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.
They didnt rise briefly, they rose and continued to rise until the economic collapse took place.
You arent suggesting that people being allowed to keep their caused an economic collapse are you?
Almost everyone I know understands that economic stimulations take several years before you see an effect.. Why dont you?
What economic stimulation? Private sector job growth under Bush was anemic in the best of years. Public sector job growth and the massive housing bubble were the only things keeping the economy looking somewhat decent. Then it all fell apart.
In two disastrous terms, Bush lost 462k private sector jobs. Not only is that unprecedented, it doesn't even count the job losses from 2009, which saw the country plunge into economic freefall. Compare that to what Reagan inherited--inflation and unemployment were bad, but the Carter administration saw an increase of 9 million private sector jobs during his four years in office.
+9 million private sector job growth vs -462k (and plunging)? I'll take Reagan's situation every time.
As for tax revenues, again, they never returned to 2000 levels and when the economy tanked, tax revenues plunged to 15.1% as a percentage of GDP. That's the third lowest total of the postwar era.
Even the worse year of the early 80's recession (1983) saw tax revenues in the 17% range. Why did they plunge so badly in 2009? Because were unnecessarily undertaxed under Bush.
Massive job losses + two unpaid wars + historically low tax rates (which mostly favored the wealthiest Americans) = the MASSIVE DEBT we currently have. It is Bush's fault.
Last edited by RaymondChandlerLives; 04-06-2014 at 08:22 PM..
And your spin is not making this disappear either.
People have already responded to that chart and proven to you that its an outright lie. If you arent going to read their responses then why do you continue to post?
If Bill Clinton had opposed or stopped any of the things America's financial and business elite would have thrown a temper tantrum. Take the opening up of China to foreign business and its becoming the largest industrial power on Earth. American business viewed China as a vast undeveloped market potentiially 5 to 6 times larger than the US market. The Chinese market needed everything whereas the US market has been saturated since the 1960s ,America isn't one where most people don't have a car, all the home electrical gizmos and 70% of Americans live in a modern postwar homes. When China a Marxist style nation chose to let foreign business invest and build factories and in some cases whole new industries it was viewed as the Second comming by American businessmen and our high-net worth indivuals. The last Marxist state that counted was going to have a western economy and once Chinese had seen the miracle of Capitalism political liberalism would soon follow. China would exchange its Mao suits and Little Red Book for for Brooks Brother suits and the latest book dejure on the streets of the City or Wall Street. The fact that wishfull thinking guided American policy isn't Bill Clinton's fault, President Xi and Premier LI wear suits that would not bee out of place in Wall Street executive suites but China has always been a authoritarian place and has simply exchanged. the Imperial Court for the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China. Ther reason the Chinese elite and Americas elite get along so well is as we all should know businesses are not democracies.
As for the Housing, Dot com bubbles and irrational exuberance, we were laughing all the way to the bank. Who didn't want to strike it rich and buy a stock or even better work for stock options a in a dot com venture that had a laughable business model and we didn't understand that seemed to increase in value not 10 or 20 % but 400%. Heck you could be a multimillionare by the time you turned 26. Unfortunately I wasn't one whose ship came in but I was able to retire at the ripe old age of 53. If Bill Clinton had wanted to stand between Americans and visions of Enron suger pies and Worldcom stock offerings he would have been run over.
Lastly you need to understand that the repeal of Glass-Stegall was demanded by all the players in finance and was America's response to something our British friends did in 1992 called the Big Bang. It was a massive deregulation of British finance, banking and insurance by the Conservative Government and the Bank of England. The British who depend even more on financial business since thay junked their industries nearly 8 decades before were concerned the axis of global finance had shifted to New York and even worse, Dubai, Singapore, Hong Kong and Tokyo and that London was becoming a minor player. The Big Bang had the desired effect as the City became a freewheeling place were no financial insturment no matter how complex or comic could be passed with the tip of a bowler hat and the assurance of several hundred years of banking experience. It had no problem getting billions of new capital from third world, Chinese or Russian billionaires who helped revive London's Luxury Housing market. Now the shoe was on the other foot, Wall Street was alarmed their customers were sending billions of dollars across the Pond and London was resuming its role as the center of World finance. They couldn't wait to get Government financial regulators off the Street, get their hands on Money Center Banks like City Bank, Chase-Manhattan Bank and the Bank of America, tap into the hundreds of billions and in some cases trillions of dollars managed by insurance giants like AIG and the quasi public outfits known as Fanny mae or Ginne Mae and to be able to gamble with unsuspecting Annuity or Bond holders money. There was a lot of political pressure on boths sides of the aisle to get America to this blissful state of financial deregulation and nobody was very happy if one pointed out all the regulation was a reasoned response to the fact these mavens of finance had used such practices to blow the US economy up in the late 1920s and early 1930s. And so it was done. It is only remarkable that it took a decade to blow up in their faces again and we were lucky Ben Bernake, Timmy Gaitner and Hank Poulson remembered when they learned about what happened in the period 1923-1932 as college undergrads several decades earlier.
Excuses.
Clinton championed policies that have harmed America, period.
Clinton chose to attacked those that warned about letting China into the WTO and compared them to China's extremist military leaders.
Clinton chose to rally his party behind repealing Glass-Stegall - many in his party had better judgment he urged them to set those judgments aside.
Sorry Clinton owns it with or without excuses. Bush can be faulted for failing to clean up the many Clinton messes and making new ones.
One has to consider income as well as spending. Given our unemployment rate for the past few years, we need a negative increase in spending because any increase is too much when your income has gone down. You cant' just consider outflow. You need to consider inflow too.
Income increased.
In 2007 it was 2.57 trillion
2008, 2.52 trillion
2009, 2.1 trillion
2010, 2.16 trillion
2011, 2.3 trillion
2012, 2.45
2013, 2.775
We have now surpassed the last high point in revenue.
Clinton championed policies that have harmed America, period.
Clinton chose to attacked those that warned about letting China into the WTO and compared them to China's extremist military leaders.
Clinton chose to rally his party behind repealing Glass-Stegall - many in his party had better judgment he urged them to set those judgments aside.
Sorry Clinton owns it with or without excuses. Bush can be faulted for failing to clean up the many Clinton messes and making new ones.
The Republican Party, take credit for the Clinton economy while pretending they didnt vote for a single thing that happened between 1995 and 2001 when they controlled congress.
People have already responded to that chart and proven to you that its an outright lie. If you arent going to read their responses then why do you continue to post?
It appears that chart was first posted by (you) in post #166.
I looked through all posts after #166, but I could not find any post discrediting that chart.
Could you please give me the post # that discredits that chart.
You are trying to compare apples to cars. Reagen was able to get the coperation from both parties in both Houses and they were at least cordial towards one another. This abomination to sanity that we have now were plotting to unsurp him BEFORE he even got into the Oval office and have been fighting against EVERYTHING that he has done ever since, even if it would help the country or not!
And why not? Obama said, "we won" and lately he said, "we will do things over you and without you" how is that for encouraging co-operation? He will break the law and slam things through. Nice for getting people to sit down and talk, huh? It's his way or the highway.
And why not? Obama said, "we won" and lately he said, "we will do things over you and without you" how is that for encouraging co-operation? He will break the law and slam things through. Nice for getting people to sit down and talk, huh? It's his way or the highway.
Again..... most filibustered president in history. The republican party has gone out of its way to not cooperate, that is not disputable.
I've never heard of a tyrant who has been filibustered the most.
Again..... most filibustered president in history. The republican party has gone out of its way to not cooperate, that is not disputable.
I've never heard of a tyrant who has been filibustered the most.
Filibustered the most?????? What does that have to do with anything? You just make these absurd comments up and expect people to believe them?
Being a tyrant is about control. Please show me all the things that Obama has done to increase states power while decreasing big government. Hint support for NSA and the Patriot Act aren't it.
The Republican Party, take credit for the Clinton economy while pretending they didnt vote for a single thing that happened between 1995 and 2001 when they controlled congress.
#2 China into the WTO and a permanent trade deal with China that was increasing outsourcing and the trade deficit: Jane White: Bill Clinton's True Legacy: Outsourcer-in-Chief
#3 a recession that started 6 weeks into GWB's term, and declining industrial investment for the past half year of Clinton's presidency
#4 a NASDAQ dot-com bubble that had just blown up
#5 a Housing bubble that started forming in 1997
#6 Deregulation of Glass-Stegall (bipartisan, that Clinton asked for and was proud to sign into law)
I clearly point out that some of Clinton's damaging policies were bipartisan (some weren't).
The fact remains...Clinton put in place policies that damaged the budget and the economy that GWB wasn't up to the task of cleaning up. Then GWB made his own messes.
Clinton was very astute to be president during the peak spending years of the boomers and the boom of the internet...
Yes, some Republicans pull an Obama and lie.
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.
Given our unemployment rate for the past few years, we need a negative increase in spending because any increase is too much when your income has gone down. You cant' just consider outflow. You need to consider inflow too.
