The Clinton Recession

[aquapub]

Now that we have dispelled the primary myth upon which the left's assertions about the prosperity of the Clinton yearsare based (Clinton was in office while things got better, so he must have caused it to get better), now the question is, what did he do that could have logically been responsible for the prosperity, and what other factors could've made the prosperity happen?

-The economy started getting better right when Clinton took office, therefor he couldn't have been responsible. The 12 years of Republican leadership is the only thing that could've logically caused it, that it, if any president was responsible.

-The emergence of 401ks, cell phones, computers and the internet caused the prosperity of the 1990s, any economist will tell you that.

-Clinton's rampant tax hikes on small businesses (who create 80% of the jobs) couldn't logically have caused the prosperity. His policies all harmed the economy.

 

[Iriemon]

Now that we have dispelled the primary myth upon which the left's assertions about the prosperity of the Clinton yearsare based (Clinton was in office while things got better, so he must have caused it to get better), now the question is, what did he do that could have logically been responsible for the prosperity, and what other factors could've made the prosperity happen?

-The economy started getting better right when Clinton took office, therefor he couldn't have been responsible. The 12 years of Republican leadership is the only thing that could've logically caused it, that it, if any president was responsible.

-The emergence of 401ks, cell phones, computers and the internet caused the prosperity of the 1990s, any economist will tell you that.

-Clinton's rampant tax hikes on small businesses (who create 80% of the jobs) couldn't logically have caused the prosperity. His policies all harmed the economy.

I think that having a Govt that, for a change, was acting fiscally responsible created a climate of confidence that encouraged business growth. I can't prove it.

The economy kicked *** while Clinton was president, and that was with him decreasing the deficits and not putting the country $3 trillion more in debt.

If Clinton's policies harmed the eocnomy, all I can say is lordy we need more harmful policies.

 

[aquapub]

1) The economy kicked *** while Clinton was president, and that was with him decreasing the deficits and not putting the country $3 trillion more in debt.

2) If Clinton's policies harmed the eocnomy, all I can say is lordy we need more harmful policies.

1) It's illogical to act as if the deficit has anything to do with the performance of the economy.

And just because 2 things happen at once doesn't mean one is causing the other.

The economy started to take off just as Clinton took office, which can only be explained by something before Clinton causing the growth.

Furthermore, Clinton's raping of small businesses could not have logically caused them to expand. Small businesses need MORE money to create jobs, not less.

2) As beyond you as it may be, raping the economy during a major boom and watching the effects unfold after you're done killing it doesn't constitute making the economy "kick ***."

 

[Befuddled_Stoner]

Aquapub, your stunning grasp of logic never fails to inspire awe. Rare is the individual who can command as much of respect as you.

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

1) It's illogical to act as if the deficit has anything to do with the performance of the economy.

Government deficits have always had an enormous effect on the economy. You've obviously never heard of the Keynesian Effect.

The economy started to take off just as Clinton took office, which can only be explained by something before Clinton causing the growth.

Do you have a source to back that up? Are you also asserting that Reagan's economic policies are responsible for the recession throughout Bush The Elder's presidency?

Furthermore, Clinton's raping of small businesses could not have logically caused them to expand. Small businesses need MORE money to create jobs, not less.

You obviously missed out on the fact that the Clinton Administration authorized a grand total of $77 BILLION in loans to small businesses which began immediatley and cut their taxes in the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. You should also take a look at the Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996. Clinton provided small businesses with more resources to expand than the previous 4 administrations COMBINED. As a result, more than 20 million new jobs were created in the private sector under his watch.

 

[The Mark]

www.Wikipedia.com - The Clinton Recession

www.Wikipedia.com - Early 2000s recession

www.Wikipedia.com - Recession

Market-oriented economies are characterized by economic cycles, but actual recessions (declines in economic activity) do not always result. There is much debate as to whether government intervention smooths the cycle (see Keynesianism), exaggerates it (see Real business cycle theory), or even creates it (see monetarism).

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

Now that we have dispelled the primary myth upon which the left's assertions about the prosperity of the Clinton yearsare based (Clinton was in office while things got better, so he must have caused it to get better), now the question is, what did he do that could have logically been responsible for the prosperity, and what other factors could've made the prosperity happen?

-The economy started getting better right when Clinton took office, therefor he couldn't have been responsible. The 12 years of Republican leadership is the only thing that could've logically caused it, that it, if any president was responsible.

-The emergence of 401ks, cell phones, computers and the internet caused the prosperity of the 1990s, any economist will tell you that.

-Clinton's rampant tax hikes on small businesses (who create 80% of the jobs) couldn't logically have caused the prosperity. His policies all harmed the economy.

Clinton Recession - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Clinton Recession is a political slogan, primarily used by Republicans to place blame for the 2001 recession on former President Bill Clinton."

"The phrase gained additional mention on February 9, 2004, when President George W. Bush's Council of Economic Advisers produced an economic report which changed the start of the recession from the widely accepted date of March 2001, to the fourth quarter of 2000. This was seen by some as an attempt to blame Clinton, who was still in office during that period. The change was due to a downward revised forth quarter GDP growth, which is done from time to time by the fed, sometimes up sometimes down."

 

[Goobieman]

Clinton Recession - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Clinton Recession is a political slogan, primarily used by Republicans to place blame for the 2001 recession on former President Bill Clinton."

"The phrase gained additional mention on February 9, 2004, when President George W. Bush's Council of Economic Advisers produced an economic report which changed the start of the recession from the widely accepted date of March 2001, to the fourth quarter of 2000. This was seen by some as an attempt to blame Clinton, who was still in office during that period. The change was due to a downward revised forth quarter GDP growth, which is done from time to time by the fed, sometimes up sometimes down."

Its hard to imagine how one could blame a President for a recession that started less than 2 months after he took office because of economic factors in place well before he was elected -- but that, I guess, didn't stop anyone.

 

[aquapub]

1) Do you have a source to back that up?

2) Are you also asserting that Reagan's economic policies are responsible for the recession throughout Bush The Elder's presidency?

3) You obviously missed out on the fact that the Clinton Administration authorized a grand total of $77 BILLION in loans to small businesses which began immediatley and cut their taxes in the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. You should also take a look at the Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996.

1) Iriemon (the liberal on this site) accidentally proved this with government statistics. It's on one of these threads.

2) Reagan giving more money to the small businesses who create all the jobs wouldn't have logically created a recession.

3) This legislation, made possible by pressure from Republicans, did provide some relief for small businesses. But Clinton also had parts put in that screwed those same businesses over in other ways like minimum wage hikes. And let's not forget the tax hikes he enacted on Medicare benefits, Social Security benefits, fuel, wages, etc. when Democrats had Congress (true colors).

 

[aquapub]

Its hard to imagine how one could blame a President for a recession that started less than 2 months after he took office because of economic factors in place well before he was elected -- but that, I guess, didn't stop anyone.

Damn you and your pesky logic! Liberals don't want to hear such inconvenient truths!

:lol:

 

[aquapub]

"Clinton Recession is a political slogan, primarily used by Republicans to place blame for the 2001 recession on former President Bill Clinton."

Of course we blame Clinton. Clinton is to blame. We also blame gravity for things falling.

Exactly which of Bush's policies do you suppose caused the economy to start to tank within 2 months of him being in office? Can you even name one policy Bush enacted within 2 months of taking office?

:bs

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

1) Iriemon (the liberal on this site) accidentally proved this with government statistics. It's on one of these threads.

Then you shouldn't mind providing those statistics along with their respective sources.

2) Reagan giving more money to the small businesses who create all the jobs wouldn't have logically created a recession.

So, in your mind, what caused the recession?

3) This legislation, made possible by pressure from Republicans, did provide some relief for small businesses.

The Republicans had nothing to do with it.

But Clinton also had parts put in that screwed those same businesses over in other ways like minimum wage hikes. And let's not forget the tax hikes he enacted on Medicare benefits, Social Security benefits, fuel, wages, etc. when Democrats had Congress (true colors).

You obviously ignore the fact that, although those tax increases did occur, small businesses had MORE than enough money to make up for it via government loans and tax breaks. If you don't believe that Clinton's policies were responsible for the booming economy and the reccord job growth then perhaps you'd care to name the specific policies which you believe did cause those things.

 

[bigsmitty]

I don't see the direct logical correlation between the poll question and the point the thread starter is trying to make.

Poll questions are based upon the answers we want to hear. Consider this a fine example.

 

[Goobieman]

If you don't believe that Clinton's policies were responsible for the booming economy and the reccord job growth then perhaps you'd care to name the specific policies which you believe did cause those things.

Similarly, if you believe it was Clinton's policies that caused the boom, then you have to then also believe it was his policies that caused the recession.

 

[aquapub]

Similarly, if you believe it was Clinton's policies that caused the boom, then you have to then also believe it was his policies that caused the recession.

This would make sense to me if Clinton's policies didn't take so much money away from those who create the jobs, and if we didn't know as a matter of record exactly what caused the boom-401ks, cell phones, internet, computers.

 

[aquapub]

So, in your mind, what caused the recession?

One thing Iriemon and I do agree on is that the government only has an effect on the economy in extreme situations (like when FDR froze interest rates) or when it takes specific measures directly for or against the economy's performance (as with tax hikes/tax cuts).

I think the tech boom was calming down, and with Democrats piling on rampant tax hikes, minimum wage hikes, protections for the labor unions sodomizing our manufacturing sector out of existence, and refusing to do anything about the border or frivolous lawsuits, it became a recession just as Bush was taking office.

 

[Cremaster77]

One thing Iriemon and I do agree on is that the government only has an effect on the economy in extreme situations (like when FDR froze interest rates) or when it takes specific measures directly for or against the economy's performance (as with tax hikes/tax cuts).

I think the tech boom was calming down, and with Democrats piling on rampant tax hikes, minimum wage hikes, protections for the labor unions sodomizing our manufacturing sector out of existence, and refusing to do anything about the border or frivolous lawsuits, it became a recession just as Bush was taking office.

Tax hikes or cuts are not "extreme situations". Your argument that the Bush I recession wasn't caused by Reagan because it just doesn't make sense while the Bush II recession was caused by Clinton because it does is flat out BS. Either the economic policies of the president matter or they don't. You choose to argue that they matter only when they fit what you already want to believe. Fact is, Reagan cut taxes. 7 years later there was a recession. Clinton raised taxes. 7 years later there was a recession. Tax cuts and hikes don't have nearly the effect on the overall economy that most people on either side want you to believe.

What is clear, however, is that unless taken to the extreme, tax cuts decrease federal revenue and tax hikes increase federal revenue. If you want smaller government, fine. Cut taxes, but let's do so after we've paid off our nearly 12 figure debt. And let's balance the budget, which Republican presidents have had a horrible record of doing.

 

[aquapub]

Then you shouldn't mind providing those statistics along with their respective sources.

She pulled it from Media Matters (another liberal web site). It's a Census Bureau graph showing that the poverty rate (she has also shown others that confirm this trend) began to decline just after Clinton took office and started going up just as Bush took over. The site won't allow me to download it right now, but it's generally easy to access if you look it up.

The problem with the data is that Clinton didn't do anything right when he took office (neither did Bush Jr.) extreme enough that would've begun affecting these long term economic indicators just as they took office.

 

[Captain America]

This can only get better. I can't WAIT to see how Aqua and Goobie, as well as the others in their circle jerk ring, spin yesterday's stock stumble into somethings that's Clinton's fault.

Imagine them wallowing in poo-poo that's almost a decade old, all the while, their fearless leader, is creating fresh, stinkier, steaming, poo-poo as we speak. !

 

[aquapub]

Tax hikes or cuts are not "extreme situations".

Hence the fact that I said extreme situations or tax hikes/cuts. :roll:

 

[Goobieman]

This can only get better. I can't WAIT to see how Aqua and Goobie, as well as the others in their circle jerk ring, spin yesterday's stock stumble into somethings that's Clinton's fault.

When you see me doing that, be sure to let me know. :mrgreen:

 

[Cremaster77]

She pulled it from Media Matters (another liberal web site).

Iriemon's a woman?

 

[aquapub]

The Republicans had nothing to do with it.

That must've been a neat trick considering they controlled Congress. Actually what happened was that both parties presented their own ideas for helping small businesses (Before Republicans swept the Congress, all Clinton would do was drastically raise taxes on small businesses and screw them over with artificial wage hikes, refusals to stop frivolous lawsuits, etc.) and they came to a compromise.

This statement of yours is dead wrong.

 

[aquapub]

Your argument that the Bush I recession wasn't caused by Reagan because it just doesn't make sense while the Bush II recession was caused by Clinton because it does is flat out BS.

Not if you consider that Clinton took money from small businesses while Republicans gave them more of their money back.

 

[Cremaster77]

Hence the fact that I said extreme situations or tax hikes/cuts. :roll:

So if tax hikes or cuts matter so much, then why do they only matter when they support the Republican tax policies, but don't when those same policies go along with economic downturns? You've clearly decided that the Republican stance is "logical" and try to make the data fit your logic rather than the other way around.

Take a look at the number and the various tax hikes/cuts through the past 50 years. There is no discernible pattern with regards to tax hikes/cuts. Therefore, it's simply wishful thinking to keep chanting that tax cuts boost the economy while tax hikes hurt it. Fact is, the economy moves along largely independently of the tax rate.