Responding to those who take the credit out of Clinton's economic record?

[Kathleen04]

How do you respond to people who try to take the credit away from Clinton for balancing the budget and creating 12 million jobs?

I've heard his success attributed solely to being able to use the line item veto before it was deemed unconstitutional.

And, I've heard people say that Clinton's balanced budget had nothing to do with Clinton and was instead the latent effects of Reaganomics...the person said that it takes 8 years for effects to be seen in the economy. But, 8 years from Reagan lands in Bush senior's term..so I didn't understand that logic at all.

I've heard both these recently and I wanted to debunk them but I'm no economist. And I didn't even want to get into it if I didn't know what I was talking about.

So, educate me! :)

[KenLayedOff]

1. The dot.com boom had a lot to do with it I know

I'm no economist but the big boom in routers, and other dot.com plus the Y2K upgrade had something to do with it. The rest is all magic to me.

[rwheeler31]

2. It is difficult to debunk

faith based economics. It can be done but it will take the smart number guys to make the case.

[drewb]

3. Balancing the budget is very important, deficits DO matter!

By government keeping a balanced budget they free up capital for individuals to use for business and personal use.

What George has done is so appaling that anyone who is even a little bit of a fiscal conservative should be running away from him, not walking, but running.

Government has never grown faster, deficits have never been higher, and this is under a supposedly "conservative" president.

Clinton was unable to raise spending because he had a hostile congress to work with, but I also think he has half a brain which is about 75% more of a brain than the current occupant of the WH has... I think he at least knew that balanced budgets allowed the money to be used in more useful places...

That's just my opinion, but there is some half-assed economic theory thrown in there... (Mostly from the Austrian school.)

http://www.mises.org/

:loveya:

[onecitizen]

4. I keep hearing that the recession........

started under Clinton and bush simply inherited the mess. I dunno what to say either. Help guys!

[theorist]

5. If he inherited a recession why did he go ahead with the tax cuts?

That is executive malfeasance; if the company you are running does not meet projected costs (analogy to a general recession), or you have to lower the cost of a previously hot product (analogy to the popping of the dot com bubble), do you go ahead an give across-the-board salary increases to employees (which is what the tax cut essentially was)?

To those who would say "How could he have known he had a recession on his hands?" I reply that recessions are not difficult to predict: whenever consumer confidence drops considerably (among other tell tale signs), you have the likelihood of recession. Go back to the numbers in Nov. and Dec. 2000.

[rfranklin]

6. Great, but if Bush tax cuts were the solution...

why aren't they working. The economy can't generate enough jobs to even keep up with population growth--means we are losing more and more jobs each day. And all Bush does is keep promising that someday, some way there will be jobs. It ain't happening and he just keeps talking about making the ruinous tax cuts permanent.

[NewJeffCT]

7. 12 million jobs? Try 22 million?

I'm pretty sure the Big Dog created almost 3 million per year, on average...

[blurp]

8. Why do you give him so much of the credit?

How do you respond to people who try to take the credit away from Clinton for balancing the budget and creating 12 million jobs?

Why take so much credit away from industry?

We're all part of a team here. The president has his role, but at some point you have to acknowledge the other players. In the case of the 90's boom, I'd say you'd have to give credit to entrepreneurs, investors and people with savings, and of course skilled workers.

And all of these groups were to some extent motivated by the exciting prospects of the technology.

When I try to understand the economy, I try to look directly to the actions and motives of the people involved. Economic behavior is human behavior. To what extent did Clinton motivate people to act the way they did in the 90's? What did he do or say to get people to hire workers and create jobs? I don't think he played a huge role in that.

Now please don't misunderstand, I think Clinton did exactly what he should have. Good presidents don't micromanage the economy. They only help provide the political framework.

Clinton was smart: he stayed the course and let the system thrive. He had plenty of opportunity to muck things up, but he didn't let his power tempt him.

[drewb]

9. Those are all great points...

You said what I was trying to say, but much more eloquently.

Thanks!

:toast:

:hi:

[Skittles]

10. Clinton was a major factor

he was a REAL president who was perceived as CARING ABOUT THE COMMON FOLK, and peace and prosperity in America does wonders for the soul. People now just know things are so f***ed up under Bush Inc. They feel like they are being used and they are right.

[Festivito]

11. There's no lie like a bald-face lie.

Clinton started with war and recession inherited from Bush I.
He started a jobs package that Republicans said would not work and they all voted against it.
Republicans said for years: "What recovery." But, the signs saying "NO Applications being taken" were coming off stores and "Help wanted" signs were going up.

The deficit growing exponentially during Regan and Bush leveled in Clinton's first year. The deficit continued to go down as jobs increased, stocks increased, the dollar increased, respect for the US increased, for eight years it increased only until elections loomed and the stock market, although it continued up, it reflected instability understandable before an election where Clinton could not run.

The market dropped the day Bush was called a victor. It continued down while he readied for office. Still, a surplus paid back the debt to its low dip on 12/20/00.

IF THE CLINTON SUCCESS WAS DUE TO REAGAN AND BUSH, WHY DID THE REPUBLICANS CLAIM THERE WAS NO RECOVERY FOR THE FIRST FIVE YEARS?