Those would be nominal rates, not effective. In either case, effective rates were in fact higher than current levels despite healthy economic growth and can be blamed for contributing substantially to foolishly large budget deficits.
Of course, nominal rates. Brain fart. Thank you.
There was not a recession during any point in Clinton's presidency, nor a single quarters worth of negative growth. You're simply in the wrong here.
I misremembered this. Your persistence made me go back and look. Actually what happened is that there was a sharp drop in the GDP for two to three quarters in 1992 to 1993, the immediate effects of Clinton's announcement of a tax hike, and the economy grew much slower after the hike was enacted than it should have before Clinton agreed with Republicans to cut the rates in his second term. Essentially, "the Reaganesque sweet spot" was restored.
The half a percent figure is indeed correct, and regardless of Republican desires during the period, the appropriations proposed and signed into law by Clinton remain below historical norm and responsible in nature considering both the minimal deficits and later surpluses he delivered.
I don't dispute the half of a percent figure. I took your word for it. Go back and read my post again. Though I disagree with your overall analysis, you struck me as a man who knows what he’s talking about, at least in terms of the technicalities.
As for spending and growth of government? No. Stop it. Clinton would have pushed through HillaryCare and would have spent much more than "below the historical norm" on other domestic programs in addition to it with a Democratically controlled Congress.
I think you know that's true.
Come on! HillaryCare alone would have sent the national debt soaring. So much for the surge in revenues during his second term, mostly due to the 1995 tax cut championed by the Republican Congress. And surpluses? What surpluses? They never would have happened had his wife gotten her way.
No. I don't give him credit for that. The credit for that goes to the electorate and the Republican Party!
He proposed what he did because that's the best he could expect to pass. And he agreed to cut taxes in his second term for the same reason he sheepishly dropped HillaryCare: because it was politically expedient for him to do so in response to Republican control of Congress and the electorate's disdain for HillaryCare and his tax hike. The resulting boom vindicated the position of the Republicans and the electorate. Clinton was not the leader in this wise, but the one who was corrected!
"I got the message."
"The era of big government is over."
Recall?
Who taught him that? Washington? Carter? LOL!
Once again, the roughly 20-year economic boom of the 80's and 90's, interrupted by the historically mild, cyclical recession of 1991, goes to the Reagan revolution, i.e., the legacy of his approach to government, not Clinton's. Republicans held Clinton's feet to the fire. That's all. And by the way, in spite of the high effective rates and Reagan's increases in military spending which served, along with certain geostrategic moves, to bring the former Soviet Union down, revenues soared during his tenor of booming economic growth too. Naturally.
More errors I'm afraid. Clinton assigned a committee the task of crafting suitable welfare reform legislation prior to the Democrats losing control of congress. The main clog in the pipes was infighting, inaction, and later, draconian measures demanded by House leadership.
More errors? No. (1) "Effective rates" was a gaff. Clearly. My terminology was correct in the second instance. (2) I misremembered the extent of the drop in growth, but it was close to negative and did in fact slow growth significantly. I got no problem with acknowledging these errors. Isn't the first time I've made such errors, won't be the last. (3) I didn't dispute your half percent. (4) And your central thesis, as I have shown, is the superficial reasoning of Clinton-was-president-at-the-time-and-therefore . . .
Clinton got spanked by the electorate for his decidedly non-Reaganesque initiatives in his first term, and got religion in his second, governing just like Reagan in terms of economics! Fact.
As for this ongoing pipedream of yours about sincere and real Clintonian welfare reform without a Republican-controlled Congress . . . I know "Clinton assigned a committee the task of crafting suitable welfare reform legislation prior to the Democrats losing control of congress."
Can you say political posturing? Games? Shoeshine? Appearances?
The real initiatives were passed by the Republican Congress--three in all. They didn't come out of the White House. Clinton vetoed the first two, hemmed and hawed, hemmed and hawed. He wanted to veto the third bill (The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996), but decided that wouldn't be politically expedient in an election year in which the electorate was demanding it.
Had that not been the case, he would have vetoed that one too.
Bottom line: Clinton knew that real, meaningful welfare reform would never get passed as long as the Democrats controlled at least one of the chambers of Congress, and he never imagined that the Republicans would hold both chambers long enough to force the issue.
Like I said, your naiveté is showing. Everyone with any sense knew, particularly after Clinton's second veto, that he was hoping and holding out for a shift in the electorate's mood.
Sorry. I don't drink Kool-Aid.
Abject silliness. Clinton was elected while the unemployment rate hovered in the mid 7's. One cannot credit Reagan for the success of Clinton while absolving him for the downturn directly following his term with any shred of honesty.
Silliness? Dishonesty?
Once again, let's put what I actually wrote before the reader:
In other words, Clinton's economic legacy was never his own, but that of Reagan, and if not for the Republican-controlled Congress that permanently killed HilaryCare, permanently stopped any further increases in tax rates and ensured welfare reform among other things, he would have ruined it.
Clearly, I've already proven this to be true. Your gas about the higher unemployment rates that necessarily accompany cyclical economic downturns is moot. Clinton could have lead the nation to the historically low unemployment rate of his second term much sooner had he not raised taxes in his first term.
Downturns happen. That's the economic cycle. Clinton wasn't allowed to do the kind of damage the Messianic One did to our economy. And the economic downturn that Clinton faced was nothing compared to what Reagan lead this nation out of it. The entrenched stagflation years of the seventies and early eighties were devastating, exacerbated by staggeringly high tax rates, double-digit unemployment, inflation and interest rates. In truth, Reagan faced a worse economy than Obama.
The worst economy since the Great Depression! LOL! What a crock. Obama took an admittedly tough challenge . . . and threw tons of money (squandered), a devalued dollar and government-controlled healthcare at it. Idiot.
Even Clinton knew Romany would have been a better president.
Bottom line: the more conservative our nation's economic policies are, the better off the economy will be.
Facts and Figures:
Clinton Tax Hikes Slowed Growth
The Dangerous Myth About The Bill Clinton Tax Increase - Forbes
Reality check: Taxes Up, Growth Down - Conservative News