| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| The Clinton Economy; Was it to his credit? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Nov 24 2008, 10:06 PM (133 Views) | |
| Sgt. Jaggs | Nov 24 2008, 10:06 PM Post #1 |
|
How about a Voyager Movie
|
I remember the 8 Clinton years and the economy seemed to be doing very well. I remember recession being mentioned during the election after H.W. Bush's term but I am not educated on those facts. From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Bill_Clinton The economy Clinton's presidency included a great period of economic growth in America's history. According to David Greenberg, a professor of history and media studies at Rutgers University: The Clinton years were unquestionably a time of progress, especially on the economy [...] Clinton's 1992 slogan, 'Putting people first,' and his stress on 'the economy, stupid,' pitched an optimistic if still gritty populism at a middle class that had suffered under Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. [...] By the end of the Clinton presidency, the numbers were uniformly impressive. Besides the record-high surpluses and the record-low poverty rates, the economy could boast the longest economic expansion in history; the lowest unemployment since the early 1970s; and the lowest poverty rates for single mothers, black Americans, and the aged. [23] In proposing a plan to cut the deficit, Clinton submitted a budget that would cut the deficit by $500 billion over five years by reducing $255 billion of spending and raising taxes on the wealthiest 1.2% of Americans.[24] It also imposed a new energy tax on all Americans and subjected about a quarter of those receiving Social Security payments to higher taxes on their benefits.[25] Republican Congressional leaders launched an aggressive opposition against the bill, claiming that the tax increase would only make matters worse. Republicans were united in this opposition, as it were, and every Republican in both houses of Congress voted against the proposal. In fact, it took Vice President Gore's tie-breaking vote in the Senate to pass the bill.[26] After extensive lobbying by the Clinton Administration, the House narrowly voted in favor of the bill by a vote of 218 to 216.[27] The budget package expanded the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) as relief to low-income families. It reduced the amount they paid in federal income and Federal Insurance Contributions Act tax (FICA), providing $21 billion in relief for 15 million low-income families. Improved economic conditions and policies served to encourage investors in the bond market, leading to a decline in long-term interest rates. The bill contributed to dramatic decline of the budget deficit in the years following its enactment–in 1998, for the first time since 1969, the nation achieved a budget surplus.[28] The surplus money was used to pay down the national debt, which had risen to $5.4 trillion by 1997. The economy continued to grow, and in February 2000 it broke the record for the longest uninterrupted economic expansion in U.S. history—lasting ten years.[29] In the year 2000, the nation was on track to be debt free for the first time since 1835. After Republicans won control of Congress in 1994, Clinton vehemently fought their proposed tax cuts, believing that they favored the wealthy and would weaken economic growth. In August 1997, however, Clinton and Congressional Republicans were finally able to reach a compromise on a bill that reduced capital gain and estate taxes and gave taxpayers a credit of $500 per child and tax credits for college tuition and expenses. The bill also called for a new individual retirement account (IRA) called the Roth IRA to allow people to invest taxed income for retirement without having to pay taxes upon withdrawal. Additionally, the law raised the national minimum for cigarette taxes. The next year, Congress approved Clinton’s proposal to make college more affordable by expanding the financial-aid program known as Pell grants and lowering interest rates on student loans. Clinton also battled Congress nearly every session on the federal budget, in an attempt to secure spending on education, government entitlements, the environment, and AmeriCorps–the national service program that was passed by the Democratic Congress in the early days of the Clinton administration. The two sides, however, could not find a compromise and the budget battle came to a stalemate in 1995 over proposed cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, education, and the environment. After Clinton vetoed numerous Republican spending bills, Republicans in Congress twice refused to pass temporary spending authorizations, forcing the federal government to partially shut down because agencies had no budget on which to operate.[30] In April 1996 Clinton and Congress finally agreed on a budget that provided money for government agencies until the end of the fiscal year in October. The budget included some of the spending cuts that the Republicans supported (decreasing the cost of cultural, labor, and housing programs) but also preserved many programs that Clinton wanted, including educational and environmental ones. President Clinton's Latino Appointees in 1998The Clinton presidency claims responsibility for the following: Average economic growth of 4.0 percent per year, compared to average growth of 2.8 percent during the previous years. The economy grew for 116 consecutive months, the most in history.[31] Creation of more than 22.5 million jobs—the most jobs ever created under a single administration, and more than were created in the previous 12 years. Of the total new jobs, 20.7 million, or 92 percent, were in the private sector.[32] Economic gains spurred an increase in family incomes for all Americans. Since 1993, real median family income increased by $6,338, from $42,612 in 1993 to $48,950 in 1999 (in 1999 dollars).[33] Overall unemployment dropped to the lowest level in more than 30 years, down from 6.9 percent in 1993 to just 4.0 percent in January 2001. The unemployment rate was below 5 percent for 40 consecutive months. Unemployment for African Americans fell from 14.2 percent in 1992 to 7.3 percent in 2000, the lowest rate on record. Unemployment for Hispanics fell from 11.8 percent in October 1992 to 5.0 percent in 2000, also the lowest rate on record.[32] Inflation dropped to its lowest rate since the Kennedy Administration, averaging 2.5 percent, and fell from 4.7 percent during the previous administration.[34] The homeownership rate reached 67.7 percent near the end of the Clinton administration, the highest rate on record. In contrast, the homeownership rate fell from 65.6 percent in the first quarter of 1981 to 63.7 percent in the first quarter of 1993.[35] The poverty rate also declined from 15.1 percent in 1993 to 11.8 percent in 1999, the largest six-year drop in poverty in nearly 30 years. This left 7 million fewer people in poverty than there were in 1993.[36] The surplus in fiscal year 2000 was $237 billion—the third consecutive surplus and the largest surplus ever.[35] Clinton worked with the Republican-led Congress to enact welfare reform. As a result, welfare rolls dropped dramatically and were the lowest since 1969. Between January 1993 and September 1999, the number of welfare recipients dropped by 7.5 million (a 53 percent decline) to 6.6 million. In comparison, between 1981-1992, the number of welfare recipients increased by 2.5 million (a 22 percent increase) to 13.6 million people.[37] isn't this good? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earned_Income_Tax_Credit Point of the question of this post is was the economic good times we had under Clinton due to his policies or due to coincidence of a cyclical evolving economy? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Swidden | Nov 25 2008, 02:12 AM Post #2 |
|
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
|
The recession of the first Bush administration was pretty much officially over by the time the election had rolled around. It had not worked it's way all the way through the general public. Depending on what economic experts you listen to the economic expansion of the Clinton years may have really begun under the Reagan years. The recession during Bush 41's term having been relatively short and mild by many standards. The Recession following the bursting of the Tech Bubble in '01 and the beginnings of the War on Terror being even milder. How much credit/blame do you give Presidential administrations these days? Given the interconnectedness of the world economies I think it is harder and harder to attribute either credit or blame. Policies (domestically) these days I believe are more effective when it comes to how much of our money the government will allow us to keep. Psychology seems to be driving things more these days. Fear and hope are alternating and pushing the markets in wildly different directions from week to week. Sooner or later things will have to settle down and when they do things will start perking along again. Probably not as fast as they were over the past few years, but hopefully at a decent pace. Will President Obama deserve the credit when this eventually happens? I don't know, but I have no doubt he will lay claim to it. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dandandat | Nov 25 2008, 10:15 AM Post #3 |
|
Time to put something here
|
Swidden is correct, The recession of Gorge H. Bushes presidency was very middle and he and the congress of the time had implemented the repaired mechanisms (as much as a government can repaired an economy) before the president left office. There was very little for Clinton to do about the economy once he took office. The Economic boom of the late 90's was do to technological innovation more than any thing a president could have done. It was at this time that the US's large services based economy immerged when previously the economy was manly pushed forward by manufacturing goods. So in a sense a whole new source of wealth creation immerged. It was also at this time that the computer revelation really went into full swing increasing the efficiencies of the markets and industries. And finally it was at this time that the world transitioned into global economy system, opening new markets with which to exploit. None of these key contributors to the boom of the mid to late 90s where the result of presidential action, they where simply the innovations of the time. Their of course where growing pains to this new expansion which manifested it self in the 01 tech bubble burst and the following recession in the last months of the Clinton administration and the first months of the Bush administration. But just as Clinton can't be rewarded for the boom, he really can’t be blamed for the small collapse. It was simple a forgone conclusion doe to the boom. One could say that the Clinton admin should have headed the collapse off before it started with some key policies. But as always hind sight is always 20/20 and its easy to say what could have and should have been done in the past with the information of the present. And yes the 01 recession was on schedule with the typical cyclical nature of the economy; Just at the innovations of the late 90's (computer age, services markets boom, global economy) where also on schedule with the typical cyclical nature of the economy. Even now one can reasonably assume there is going to be some type of innovation a few years down the line that will full the next cycle after this recession. Perhaps in the medical industry as the boomers (the ones with the money) start to face their mortality. Or energy production as the worlds resources dwindle. It may be wise to buy into some of these companies soon either directly or through mutual funds and ETFs. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |


2:13 PM Jul 11