Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As the CBO noted, since federal spending requires the issuing of bonds etc to finance, those debts need paid back with interest, and with that interest you have to tax the middle class primarily, and since you now take money out of these peoples pockets, the growth overall is negative..
You seem to be missing a key part of federal spending - it help facilitates the economy and put more money in people's pocket. The Fed may have to charge an extra 0.05% on taxes, but it'd be after the boom put more than 100% the taxed amount in people's wallet.
.
Clinton was smart and he had Newt to get things organized in Congress, it was an excellent team but give great credit to guys like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs for dominating their industries for a time.
Clinton was smart and he had Newt to get things organized in Congress, it was an excellent team but give great credit to guys like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs for dominating their industries for a time.
It's no accident that innovation happens under Democratic presidents.
The Republican tend to stymied innovations. It's one of the reasons why the economy tend to perform better under Democratic presidents.
Remember, when dealing with something as huge as the U.S. economy, and the far-future "start dates" of the countless new programs, taxes, and decisions instituted over a President's reign (4 or 8 years), you cannot simply look at a few statistics that seem favorable during the the dates of the Clinton Presidency conclude that the policies of President Clinton improved America's economy.
To get any proposal into law and financed, there is plenty of deal-making that effects the outcome--in some cases, maybe it was the compromises made to get the proposal through, that gave the good results (instead of the original proposal ideas). The original proposal ideas may have actually reduced the potential benefits. With such incredible complexity, you'd need a thousand Ph.D. thesis testing a thousand small parts of the whole, to even begin understanding how such a complex system works.
In truth, I think the system is so complex that any politician who truly wants to improve things for anyone except the upper 1% of the upper 1%, is just throwing stones in the ocean.
It's no accident that innovation happens under Democratic presidents.
The Republican tend to stymied innovations. It's one of the reasons why the economy tend to perform better under Democratic presidents.
This is just stupid, the private sector is the reason for innovation. I'd love to see a list of the innovation that the Democrats caused and a list of the innovative opportunities that we missed out on because of the Republicans.
This is just stupid, the private sector is the reason for innovation. I'd love to see a list of the innovation that the Democrats caused and a list of the innovative opportunities that we missed out on because of the Republicans.
You will not find that list because innovation in this country is guided by the invisible hand.
Stem cell research is an example. The Republicans wanted to kill this innovation; but fortunately several liberal states thumped their noses at the federal government and provided their own funding. But another way to look at it is: what if the states hadn't stepped in? Stem cell research would have been dead, thanks to the Republicans.
Another example is the Internet. Despite the right-wing lies, Al Gore never claimed to have invented the Internet; but he was a key person in advance the funding and moving the development forward for the creation of the Internet when he was in office.
Innovation is shaped by people, environment, policy, support, funding, education, and many other ingredients. Missing one, and it may not happen. It's also not an accident that blues states are much more innovative than red states. Blue states have the mentality and the right environment to foster innovation, where red states are often not. Although they are not the only key, but the people in charge has something to do with creating that environment.
.
It's no accident that innovation happens under Democratic presidents.
The Republican tend to stymied innovations. It's one of the reasons why the economy tend to perform better under Democratic presidents.
this is the most ignorant statement I ever heard.
There is a plan put together for 100 years when Republican Presidents are in the W.H. to kill innovations in the private sector.....they do this by having a special unit to go to the private sector and just brainstorm and destroy people's innovations.
because Republicans hate the private sector and Democrats love the private sector.
There is a plan put together for 100 years when Republican Presidents are in the W.H. to kill innovations in the private sector.....they do this by having a special unit to go to the private sector and just brainstorm and destroy people's innovations.
because Republicans hate the private sector and Democrats love the private sector.
Innovation does not always take place in the private sector. That is very, very ignorant.
The Internet is an example.
I am talking about unintended consequence. If you have to invoke a scenario of intended behavior as a sarcastic response, then you've already lost the argument before you began.
Clinton got lucky. He was put into the WH during the internet boom. That Internet boom was the result of the Reagan policies which encouraged entrepreneurship and risk taking by creative people.
I voted for Clinton (I admit to succumbing to the liberal indoctrination of higher learning) but I know Clinton was no economic mastermind.
BJ Clinton makes Hilary and Donald look like Marx when it comes to economic policies. Because of the STRONG REPUBLICAN LED Congress - back when you didn't surrender you backbone upon entering the Senate and House chambers - Clinton enacted policies like "Welfare to Work," that actually contributed to a growing economy.
Clinton was the recipient of a growing economy and relatively non-volatile global picture. He did nothing to damage what he took over (other than on the terrorist front), but he also was not the reason for the economic prosperity that was swept in by the Reagan years.
#NeverTrump
As long as we are on the subject, we might as well mention team Clinton's role in the sub prime bubble and subsequent market crash:
...note I wrote "role" as in not solely responsible.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
