Clinton Years and the 90s economic boom

[The Tao Of Bill]

What I feel is that no one in the government is really willing to get down and do the dirty work of cutting some seriously big spending programs. They might block a few from starting but not too many get cut once they've been started.

I feel like while the republicans talk a big game they are never able to reduce spending. They might be able to stop spending from growing some times but they aren't able to reduce funding. And since they made promises of tax cuts to the people that's what the people are expecting. And when you cut taxes without cutting spending you are no longer getting the revenue needed to cover spending levels.

And Bush has made this so much worse by cutting taxes and increasing spending and increasing borrowing then cutting taxes again.

It's nice to have low taxes but honestly if I had a choice between no taxes and out of control spending and high taxes and out of control spending I'd go with the later. As much as I'd love a tax decrease I do not want it to come at the expense of my nation's economy.

I don't want to see tax cuts until this government is willing to cut spending.

 

[aravoth]

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

Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[WizarDave]

Why are you DEMOCRATS on a Ron Paul board?
(Not the OP and others who were democrats and are trying to learn...)
If you believe what you posted, you don't believe in Ron Paul's ideas.

Stop deficit spending = Gold Standard so money can't be printed out of thin air.

All my ideas on "Clinton's boom" have already been posted. I'll not repeat.
Clinton was not good for the economy. He just happened to be president during a FAKE boom.
Clinton ramrodding NAFTA and others through have ruined this country.
China trade was opened up and now everything you buy from Walmart supports a communist regime.

 

[ForLiberty-RonPaul]

As Ron Paul put it. (paraphrase)....

"If I borrowed a million dollars a month my finances would look pretty good too until the bills become due."

Well, the bills are now due. Not to mention a 2 trillion dollar war THAT IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE BUDGET. So when Bush gives a budget to Congress that has a 400 billion dollar debt, that doesn't inlude funds for the war.

 

[abruzz0]

Are we all forgetting that modern-day Dems and Pubs are two heads of the same monster? From the looks of it, apparently so.

 

[ChooseLiberty]

Agree with the people that say it's all about monetary policy -

Volker killed inflation and caused the US a lot of pain.

Greenspan re-inflated thus a great economy along with two major bubbles.

Bernanke reaps the whirlwind of Greenspan but will not kill inflation.

Next a new Volker will have to step in at some point.

Presidents have little to do with it.

The entire US economy is based on Fed games.

 

[The Tao Of Bill]

Why are you DEMOCRATS on a Ron Paul board?
(Not the OP and others who were democrats and are trying to learn...)
If you believe what you posted, you don't believe in Ron Paul's ideas.

Stop deficit spending = Gold Standard so money can't be printed out of thin air.

All my ideas on "Clinton's boom" have already been posted. I'll not repeat.
Clinton was not good for the economy. He just happened to be president during a FAKE boom.
Clinton ramrodding NAFTA and others through have ruined this country.
China trade was opened up and now everything you buy from Walmart supports a communist regime.

There is nothing "Fake" about an 8 year period of prosperity.

 

[skyfi]

There is nothing "Fake" about an 8 year period of prosperity.

I think the point people are trying to make is that it wasn't some random "period of prosperity" caused by Clinton... He just happened to be pres. while it happened. It was a massive expasnion of credit from the FED starting in 95' like someone else said... It was faked by the FED, they manipulated the economy... It was the boom, and we are about to have the bust.

 

[IRO-bot]

I read somewhere, and I believe this to absolutely to be true, that the govt always spends less when there is an opposite.

You see, you had Bush and the Reps in Congress. MASSIVE Spending. Clinton years was mostly Rep Congress as well. There was an opposite.

 

[Bossobass]

I don't call deficit reduction at the expense of an insolvent SS system and the largest tax increases ever, runaway inflation, spying on American citizens, a weakened national defense, the mass exodus of our manufacturing base and NAFTA, which precipitated the huge influx of illegal immigrants, weighed against stock market gains enabled by the artificially low interest rates and gross expansion of credit, leaving a bursting tech bubble...prosperity.

But, that's just me.

Bosso

 

[TastyWheat]

If you've read Greenspan's Bubbles you'd know the Fed was highly responsible for that boom period.