Rates were at historical lows for the entire Clinton presidency. it didn't change the fact that the economy was doing well. Without the specter of inflation, there was no need to raise rates. People who think there is THAT much difference between 2% and, say, 4.5% just don't have a long enough memory.BULL!!! Check this link which clearly shows interest rate policy for the past 14 years:
http://www.federalreserve.gov/fomc/fundsrate.htmScroll down the page to see the Fed's interest rate policy chartThe lowest rate under Clinton was 3.25% and that was at the very beginning of his term. That was far from historical. He left rates low for one year only.
People who think there is THAT much difference between 2% and, say, 4.5% just don't have a long enough memory.No, there's not that much difference between 2% and 4.5%, BUT there is a hell of a lot of difference between 5.25%, the rate under Clinton in 1996, well before the tech boom and 1% now under Bush at the end of Bush II's first term.
Since when did "low interest rates" become a bad thing? The whole point in balancing the budget under Clinton was that it would result in lower interest rates and people would save tons on their mortgages etc.It's not a bad thing at all, when you have a balanced budget, but when you have historic deficits, which is what we have, it's horrible.
Because monetary policy is actually more than just an interest rate. But a 100 or 200 pt move in the Dow seems like big news THAT DAY, but is really trivial. I could easily see the Dow jump UP the first time the Fed raises rates (as it has gone DOWN in the past when they were lowered) because it signals that the Fed thinks the economy is TOO hot. That's just plain wrong. Do you understand monetary policy at all? Do you understand that when the fed sets rates it affects all debts? So, if the Fed raises rates, that means less profits because of higher interest costs. Do you understand that?
Forget the "Bush" anything. I've been very consistent in calling it the way I saw it. The sky does not become purple if we determine that "blue" will help Bush get elected. BUT running around yelling that the sky IS purple WILL get us clobered. I've just called for a shift of message away from the two-issue "economy/Iraq" message and on to things Bush has done that WILL NOT change/improve prior to the election. One thing he says (and I'm sure you agree with him) is that the economy is likely to look REALLY good come November. HE thinks that means we automatically lose. It doesn't have to be that way unless WE keep the mantra "the economy, stupid" going.It's extremely important for all Democrats to tell the public the truth that this recovery is built on a house of debt that will tumble if we don't take steps now to correct it.
As for credit/debt? What you don't get is that EVERY REAL is based in large part on increases in credit. The 80's massive debt increase gave us only a short recession in the early 90's. This spending actaully isn't as big (and the article says so) yet you expect a far worse result?What you don't understand is that the difference between the debts of the 80s and the 90s is that we had a dominant industry that was creating spectacular growth. That industry allowed us to pay back that debt. That industry is the reason why we ran a surplus. Why we had low unemployment. That industry was IT.
We no longer have that industry around to bail us out.
Finally, your Freeper is showing. Whenever you need to rebutt an argument, you reach for the Clinton angle. That's twice in one thread where you've used Freeper arguing tactics.