Get reagans jizz out of your ass
Your are economically illiterate
Prob why you sell real estate scams
The Feds Fiddles While America Burns
- Thread starter Robo
- Start date
Get reagans jizz out of your ass
Your are economically illiterate
Prob why you sell real estate scams
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Truly comical coming from a moron like you. Tell you what Toppy... you just go ahead and pick a point regarding economics that you would like to debate. I will be more than happy to bury you.
ChoppedLiver
New member
Is that how you really feel?
Bury you head in the sand is more like it!
You want to give Reagan credit but not Clinton.
Child please
Was general studies your major
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Wow... you really picked a hard one.
No moron... I stated what actually occurred. As I stated, the tech/telecom/internet boom took off in the mid to late 80's. It did.
I corrected the idiots that proclaimed that Clinton was responsible for the boom. He was not. Which is why idiots like you cannot produce any Clinton policies that drove the boom. As for Reagan... I didn't credit him for the boom either. I simply stated that the bull market began when he was in office. NOT when Clinton took office.
But your moronic self cannot grasp that. You want to turn this into a partisan issue.
Again... choose an economic topic and I will be glad to bury you.
Yeah but its called 'Climate Change' now. So literally any weather events, or atmospheric conditions can be blamed on man and CO2.
Too much snow? Climate change! Too little Snow? Climate change. Too many Hurricanes? Climate change. Too few hurricanes, Climate change.
See what the leftists have done?
They do the same thing with PC and control speech. Not in favor of gay marriage, bigot. In favor of gay marriage but not transgender bathrooms? Still a bigot.
Too much snow? Climate change! Too little Snow? Climate change. Too many Hurricanes? Climate change. Too few hurricanes, Climate change.
See what the leftists have done?
They do the same thing with PC and control speech. Not in favor of gay marriage, bigot. In favor of gay marriage but not transgender bathrooms? Still a bigot.
Frank Booth
New member
In short, no President ever enacted as much concrete and effective legislation as Bill Clinton to grow the economy, introduce fiscal responsibility, limit the growth of government, increase investment and make wealth for more Americans. He was a fiscal conservative, and in many ways, he had a more intelligent extension of many of Reagan's policies, finally moderated by people who actually understood economics and/or worked in high finance in the private sector. Before I list a few of these policies, I should first provide some context on what you are asking for, and how your approach is essentially counterfactual and, for lack of better words, "bitter".
I understand it is an "easy out" to consign a superlative economic record to some "tech/telecom/biotech revolution" or other unseen hand . Additionally, you could take the intellectually lazy stance that a President has no effect on the economy - it will grow or contract on its own largely free of government meddling. From the years of 1993 to 2000, America generated $90 trillion of economic output. Mathematically determining with absolute certainty what part of this growth is attributable to policy “x” or action “y” is something you cannot do – nor can I. What we do know is that the US economy grew faster, longer and more equally under the Clinton administration than any other peacetime President, and that nearly every economic performance or budgetary metric you can count was, by design, better under Clinton than Reagan, and incomparably better than either Bush President.
Also, drop the old “it was a boom that started under Reagan” crap. That crashed in 1989. An economy doesn’t increase by 60% because of a "tech/telecom/biotech" boom – from someone who claims to be so adept at economics, you need to brush up on your math (these industries were fractional components of this growth; less than 15%, if you believe the BEA).
The good news for you is that much of this was only possible with a relatively moderate GOP congress agreeing to Clinton's policies. The bad news for you is that at the end of the day, they were his policies, and both in perception and reality, he will get credit. Clinton surrounded himself with a superb set of economic advisors (Rubin, Summers, etc.), was pragmatic enough to break from the more stupid parts of Liberal orthodoxy on economic matters, and enacted a concerted, philosophically coherent, and ultimately very effective economic policy that coincided with unprecedented growth and budgetary discipline. You might think it was completely uncorrelated, but the vast majority of economists (to say nothing of people in the financial markets) would probably disagree with you. I know I would.
In regards to your request for “policies that benefitted your economy”, why don’t we focus on “the big 5” – it will help dust off your brain a bit:
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993: The cornerstone where you have to start, Bro. A well-crafted budget bill that raised the top marginal income tax rate to 39.6%, introduced gas taxes, limited the Medicare cap, and introduced new corporate and Social Security taxes. OMB has estimated this alone added between $160-$290B a year in increased tax revenues – but perhaps most importantly, it limited government borrowing. If you are indeed able to “crush people in economics”, you are probably familiar with the correlation between investment, inflation and fiscal stability in advanced economies – and the relatively small effect that tax cuts have on economic growth (I’ll gladly link you some academic papers by people much smarter than you who do this for a living if you need a refresher). The economic recovery started in February 1991, but accelerated significantly after the passage of this bill. It restored confidence in the American budget (see the post 1993 bond market), and combined with Clinton’s impressive cut of government spending growth, eventually balanced the budget. Perhaps his single boldest and best accomplishment from a policy standpoint
Free Trade: (NAFTA, MFN, et. al) A concerted policy that encouraged the growth of high-paying export-related jobs (they pay about 20% more on average), provided the American consumer with cheaper goods (limits inflation, increases economic activity) and allowed increased economic specialization and labor transformation. Forced low-skilled labor to go get high skilled. Increased the overall size of the economy through commerce (something you might have learned in Freshman year economics). Remember, this was passed primarily with GOP votes. You should like it.
Fiscal policy / endorsing Alan Greenspan: Bubba not only re-appointed the Republican Greenspan to the Fed, but worked in concert with him on budgetary and economic initiatives to an extent the Bush never did. When combined with the now excellently-managed budget, the expansionary policies led to a dramatic increase in investment, consumption, economic growth and lower interest rates (you can look it up). Clinton’s council of economic advisers and his appointments to the FED were on the same page, and it worked. Mr. Greenspan said it best – “Bill Clinton is the best Republican President we’ve had in awhile”. You could borrow money, invest money…. Part of the reason the “bull market” actually started in 1993 and started exponential growth in late 1994 (you can look at an S&P chart through Google).
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act: Welfare Reform. 56% reduction in welfare caseload. 75% of those formerly on welfare are working. The Poverty rate under Bubba declined from 15.1 to 11.8% - 7 million people. Surely, you can see the benefit of this one, right?
Taxpayer Relief and Balanced Budget Acts of 1997: A cataloged reduction of $160B in government spending (mostly via Medicare) – along with a reduction in capital gains taxes from 27% to 20%, tax credits for the middle class, home and farm exemptions, and inheritance tax reforms. When you are in the midst of the best economic growth ever, why not add some fuel to the fire, eh? Another reason we had a budget surplus, apparently…….
Yes, it would be silly to assign every economic benefit we had in the 1990s to a very convincing lawyer from Arkansas. But you need to swallow your pride – he had an excellent economic policy, an superlative economic record, and people from both business and academia rightly assign him a good deal of this credit. It was a time when the country was run by smart people, not shithead, Bible-thumping congressmen from the South or Valerie Jarret. And it worked.
Care to debunk the “big 5”? The burden is on you this time, chief.
Last edited:
I wouldn't talk about by general studies major either. Obviously it's not economics.
The tech boom lead by Reagan.
Rofl
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
First, there was nothing 'biter' about my comments. A little mocking perhaps.
That said, you are correct that trying to determine the precise growth caused by a policy or action is hard. That said, perhaps it is you that should brush up on economics. In a bull market there are always sectors that are the leaders, when you have a new 'revolution' so to speak in an industry, it carries over to the other sectors of the economy. Ask any economist what led the charge from the mid 80's throughout the 90's. It wasn't utilities.
Next, the tech/telecom/biotech booms were not 'unseen hands'... the fact that you tried to insinuate such is amusing and already displays your desperation.
Again, your desperation shows. It is not crap to state that the bull market began under Reagan. It is common knowledge. Any economist will instruct you as to such. Saying the economy crashed in 1989 is also incorrect. There was a very mild recession in the early 90's as a result of the Bush tax increases and the situation in Iraq. But the tech/telecom/biotech sectors still led the way. Again, I didn't say that the economy increased SOLELY because of the leading sectors. But only a fool would pretend that didn't drive the stock market performance.
To be clear, I do agree with you that Clinton was the more fiscally responsible President in the past 50 years (at least in his second term). I also agree that he didn't have a negative effect on the market while in office.
First... BRO... I stated that I could easily crush toppy in economics. That said, I do appreciate the response you have provided and look forward to discussing further.
Trying to link this bill to an economic recovery is comical at best. First, the economy only retracted by 0.1% in 1991. Second, the economy grew by 3.6% in 1992, 2.7% in 1993, 4% in 1994 and 2.7% again in 1995. http://www.bea.gov/national/
Next... please elaborate on how you think this bill helped the US bond market. Again, the recovery from the mild recession in 1991 was well under way prior to this bill. The stock and bond markets were already doing well.
Third... this bill did not balance the budget or magically make people believe in the strength of the government. The faith in the US markets was already here. The booms in tech/telecom/biotech were already underway.
Lastly... feel free to link to papers from people you think are smarter than me. I would be happy to read them and address any points you care to bring up from them.
You are correct. I do agree that NAFTA was a benefit. That is a good example of a policy with a positive effect on the economy as a whole. As you stated, hard to put a precise effect of this policy on the economy as a whole, but we can at least agree that it was a plus. You can continue attempting to put me down with your condescending bullshit or we can continue to have an adult conversation. Your choice.
First... RE-appointing someone who quite obviously was already in place is hardly a credit to Clinton. Pretending he had an 'excellently managed budget' is comical at best given he ran ACTUAL deficits every year in office. While I agree Clinton gave a better attempt at being fiscally responsible, pretending any idiot in DC was excellent at managing the budget is a laugh.
Second... Greenspan was not a good fed Chair, especially in his last three terms under Clinton and Bush. His raising of interest rates in 2000 exacerbated the tech/telecom bubble bursting in March of 2000. He was correct in stating the markets were being irrational in the late 90's, but he did little to correct that. That said, I do agree that Clinton worked better with him than either Bush. Not even close with those two idiots.
third... no...we did not have lower interest rates. Rates slowly rose during Clintons terms (as they should have).
Fourth... LMAO... NO, the bull market did not start in 1993. That is pure nonsense. At most you could argue there was a slight bear market in late 87 as a result of the crash. But any economist will tell you the bull market began in August of 1982 and lasted until 2000.
Again... the economy was already booming. That by itself will help reduce the unemployment rates and lead to wage growth. This is where the economy, not policy, is going to dictate those numbers. Unless you care to elaborate on how you think that act reduced the numbers?
I definitely agree that the cap gains tax cuts added to revenue growth. No question... Clintons tax cut for the wealthy was a revenue generator. We agree on that. I also agree that it made the budget look better as a result. It almost helped him to an actual surplus in 2000. That said, it was a result of the economic boom already under way. With the tech/telecom/biotech booms, the revenue still would have been less. This policy made it more affordable to trade in and out of stocks. It did little to stimulate the growth already in place.
Again... your feeble attempts to try and demean me are quite sad. You seem capable of an actual discussion. This issue has nothing to do with pride. I can back up my position with the economic data. The boom started under Reagan. That doesn't mean it was Reagans doing. To pretend the bull market didn't start until 1993 is nonsense. I have stated many times in the past (you are newer to the board so I understand if you haven't seen the posts) that Clinton was one of the better Presidents in my lifetime when it came to fiscal responsibility. I also stated many times that he didn't enact many policies that would harm the country. He did stay out of the way for the most part and added some fuel to the already burning fire as you stated.
The fact that you missed the biggest change to policy, the repeal of Glass Steagall is surprising. None of his successes offset that massive blunder. A blunder that is shared by both parties to be sure, but one that he signed. While it didn't impact the economy while he was in office, that, along with blunders by Greenspan under Bush led to the collapse of the markets in 2007-2009.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
again moron... the boom began while Reagan was in office. That is a fact. I did not say he led the boom.