Once again! If you believe Clinton left us in a recession....

[bucknaked]

...then, Clinton left us with the "recovery, too!!"

If you are to believe that the recession started in the last 2 months of Clinton's last term, than you also acknowledge that he started the "recovery" too.

The NBER (who moved back the start-date of the recession from March '01 to November '00), also puts the recovery date at November '01... one month after Bush's first fiscal year, the year his (farce of an) economic plan started!!!

ONE MONTH!

Rove can't even sell that as being "due to Bush."

Put this in your mental rolodex folks, email it to anybody you see trying to say otherwise. Columnists, radioshow hosts, relatives, etc.

I'm sick of hearing this fallacy, and sick of it going uncountered.

...sick of having to edit my messages, too. :P

[John BigBootay]

1. Don't think Clinton had much to do w/ either--

Economies cycle. As Chancey Gardener puts it, "First there is winter, and the garden is barren, but then spring comes and all is well in the garden."

[Bandit]

3. I suspect Consumer Confidence had a lot to do with things

Bush* was selected and consumer confidence plunged hence recession. Funny how that works. People quit buying and we have recession no matter how much the supply is. It kind of demonstrates the flaw in supply side economics. If there is no demand there is no business no matter how many gidgets you have.

[tobius]

7. supply side economics doesn't say "make a lot of gidgets and people will

buy them". Its foundation is lower tax rates to increase incentive for business to grow and create a larger tax base. This is from The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics---
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/SupplySideEconomics.html

"Supply-side economics provided the political and theoretical foundation for a remarkable number of tax cuts in the United States and other countries during the eighties. Supply-side economics stresses the impact of tax rates on the incentives for people to produce and to use resources efficiently. A person's marginal tax rate—the tax rate she pays on an additional dollar of income—determines the breakdown between taxes, on the one hand, and income available for personal use, on the other. Since they directly affect the incentive of people to work, to save and invest, and to avoid and evade taxes, marginal tax rates are central to supply-side analysis. "<snip>

As with all economic theory, there is much debate of the merits, but the premise is based on tax rates.

[kiahzero]

24. Bush talked down the economy

In December 00, he started saying "recession" in every speech. Now, a smart person would realize that the President saying the word "recession" would send HUGE RED FLAGS to every portion of the economy, and cause a downturn.

But we know that smart people, by and large, do not exist in the Bush Administration.

[bucknaked]

5. Yep, hence my caveat "if you believe..."

The recession we're talking about is one of the most shallow recessions in history. We're talking less than a year for it to shift in momentum.

If this is how they're going to sell it though, as "inheriting the Clinton economy," then it's imperative for us to demand the explain how Bush instigated the recovery within a month's turn-around.

[Skittles]

11. um, HELLO

it's been winter for a LONG TIME and there are still NO SIGNS OF SPRING.

[OneTwentyoNine]

19. Its about leadership quality.....

Neither Bush or Clinton can make anyone run out and buy a new TV or a new car but they can indirectly by the way they run this country and the way the consumer perceives how this country is being run.

Thats the two major differences between how Clinton ran the country and what Bush is doing. There was NO confidence in Bush BEFORE he took office,there is no confidence now. People saw this incoming administration as Saint Ronnie II and held on to their money starting in early to mid 2001.

People aren't that stupid for the most part. They know what the hell is coming when these Repigs run the show. Massive layoffs,no raises,wage concessions,busted unions,phony "tax cuts",massive deficits. If Chimp gets re-elected look for another four years of exactly the same thing.

David

[nankerphelge]

2. unfortunately...

facts don't matter when your mantra is "anything good that happened economically during the Clinton years can be traced to Reagan policy" and "everything bad that's happened since Bush was president can be traced to CLinton." Keepin' it dumbed down for the lowest common denominator.

[Bark Bark Bark]

4. The Simplified Version

"If it's good, we did it. If it's bad, we inherited it."

If a meteorite wiped out Los Angeles tonight, the GOP would blame Clinton. If it broke open and spilled out a cure for cancer, the GOP would take credit for it--that part, anyway.

[Jane Austin]

6. Technicality

As Mario Cuomo so eloquently expressed it last night on
Hardball, if they're going to use the technical start of the
recession as March, 2001 then they should use the technical
END of the recession, too.  That was November, 2001, just
eight months later.

I guess that's why the Bushhogs think everything is just grand
now.

[DennisReveni]

8. No recession, but NO surplus either.

The real Clinton scam was the alleged surplus. The surplus claims were made while adding Social Security to the general fund. Which never should have happened.
You can not have a surplus and a debt at the same time. If you borrow from Social Security in good times, you are screwed when you try it in bad times.
But, Clinton was on the right track in paying down the debt.
He just lied about a surplus.
Some of you may also remember that the Clinton administration made that lovely little COLA adjustment to Social Security. So benefit rates increased at a lower standard.
Clinton is NOT responsible for the economic boom of the nineties. He was one lucky ducky to have the right circumstances pop up when they did.

[BillZBubb]

9. Nice Repug talking points there Dennis!

Somehow you managed to make the "case" the Repugs always make: You know Clinton had nothing to do with the boom. There was no surplus, Clinton lied. COLAs were re-adjusted, etc, etc.

First, Clinton had a lot to do with the boom. His economic plan, started immediately after he got into office started bringing down the deficit. That was essential. Clinton's team correctly matched fiscal policy to interest rates. It was the perfect call for the economic situation of the time. He raised taxes on the wealthy, also a perfect call. Circumstances popped up in part because of excellent fiscal policies by the Clinton administration.

Second, there absolutely was a surplus. Clinton didn't create the way the Federal Budget is reported. The Repugs passed the law putting SS in the general fund, not Clinton. Based on the accounting system they set up, there was a surplus. Clinton didn't lie. Those who accuse him of lying about a surplus are either ignorant of the facts or are lying themselves.

[papau]

15. Even W/O the Soc Security surplus, 12/31/99 to 12/31/00 the National Debt

decrease - meaning that the general fund without any gifts from social security had a surplus ALL BY ITSELF!

The first time in years that the Nation Debt declined over a year.

Of course Bush then cut taxes and spent like a fellow with a new credit card, with the result that on a Fiscal year basis - 10/1 to 9/30 - the general fund surplus was gone and the only reason one had a fiscal year surplus was because of the social security surplus.

But Bush can not hide the Clinton calendar year - the year 2000 - that we had a surplus without and before any payroll surplus was added in.

[DennisReveni]

22. amBushed

Just plain wrong.
http://www.allenwsmith.com/id5.html
"Smith, an outspoken advocate of economic education, has written a scathing account of massive fraud on the part of our nation's leaders, who have plundered every cent of the Social Security Trust Fund surplus that was specifically earmarked for the retirement of baby boomers. Social Security funds were never intended for general spending, but huge tax cuts under Reagan ballooned the deficit, forcing the government to "borrow" from the trust fund. Both George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton spent the entire trust-fund balance on government programs, and even though Clinton's deficit-reduction program was a great success, he created the great "budget surplus" myth by adding Social Security funds to the general budget calculation. According to Smith, however, no president has been as fiscally irresponsible as George W. Bush, who, despite the warnings of numerous economists, deceived the American people into accepting a $1.3 trillion tax cut that favors the wealthy and threatens to deprive millions of retirees of their benefits in the coming years. David Siegfried"
http://www.baltimorechronicle.com/ssa2_jul99.html
"WHEN PRESIDENT CLINTON announced a plan to save Social Security this past January, aides were flummoxed. Many acknowledged that they didn’t understand key elements of the plan and were unable to explain it to reporters.
The plan is complicated, almost perversely so. It projects large budget surpluses over the next 15 years, $4.5 trillion worth, itself a pretty dubious scenario. Assuming the surpluses materialize, Clinton proposes giving 62% of the money, or $2.8 trillion, to the Social Security Trust Fund.
The twist is that $2.8 trillion is almost exactly the amount of excess payroll taxes slotted for the Social Security Trust Fund in the first place. That’s what stumped Clinton’s aides. Under Clinton’s plan, the SSA will collect excess payroll taxes and give the cash to the Treasury, receiving bonds in return. Normally, Treasury would then spend the funds on education, roads, weapons, and so forth, but Clinton proposes that Treasury instead give the cash back to SSA, who will then give it back once again to the Treasury and receive an additional infusion of bonds. In this way the Trust Fund balance is nearly doubled and Social Security’s accounting “crisis” dissolves until 2050 or beyond. Now, if only Treasury and the SSA would make this exchange over and over again, the Trust Fund could be expanded to infinity and the accounting problems of Social Security would disappear forever.
Congressional Republicans fumed at the chicanery of the plan, and it is tricky. Would that Clinton carried the trick just a bit further. After all, the Trust Fund serves no real economic function, save to express, through an elaborate accounting device, a legal obligation of the Treasury to the SSA. If the Treasury were to issue $5 or $6 trillion in special promissory notes today and give them to the SSA, this would have exactly the same effect on the future of Social Security as the Clinton plan. Why, then, collect trillions in excess payroll taxes for 15 years, simply to achieve a paper transaction that Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin could complete in 15 minutes? Clinton’s plan exposes the Trust Fund for the accounting charade that it is, so why not go all the way and eliminate the excess payroll tax?
Once Treasury receives the Social Security surplus for the second time, Clinton suggests using the funds to retire part of the federal debt. Republican leadership, shamed by Clinton’s cry of “Social Security first,” have agreed to support debt retirement. But the federal debt is held by banks, investment firms and wealthy individuals, while nearly all of the protected surplus funds come from low- and middle-income wage earners. Thus do Clinton and the Congress propose transferring income from the poor and middle class to the very right.
In addition to the debt-paydown scheme, Clinton advocates putting another $1.2 trillion of payroll taxes and general revenues toward retirement: $700 billion to be invested by the SSA in the stock market and $500 billion to fund new “individual savings accounts.” Altogether, our representatives propose to hand over $3.5 trillion in tax dollars to the finance industry.
Advocates of these “savings” schemes, including many prominent neo-liberal economists, argue that the flood of public funds into financial markets will lower interest rates, stimulate private-sector investment and set off an endless cycle of robust growth.
Sound familiar? It should. This is precisely how Ronald Reagan sold his tax cut in 1982. Reagan, though, just cut taxes for the rich. It takes Democratic leadership to actually steal our wages and give them to Wall Street."
http://www.sccs.swarthmore.edu/org/phoenix/1998/1998-02-05/6.html
"However, in truth there is really no surplus at all, and even if there were, wasting such money on social spending would be unacceptable. The budget surplus exists only on paper because of the fairly recently adopted unified budget, which lumps the social security trust fund in with the operational budget of the federal government. Social Security took in more money than it paid out this year; however, that money is separate from the overnment's operational budget because every cent is earmarked to be paid out to retirees. Excluding Social Security, which is a separate trust, the government actually disbursed $60 billion more than it took in."
http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/inequal/america.htm
The Rich Can Afford to Share the Wealth
By Robert Reich
" Exactly eight years ago I trudged through sleet and slush of New Hampshire telling anyone who'd listen that Bill Clinton would do wonders for the American economy. Now, as the nation lurches into a millennial election year with unemployment at its lowest level in thirty-five years with no inflation in sight, most Americans seem largely content. The economy has faded as an election-year issue. But there are two big things that have been happening to the American economy which should be framing the upcoming election nonetheless. It's still the economy, stupid.
Big Thing Number One: America has been growing faster than ever. Productivity has been rising 2.1 percent a year since 1993, according to just-revised statistics from the Commerce Department. I wish the Clinton Administration could take full credit, but it turns out that productivity-growth spurt actually began picking up steam in the early 1980s. The recession of 1991-92 was only a temporary pause. Neither Reagan's supply-side tax cuts nor Clinton's deficit-thwacking budget cuts have made much difference. The real cause has been a revolution in information technology, which is transforming America into a super-efficient digital colossus. There's no reason to suppose this long-term trend should slow. Put simply, America is richer than ever and will become even more so.
Which brings us to Big Thing Number Two: Almost all these gains have been going to people at the top. According to recent data from the congressional budget office, this year the richest 2.7 million Americans, comprising the top 1 percent, will have as many after-tax dollars to spend as the bottom 100 million put together. Meanwhile, the poorest one-fifth of households will have an average income of $8,800 this year, down from $10,000 in 1977 (in current dollars). Not even people in the middle have done particularly well. Since the start of the Clinton administration, the incomes of richest have risen twice as fast as the middle.
This calculation doesn't even include deferred income and other perks, such as stock options, which have gone mostly to people at the top. And, notably, it doesn't include increases in the values of their stock portfolios. Add in these, and the wealth gap turns into the Grand Canyon. At the start of the Clinton administration, the Dow stood at 3300. Now it's hovering around 10,800. Eighty-five percent of this windfall has gone to the top 10 percent of earners -- and forty percent to the top 1 percent."

Maybe if there were not so many knee jerk Democrats people could face the truth.

[papau]

20. Calendar year 2000 Clinton ran a REAL SURPLUS - a surplus not

based on the Social Security surplus.

The numbers are hidden over at BEA.DOC.GOV, just bring up the monthly tables and compare National Debt 12/31/99 to National Debt 12/31/00.

When the there is a surplus because, and only because, of Social Security, National Debt still grows because of the Gov Bonds given the Social Security Trust fund.

To drop the debt you must run a real surplus - which is what Clinton did in 2000.

[Ksec]

10. A slight tick down

But not this divebomb of Bushs. To believe after 8 yrs- the month he left his economy would drop this much whether he was in office or not is quite a coincidence. Too much of a coincidence in fact.I also believe consumer confidence played a huge rolein the downward spiral. People know Trickle down is a bogus theory.

[PurityOfEssence]

12. OMB predicted a $1B deficit in August of '01

so it certainly wasn't 9-11 that screwed the proverbial poochie, it was THE TAX CUTS.

[Yupster]

14. Lots of things

caused the defecit.

You can blame the tax cuts.
You can blame the drop in the stock market.
You can blame the economic cycle.
You can blame the accounting and Enron/World-com type scandals.
You can blame the internet-tech bubble which burst.
You can blame 9-11.
You can blame the increased business costs for security.


All those things combined to make a surplus into a defecit with no trouble at all.

In my opinion, the biggest cause was the three year drop in the stock market from March 2000 to about a year ago. During 1995-1999, every new economic estimate showed a smaller and smaller projected defecit. This was because of the incredible amount of capital gains tax which was coming into the government from sales of appreciated stock. I read somewhere that during the tech boom, something like 30 % of the Cakifornia state budget was coming from capital gains from Silicon Valley, especially from exersized stock options. I bet there haven't been a whole lot of capital gains tax revenues surprising the government the last three years or so.

[papau]

18. Removing the Tech boom removes 30% of the market gain under Clinton

second term - or least that is what has been said.

The capital gains tax did not - but should - finance enough of gov to eliminate the deficit.

A 50 to 100 billion drop in cap gain tax revenue does not explain a 530 billion deficit in an expanding economy (the recession ended 11/1/01)

[papau]

13. ERROR in post -the fact is that the NBER still dates recession to March 01

The Bush folks on their own moved the date back in the CEA report to the President.

Only the CEA DOES NOT CALL THE RECESSION START DATE - NBER HAS THAT DUTY!

So what is all this about - appears to be just another Bush/GOP lie -

there was no Clinton recession.

Clinton's last quarter, even after Bush revised all the historical GDP numbers, is still a positive growth quarter!

[Character Assassin]

16. Utterly illogical.

If you are to believe that the recession started in the last 2 months of Clinton's last term, than you also acknowledge that he started the "recovery" too.

This is what's known as a false dichotomy.

[papau]

17. What does one call Bush saying an economy that's growing, is shrinking

4th quarter 2000 was growth - recession means shrinking.

Now a quarter is 3 months, so call the recession as beginning 10/1 and you are an obvious liar.

But the reason for 11/1 or 12/1 is what - can we say politics by a group of Bush political appointees - the CEA? Peak employment was March 01 - and the other indicators were flat.

The NBER "GDP must be shrinking enough to note" rule was not even passed by 9/1/01 per the NBER in their statement that they would not have called a recession except for 9/11.

Prior to 9/11 - indeed right up to 9/11 - Bush claimed there was no recession - but then he wanted those tax cuts for the rich, didn't he?

[OneTwentyoNine]

21. Why not? Republicans use it on a daily basis....

Listen to the whores on TV or Radio...the massive growth through 1993-2000 had nothing to do with Bill Clinton and his administration,it was all because of the economic plan of George HW Bush,Clinton got lucky and just "stumbled" into a massive 8 year growth cycle.

Yet "somewhere" in 2000 Clinton and his failed policy's caused all of the economic problems that Bush "inherited".

Funny thing though is that in Jan and Feb of 2001 there were about 60-70,000 jobs added in both of those months. So much for a Clinton 2000 recession.


David

[bucknaked]

23. lol! Take it easy, Mr. Spock

:p

The whole point of my post is that Bush and his camp are passing the buck on our current economic situation, with terms like "he inherited the recession," "the Clinton recession" etc.

My point was the same organization (NBER) that they're using to make excuses for Bush, their data shows the shallow recession ending just 1 month after the start of Bush's first fiscal year. The Bush camp, who credit the 90's boom to Reagan's (comparitively) drastic tax cuts, which occured about a decade prior too, are now trying to credit Bush, and his mild "phased-in" tax cuts for the NBER's turn-around turn-around date...within a month of his fiscal policies being implemented.

THAT... is utterly (as Mr. Spock would say...) illogical.