Clinton Years and the 90s economic boom

[The Tao Of Bill]

I have a question that's both difficult for me to ask and difficult for me to answer.

So please don't get mad at me for asking questions as I tend to bug people with questions when all I'm doing is trying to understand things better. And I have a feeling this question will bug a lot of people. So I apologize in advance

I believe Ron Paul when he says less taxes and less spending would lead to a better economy. But has it ever actually successfully been done?

I mean I'm just thinking about the clinton years. 92-2000 is labeled as one of our longest prosperity phase in American history and yet it was done under a democrat economy with high taxes to cover high spending.

Doesn't this mean it's possible to be prosperous under that economic plan? Have republicans ever been able to actually pull off the tax less spend less economy?

I mean Regan is talked about like he is the one that pioneered this type of economy but even he seemed to rack up the deficit and had a lot of spending problems.

In fact if you look at this chart of the national debt: http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.png

It looks like under every Republican President we've had in the past 50 years the debt went up and under every democrat almost the debt slowed down.

Why is this? Is it because Republicans just lower taxes but constantly fail to bring in the revenue needed to cover massive amounts of spending? If so is it even possible to cut spending to the point Ron Paul wants us to? It doesn't seem like there is a republican president who has been able to do it. And it seems like even under massive taxes we were still able to become prosperous in the 90s.

Perhaps someone older could help me out too because I'm only 22 years old right now and before Bush I was too young to have a job or pay taxes so I really don't even know what it was like in the 90s to work. All I know is that right now we pay a lot of taxes and we still can't control the huge jump in deficit. I know Bush hasn't even attempted to cut spending so I know Bush isn't a model of what should be the conservative economy. But I just want to know if there is an actual example of serious prosperity under a conservative economy.

Forgive me for my questions, I'm a recovering democrat trying to understand more of the conservative views.

 

[LibertiORDeth]

The Republican Party spends but does not raise taxes, they just raise the deficit.

 

[Kade]

I have a question that's both difficult for me to ask and difficult for me to answer.

So please don't get mad at me for asking questions as I tend to bug people with questions when all I'm doing is trying to understand things better. And I have a feeling this question will bug a lot of people. So I apologize in advance

I believe Ron Paul when he says less taxes and less spending would lead to a better economy. But has it ever actually successfully been done?

I mean I'm just thinking about the clinton years. 92-2000 is labeled as one of our longest prosperity phase in American history and yet it was done under a democrat economy with high taxes to cover high spending.

Doesn't this mean it's possible to be prosperous under that economic plan? Have republicans ever been able to actually pull off the tax less spend less economy?

I mean Regan is talked about like he is the one that pioneered this type of economy but even he seemed to rack up the deficit and had a lot of spending problems.

In fact if you look at this chart of the national debt: http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.png

It looks like under every Republican President we've had in the past 50 years the debt went up and under every democrat almost the debt slowed down.

Why is this? Is it because Republicans just lower taxes but constantly fail to bring in the revenue needed to cover massive amounts of spending? If so is it even possible to cut spending to the point Ron Paul wants us to? It doesn't seem like there is a republican president who has been able to do it. And it seems like even under massive taxes we were still able to become prosperous in the 90s.

Perhaps someone older could help me out too because I'm only 22 years old right now and before Bush I was too young to have a job or pay taxes so I really don't even know what it was like in the 90s to work. All I know is that right now we pay a lot of taxes and we still can't control the huge jump in deficit. I know Bush hasn't even attempted to cut spending so I know Bush isn't a model of what should be the conservative economy. But I just want to know if there is an actual example of serious prosperity under a conservative economy.

Forgive me for my questions, I'm a recovering democrat trying to understand more of the conservative views.

"recovering democrat"?

I'm a Libertarian Democrat, (Platform: http://www.democraticfreedomcaucus.org/dfc-platform/)

You don't need to be a recovering democrat, just look harder into some of these issues... you seem smarter than 80% of the people on these boards... and you are correct, the 90s were that prosperous.

That prosperity is owed to several major things... the biggest is innovation. The move of the marketplace from the streets to the web was, in a sense, extremely beneficial to the US economy. We had a tremendous amount of debt to pay back from the "glorious" Reagan Years, and we did so with high taxes. In Keynesian economics, this is a successful strategy. Some complained, but all in all, it helped this country, the rich maintained their wealth, and America introduced a 400% increase in millionaires alone...

What Bush and the Republican Congress is criminal, disgusting, and without precedence. Borrowing money on a surplus is a recipe for a major depression, not a recession. The end of the Clinton era the national debt was paid off, and business and the market were relatively unregulated in financial matters, (it still blows my mind how some people think conservativism has anything to do with Free Market)...

ignore these people on here... there is no need to be a recovering Democrat... we just need to focus energies away from the "bread and butter" of the party... the unnecessary social programs that, ironically, are no different than the massive cost of military spending this administration has spent... a relevant question would be, considering your foundational base of support (social and military conservative for repubes, or poor workers for dems) which would you prefer, building up the economy, or building up a select corporate elite mostly around military infrastructure and oil? I'm not lying... because this is what we have... in other words, your choice for president is Military infrastructure or affordable health care...

Obviously, I would prefer a more limited government, but if I have to choose, I prefer an American economic fortress over a American military fortress... in the long run, economy=strong military anyway... Think of what we created in the years from 1940-1945.


There is no model for true conservative economy, perhaps Barry Goldwater... but that boat has sailed a long time ago.. .and don't get me started on Reagan and his massive spending.

 

[Kade]

The Republican Party spends but does not raise taxes, they just raise the deficit.

The Clinton, (mostly Gore) plan was to raise taxes and deregulate much of the moderate and small businesses. The middle class benefited greatly, and we had the end of our deficit, and a strong economy.

People that deny this are simply bitter and ignorant... I wish people were more willing to come across the aisle...

Consider are main enemies right now... Welfare adherents, social conservatives, and war benefactors... these are your enemies... these are waging the extremist war on both sides...

Right now, one party stands for two of the three...

 

[klamath]

You are right that the republicans have done a horrible job of actually cutting spending and that is wHy so many of us are so upset.
About the clinton years. Clinton took over the country right after the cold war ended and the defence budget stayed pretty much flat his whole term. This is not a bad thing but he also commited the military to many ventures with a reduced budget using the equipment bought durning the reagan buildup. This was wrong.
Had the congress not turned against him the budget would have climbed horribly if Hillary's national healthcare had of passed. We are talking 200 billion a year would have been added to the budget. How would that have effected the deficit? That is 200 billion by their own estimates and in the real world it would have ended up 50 to 100 percent higher like all government programs.
The entire world was embracing capitalism after the cold war and this generated a lot of money.
As far as bush goes I cannot defend him.

 

[Kade]

You are right that the republicans have done a horrible job of actually cutting spending and that is wHy so many of us are so upset.
About the clinton years. Clinton took over the country right after the cold war ended and the defence budget stayed pretty much flat his whole term. This is not a bad thing but he also commited the military to many ventures with a reduced budget using the equipment bought durning the reagan buildup. This was wrong.
Had the congress not turned against him the budget would have climbed horribly if Hillary's national healthcare had of passed. We are talking 200 billion a year would have been added to the budget. How would that have effected the deficit? That is 200 billion by their own estimates and in the real world it would have ended up 50 to 100 percent higher like all government programs.
The entire world was embracing capitalism after the cold war and this generated a lot of money.
As far as bush goes I cannot defend him.

To be fair again, Clinton was receiving an unholy amount of pressure from the Neo-con controlled congress for lateral movements... I believe most of this was compromise.

 

[Banana]

In another thread, someone asked same question about how democrat president had better economy where spending was controlled and deficit was smaller, but it was then pointed out that in those periods, Republican had the control of Congress, whose drafts the spending bills, not President. Republican President was then stuck with Democratic Congress.

 

[klamath]

"recovering democrat"?

I'm a Libertarian Democrat, (Platform: http://www.democraticfreedomcaucus.org/dfc-platform/)

You don't need to be a recovering democrat, just look harder into some of these issues... you seem smarter than 80% of the people on these boards... and you are correct, the 90s were that prosperous.

That prosperity is owed to several major things... the biggest is innovation. The move of the marketplace from the streets to the web was, in a sense, extremely beneficial to the US economy. We had a tremendous amount of debt to pay back from the "glorious" Reagan Years, and we did so with high taxes. In Keynesian economics, this is a successful strategy. Some complained, but all in all, it helped this country, the rich maintained their wealth, and America introduced a 400% increase in millionaires alone...

What Bush and the Republican Congress is criminal, disgusting, and without precedence. Borrowing money on a surplus is a recipe for a major depression, not a recession. The end of the Clinton era the national debt was paid off, and business and the market were relatively unregulated in financial matters, (it still blows my mind how some people think conservativism has anything to do with Free Market)...

ignore these people on here... there is no need to be a recovering Democrat... we just need to focus energies away from the "bread and butter" of the party... the unnecessary social programs that, ironically, are no different than the massive cost of military spending this administration has spent... a relevant question would be, considering your foundational base of support (social and military conservative for repubes, or poor workers for dems) which would you prefer, building up the economy, or building up a select corporate elite mostly around military infrastructure and oil? I'm not lying... because this is what we have... in other words, your choice for president is Military infrastructure or affordable health care...

Obviously, I would prefer a more limited government, but if I have to choose, I prefer an American economic fortress over a American military fortress... in the long run, economy=strong military anyway... Think of what we created in the years from 1940-1945.


There is no model for true conservative economy, perhaps Barry Goldwater... but that boat has sailed a long time ago.. .and don't get me started on Reagan and his massive spending.

I think you better go recheck your figures. The debt was not paid off. The annual budget deficit was almost gone at the end of his term the the debt was still there.
I think you need to look up the difference between the national debt and and the deficit.
Sorry but you are coming at this from an entirely partisan attitude.
Obviously you weren't freezing you butt off in the mountains of Bosnia durning Clintons great era, like I was. Obviously you weren't flying combat mission over Serbia. Obviously you weren't flying combat missions over Baghdad so your commander and chief cauld take attention off of his sexual transgressions

 

[Kade]

I think you better go recheck your figures. The debt was not paid off. The annual budget deficit was almost gone at the end of his term the the debt was still there.
I think you need to look up the difference between the national debt and and the deficit.
Sorry but you are coming at this from an entirely partisan attitude.
Obviously you weren't freezing you butt off in the mountains of Bosnia durning Clintons great era, like I was. Obviously you weren't flying combat mission over Serbia. Obviously you weren't flying combat missions over Baghdad so your commander and chief cauld take attention off of his sexual transgressions

Your right I wasn't. For that I should forfeit my right to express my ideas. Forgive me. I was too busy having premarital, unprotected sex with Christian girls in my deep southern high school who didn't believe in birth control. Luckily for me they did believe in getting married to someone else AFTER high school. My tenure in college was a whole new world of hurt though... ahem, sorry off topic... yea.

Fiscal year 2001 (begins 10/01/00) $144.6 billion
Fiscal year 2007 (begins 10/01/06) $514.1 billion

 

[clouds]

i like how alan greenspan called him a republican when it comes to the economy or whatever. I think Hillary accused him of the same thing too.

 

[klamath]

Your right I wasn't. For that I should forfeit my right to express my ideas. Forgive me. I was too busy having premarital, unprotected sex with Christian girls in my deep southern high school who didn't believe in birth control. Luckily for me they did believe in getting married to someone else AFTER high school. My tenure in college was a whole new world of hurt though... ahem, sorry off topic... yea.

Fiscal year 2001 (begins 10/01/00) $144.6 billion
Fiscal year 2007 (begins 10/01/06) $514.1 billion

I think you were being sarcastic but none the less I wasn't trying to say you didn't have the right to an opinion and I apologize if it came off that way. I just wanted remind people that all wasn't great for those of us that lived through his era.
As a side note I don't think Bill himself would have been that bad but I think the person behind him (Hillary) pushed him into some of his worse decisions with the exception of Monica.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

I mean I'm just thinking about the clinton years. 92-2000 is labeled as one of our longest prosperity phase in American history and yet it was done under a democrat economy with high taxes to cover high spending.

But you're not taking the whole picture into account. Taxes had just been drastically reduced by Reagan. Clinton's tax increase left tax rates well below what they had been under Carter. The dot.com boom would not have been possible without the Reagan tax cuts.

As far as Clinton's fiscal policy - he had a very good Secretary of the Treasury - Rubin - who instituted a strong dollar policy - about the best thing you can do with a fiat currency and a central bank still in place.

As far as spending, the Republicans did reduce spending FOR POLITICAL REASONS to block Clinton. That's the real reason a surplus was generated. Republicans never cut spending though. They just reduced the rate of growth.

If higher taxes and more government control equal prosperity, everyone in Cuba and North Korea should be rich - yet they are incredibly poor.

Taxes do not create prosperity. We had no internal federal taxes from 1802 to 1860 in this country, and we became the richest, most prosperous nation in the world.

 

[Paulitician]

Alan Greenspan actually said he considered Bill Clinton more "conservative" than Bush in terms of economics. You can also look at what the Fed was doing during that time, because obviously they (and other externalities) have much more influence over the economy than the President. In a sense, it's somehwat a good thing that Ron Paul isn't going to be elected, because no matter who is in office next, the economy is not going to get any better--it's going to be much worse. What Ron Paul would do is just let the recession take place, and so the problems would be blamed on him and his economic policies. However, the rest of these morons are going to do what they can to prevent it or delay it, and what you're going to see is that it's going to make the bust all that much more painful.

So once we've recovered from the downturn and the economy is more stable, that's when you'd want Ron Paul to be president, if only to see if his economic policies actually work in the real world (I obviously think they would, they have in the past, and besides, I'd be much more happy not paying taxes for wasteful government spending).

 

[Kade]

Alan Greenspan actually said he considered Bill Clinton more "conservative" than Bush in terms of economics. You can also look at what the Fed was doing during that time, because obviously they (and other externalities) have much more influence over the economy than the President. In a sense, it's somehwat a good thing that Ron Paul isn't going to be elected, because no matter who is in office next, the economy is not going to get any better--it's going to be much worse. What Ron Paul would do is just let the recession take place, and so the problems would be blamed on him and his economic policies. However, the rest of these morons are going to do what they can to prevent it or delay it, and what you're going to see is that it's going to make the bust all that much more painful.

So once we've recovered from the downturn and the economy is more stable, that's when you'd want Ron Paul to be president, if only to see if his economic policies actually work in the real world (I obviously think they would, they have in the past, and besides, I'd be much more happy not paying taxes for wasteful government spending).

This is a very salient point. QFT.

 

[theseus51]

There are too many other factors, other than the President, that determine the economy. First of all, Congress makes the bills, the President just signs or vetos them. The President has influence, but ultimately is powerless to do anything without Congress making a bill. There's also the business community, rapid technological advancements, the federal reserve, and international events and growth that are far beyond the reach and influence of the US President.

But yeah, it's an old but good saying, that "no nation has ever taxed its way to prosperity".

 

[davver]

The 1990s "prosperity" was really three things, in order from most important to least.

1) Massive credit expansion, especially beginning in 1995.

2) Productivity improvements from widespread use of computers.

3) The "peace dividend" from the end of the cold war.

One proved to be disastorous after the tech bubble burst. The housing bubble only delayed (and intensified) the collapse of nearly 25 years of reckless credit expansion.

Two was a result of the market, just happened to be at that time.

Three was nice, but neither party has talked about military budget reduction since 9/11.

 

[Bossobass]

First rule in fight club is 'Never believe anything the Fed chairman says'.

During the Clinton years, Greenspan announced that the Fed would be henceforth using a new method for calculating inflation.

The steel, automobile, textile and other major industrial giants began to move their businesses offshore. They needed a distraction to avoid jobless Americans-led government interference in that process.

The Fed flooded the economy with credit to fuel the dot com bubble. Nearing the height of this tech bubble driven boom in the stock market, Greenspan uttered his famous phrase, 'irrational exuberance'.

Also during this time, Greenspan was confronted on the floor of the House by one Congressman Ron Paul who questioned the bubble and it's inflationary effect, to which Greenspan answer, in part: "I'm more concerned with price inflation than monetary inflation.".

The scam was for the major loss of manufacturing to be supplanted by consumer spending and military industrial complex growth. Inflation was absorbed by the new, much lower cost to produce the goods sold in America. For (a crude, but accurate enough) example, a T-shirt cost Wal-Mart $7 and they sold it for $15. By moving production to China, the same T-shirt cost $1.25 but Wal-Mart still sold it for $15, making much higher gross profits. As the monetary inflation eroded the dollar, Wal-Mart could absorb it for a decade without raising the price of a T-shirt. This allowed the Fed to lie about inflation through the new method for calculation and by shifting the focus away from monetary inflation to price inflation.

Ron Paul wasn't fooled: http://www.usagold.com/gildedopinion/greenspan-gold.html

Money supply skyrocketed, interest remained low, but the new 'core inflation' remained in low single digits. Americans were all making money in the stock market as it shot up with the tech bubble, so the complaints from the auto, steel and textile workers were largely drowned out and ignored.

Meanwhile, Clinton was laying the groundwork for illegal domestic spying and policing the world through UN resolutions while continuing Reagan's and daddy Bush's huge deficits. Though it is said that Clinton left a surplus in his last 2 years in office, he actually ran deficits of around $300 billion each of those two years.

How did he hide the deficits? He robbed hell out the SS Trust Fund, which had trillions in surplus cash, to cook the books. All the while the Fed member banks used the money-out-of-thin-air cash to finance the tech companies. For example, KPC&B invested $600K startup cash in Sun Microsystems. They invested some $1.5 billion in companies that are now worth 100 times that. KPC&B have announced that Al Gore will become a partner. Coincidence, I'm sure. They are but one example.

Of course, before all of this, the Nixon/Ford/Carter administrations were used to:

1. Remove the dollar from the Bretton-Woods gold standard.
2. Tie all worldwide oil sales to the dollar through a deal with OPEC.
3. Shock the price of oil from $1.40 bbl to $40 bbl.
4. Promise OPEC 10% 30 year CDs instead of direct payment at the hugely inflated price.
5. Deposit the CDs in Fed member banks, against which they could lend @ X60.
6. Usher in Reagan to borrow 2 trillion dollars (which they had, ready to lend) to fight the 'evil empire'.

Two countries refused to sign on to the scheme: Iraq and Iran. Coincidence, I'm sure.

Bottom line: It doesn't matter who the POTUS is or from what party they're elected. The long term plans are carried out by all of them...or else...as the chronology of the plan coincides with the year any given President is elected.

JFK and Ron Paul are the exceptions in my lifetime. One was rich and smart enough to steal the election from Nixon and was assassinated. The other had the right message at the right time as well as the integrity to deliver it believably and his character was assassinated.

There is much more detail to the story, such as open borders, 'free' trade 'agreements', vehicles that continued the embarrassing MPG levels of the 70s, loans to 3rd world countries, taxpayer bailouts of the S&Ls, etc., etc.

Bosso

 

[forsmant]

+1

 

[BuddyRey]

This has been a very hard set of statistics for me to reconcile as well, especially given the fact that my evolution from hardline socialist to classical liberal/left-libertarian in a mere 8 months has been such an informative and devotional journey. I brought up a similar question in this thread ( http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=102513 ), and was never really answered to the extent I would have liked.

I really and truly want to believe in unfettered free markets. But, after several years spent in the company of those who would vilify pretty much any type of free market liberalism ("liberalism" herein used in its proper European context), I have been hell-bent and confounded in the effort to de-program myself of many misconceptions. The trouble is, I still can't definitively conceptualize what the perfect economic system should be; what limits to the free market would be acceptable, in which areas, and to what extent?

Dad-gummit, this stuff is confusing!!!

 

[Truth Warrior]

Politicians claiming credit for a good economy is like the rooster claiming credit for the sunrise.