the White House our economy will look worse than 1933.
posted on February 14, 2004 09:47:30 AM new
Now, when a better education will be needed to qualify for a job when jobs are shipped overseas or replaced by technology, tuitions are rising to unafordable rates.
And Education is Not a Bush Budget Priority.
posted on February 14, 2004 10:05:20 AM newFrom the transcribed testimony:
Instead, we have ... unjustified and unnecessary cuts in proven, effective education programs. Among these programs are initiatives to reduce alcohol use by teenagers...
Well really, Helen, alcohol abuse is a family matter -- just look at the number of Bush family members (including GW himself) who've had or have drinking problems and how well they've gotten on with life!
Lets take one example - Even Start’s support of family literacy programs. These initiatives have long enjoyed bipartisan support. The Secretary of Homeland Security, Tom Ridge, when he was the Governor of Pennsylvania, called family literacy “a dramatic investment” in the future of young Americans that will allow “parents and children [to] learn and succeed together."
Similarly, First Lady Laura Bush has expressed her support for family literacy programs, saying: “Family literacy programs…work on the front lines of the battle against illiteracy.”
But the Bush budget would eliminate family literacy programs across the nation.
Too bad Laura doesn't have her hubby's ear the way Hillary did...
