Bill Clinton #2. An essential record of fiscal responsibility.

[denem]

Without the Clinton administration's decisive, no nonsense management of Federal finances, the Obama Administration would lack essential weaponry as they prepare for their fights of fights, a most ambitious budget which will be opposed tooth and nail by all sectional interests guarding their ill gotten gains. Without Bill Clinton's precedent of raising the top tax RATE, more than halving the deficit, and overseeing the most dramatic sustained recovery since JFK, Obama's s budget would be a very hard sell indeed.

If the Clinton Administration had been profligate, throwing cash at every sexy project in sight, without regard to bang for the buck, or the bottom line, Obama would be would be stifled if not stymied . Some Clinton budgetary measure are deeply unpopular here, eg Welfare Cuts; Others, like cuts to military spending, less so.

The Clinton Administration was a government of it's time. They capitalized on the internet boom to reestablish the Democratic brand as safe custodians of the economy. They faced a broadly based venomous opposition hawking the populism of the time, including deregulation. Nevertheless it's a hard sell for the GOP tp pin on Clinton, the bursting bubbles of GWB's 'look the other way', 'sell them down the river' amateur hour . The GOP points to Carter legislation to explain the housing collapse. Good luck to them.

Now, as President Obama promotes tax increases for the top tier, cutting back the feather beds, promises to halve the deficit while at the same time promoting a bold agenda of essential medicine for this time, he has much to be thankful for from the Administration of the 42nd President of the United States, IMO.

[Jennicut]

1. I agree. As much as we can fault Bubba for other no so great things

that he did or did not do as President the fact that he was fiscally responsible makes Obama's arguments that much more relevant. Dems lower the deficit and national debt and Repubs bring it up, its been established over a period of time. http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm

I would say Carter did not overspend either...surprise, surprise.

[denem]

2. I remember Howard Dean saying he was running as a 'Deficit Hawk'.

Bush he said was certainly not a conservative, compassionate or otherwise. Turning the GOP's propaganda against them is a fine way to sell a wider agenda.

[Jennicut]

17. Yup. Dems are better with our money and there is something satisfying

in telling Repubs that because we have the proof to back it up.

[mikekohr]

3. Clinton/Democrats Out-Perform Republicans On Every Economic Standard

When Reagan took office in 1981 the national debt was $930 billion. When GW Bush left office it had exploded to $10.8 TRILLION! Clinton balanced the yearly budget and paid down the national debt by $587 billion. In effect 96%, $10,4 Trillion, of today's national debt has been ran up by the last three Republican presidents, Reagan, Bush and Bushed.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1). FEDERAL SPENDING: since 1960 Republicans increased Federal Spending by 71% more than have Democrats

2). FEDERAL DEBT: since 1960 Republicans have increased the National debt by 100% more per year than have Democrats.

3). GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT: since 1921, adjusted for inflation, Democrats outproduce Republicans by 43% . Starting in 1940 the Democratic advantage is 23% better.

4). REAL PER CAPITA INCOME: since 1960 Democrats have outperformed Republicans by 30%. (This is perhaps the most important economic statistic of all)

5). INFLATION: since 1960, Democrats outperform Republicans 3.13% to 3.89%

6). UNEMPLOYMENT: since 1960 it decreases in an average Democratic year by 0.3% to 5.33%, and increases in average Republican year by 1.1% to 6.38%.

7). JOB CREATION: from 1945 to 2003, Democrats produced 174,200 jobs per month, Republicans have only produced 60,600 per month. Every time a Democrat succeeds a Republican, job creation soars. Every time a Republican succeeds a Democrat job creation plummets. NO EXCEPTIONS!


8). DOW JONES AVERAGE: since 1921 the DOW has increased by 52% more under Democratic administrations

9). THE BOND MARKET: since 1940 the value of 10 year Treasury bonds rose 1.2% under Democrats and fell 0.5% under Republicans

SOURCES-Bureau of Labor Statistics, Economic Policy Institute, Christian Science Monitor, The Los Angles Times -Michael Kingsley-
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MONTHLY JOB CREATION RECORDS BY PRESIDENT AND PARTY

Many Americans are aware that George W. Bush has had the worst job creation record since the government began tracking these figures in 1939. But Bush's colossal failure to manage the economy overshadows a much larger story. The record shows two unmistakable patterns:

1). Every time a Republican succeeds a Democrat in the White House, the job creation rate plummets.

2). Every time a Democrat succeeds a Republican in the White House, the job growth rate soars. Every time! No exceptions!

Over the last seventy years, the decrease in monthly job creation when a Republican succeeds a Democrat is 68,913



Considering the steady growth in population of the United States during this time frame the job creation rate should steadily increase each month (currently it must grow by 138,000 per month to keep up with population growth). This trend only manifests itself when examining Democratic administrations:

Listed below is the average job growth increase for all terms served:

Democratic Record: Republican Record:

Truman +86,500 Eisenhower +36,500
Kennedy +100,000 Nixon +141,666
Johnson +191,666 Reagan +166,666
Carter +216,666 G. H. Bush +52,083
Clinton +241,666 G. W. Bush +31,250
----------------- ----------------------
+167,200 63,853
Jobs gained per month Jobs gained per month

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

4. I love Bill but the budget was balanced by the stock bubble so it's nothing to brag on

The forces that balanced the budget in 2000 are the same forces currently destroying our economy.

But since 80% of Americans (or whatever crazy number it is) think the deficit is the primary cause of economic contraction I agree that the argument in the OP is politically potent.

[AJH032]

5. The deficit began to decrease in 1993 with the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act

and decreased every year until around 1996 or 1997, when the budget started to run into surpluses, all way before 2000.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

6. I know that

Raising taxes did reduce the deficit as everyone except wing-nuts knew it would.

But the gap was closed by the internet bubble. No internet bubble, no late 1990s surpluses.

Without the internet bubble the fiscally responsible trend lines established in 1993-1994 would not have achieved the results (balanced budgets) that are trumpeted as the results of those policies.

[AJH032]

10. How can you be so certain?

Perhaps it was the change in long-term rates, sparked by the 1993 budget act, which led to the greater stock performance (which would mean your logic is backwards). Either way, you cannot state so certainly that you know what event caused what. There is absolutely no definitive proof.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

13. Okay, have it your way. Clinton policies CAUSED the greatest economic disaster of our times

If Clinton policies CAUSED the bubble then he's the great economic villain of our times.

I am giving Clinton-era economic policy the benefit of the doubt rather than implicating it in designing the tragic engine of its own success.

It is unrealistic to expect any president ot prick a bubble and I do not blame Clinton for that.

But the fact remains that the US economy was doomed to deep, deep declines before Clinton left office and no subsequent action could have prevented it.

I blame Greenspan and God, not Clinton, but the late 1990s economy was as healthy as the late 1920s economy.

[AJH032]

15. I don't think that's necessarily true

Today's economic problems stem primarily from an overuse of credit, way beyond the economy's means. The bursting of the stock bubble around 2000 wasn't necessarily the cause of that (though, I make no claim that it was unrelated, I just don't know). I think, though, that today's recession is not directly rooted in the stock burst.

Anyway, I wasn't trying to say your earlier claim was wrong, just that we cannot be so certain as to what was the cause of what.

[Jennicut]

18. I think Clinton did the best he could with the Repubs in charge of congress

The stock bubble is not what totally ruined the economy. It was taking uneasy risks which caused everything to crash. I know some here dislike Clinton immensely but he raised taxes on the wealthy and had a much better economic philosophy then Reagan and Bush did.

[denem]

7. The NASDAQ bubble got moving in late 1997.

Yes, Clinton rode the revenue, but the primary responsibility overseeing "irrational exuberance" surely lies with the worst Fed chairman since 1929.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

14. Any date from 1995-1997 works for me

It is hard to draw a line in the post-1994 market jump between good-gains caused by increased tech driven productivity and low interest rates (which Clinton fiscal policies do deserve legitimate credit for in the pre-pathological phase of the recovery) and which gains were delusional.

[Every Man A King]

8. So FDR was a bad pres since he ran huge deficits? n/t

[denem]

12. Of course not. Depression = Deficits.

Obama will be running huge deficits for at least two years. The Clinton example is that Democrats don't bankrupt the government by reckless,, ideologically driven give aways to the privileged.

[blm]

16. Imagine what this nation would be like today if Clinton had allowed BCCI issues to be fully revealed

instead of protecting the powerful players involved. That would have also included the full explanation of S&Ls, too.

But then, some so-called 'leaders' don't respect the citizenry enough to let them know the truth.

Fully scrutinized BCCI would have assured....NO Bush2, NO 9-11 event, NO global financial crisis today.

[Jennicut]

19. FDR had no choice but to have deficits. Didn't Hoover try to balance the budget?

It was a disaster. But the recession of 1992 was not the depression of the 1930's nor what we are going through right now. But I think the Dems are overall more responsible with our money then Repubs are.

[Hutzpa]

9. The primaries are over

when is Bill going to get over the primaries, gawd, every single day there
are surrogates touting the how the Clinton administration did this, how the
Obama administration is using Bill Clinton's people, my goodness, this kind
of demagoguery is shameful.

He should be using all this energy into finding new ways on Energy consumption
just as his pal Al Gore is doing.

My gawd Bill......take a chill pill, have a break, take a kit-kat.

[iamthebandfanman]

11. ummm okay ? n/t