Comparing Clinton

[Jake]

That's one of the funniest things I've ever heard on this forum.  The thing started before March, but even ignoring that, you think that Clinton's policies for eight years before hand had absolutely no bering on the recession occuring? That's simply preposterous to think. Bush was in office at that point for six weeks, but Clinton had nothing to do with it.

[ATFFL]

Better than average, but not great.

He has no lasting achievements to call his own.  The economy was good, and he was smart enough to stay out of its way, but did nothing when the bubble started bursting.  He never tried to tackle anything important and spent too much time dealing with minor, niggling issues.

I agree with you that he never tackled any big issues. I never remember him addressing the nation from the Oval Office like both Bushes did (NO MONICA JOKES please)

But I had an arguement with someone here recently about Clinton and the 2001 Recession, I'd hate to get into it again. He was out of office by the time it started (March 2001), it was not his responsibility. If he had taken any action in late 2000, he would have been accused by the GOP of trying to influence the election. That actually happened when he tapped the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

Thing is that the President leaving office is reposnsible for the budget for the first year of the new President.  Clinton is responsible for the 2001 budget, just like HW Bush was responsibel for the 1993 budget.

[Cubby]

That's one of the funniest things I've ever heard on this forum.  The thing started before March, but even ignoring that, you think that Clinton's policies for eight years before hand had absolutely no bering on the recession occuring? That's simply preposterous to think. Bush was in office at that point for six weeks, but Clinton had nothing to do with it.

What about my belief that Clinton would have been accused of interfereing in the 2000 election? How could he have known the slowdown of late 2000 would turn into a recession? What kind of country would this be if everytime the GDP growth dropped 3 points, the White House did a massive policy change?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Thing is that the President leaving office is reposnsible for the budget for the first year of the new President.  Clinton is responsible for the 2001 budget, just like HW Bush was responsibel for the 1993 budget.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes but why do you think the 2001 Budget was the main reason for the recession? I thought its basis was the internet and technology companies. Its hard to argue with a budget that had a multi-billion dollar suplus like the '01 did.

[ATFFL]

Yes but why do you think the 2001 Budget was the main reason for the recession? I thought its basis was the internet and technology companies. Its hard to argue with a budget that had a multi-billion dollar suplus like the '01 did.

The budget establishes the economic climate for the country.

Really Clinton gets the blame for the March 2001 recession for not doing anything to try and stop it from happening for the last two years of his Presidency.  It was obvious the bubble was bursting and the the Clinton admin took no action.  By this point he was desperately looking for a legacy.

[opebo]

He was definately poor in the sense of maintaining an honorable depiction of America...average in the sense of accomplishments.

Bush isn't exactly warming the hearts of the outside world. By that logic, you'd have to say the same about him, because Clinton was certainly viewed as more favorable.

It's better to be respected than liked.

Foreigners don't respect Bush, or the current rogue state america.  They fear and despise both.  They both liked and respected Clinton.

[Cubby]

Yes but why do you think the 2001 Budget was the main reason for the recession? I thought its basis was the internet and technology companies. Its hard to argue with a budget that had a multi-billion dollar suplus like the '01 did.

The budget establishes the economic climate for the country.

Really Clinton gets the blame for the March 2001 recession for not doing anything to try and stop it from happening for the last two years of his Presidency.  It was obvious the bubble was bursting and the the Clinton admin took no action.  By this point he was desperately looking for a legacy.

Well now you're just bashing Clinton and ignoring what actually happened back then. It was only in the final 9 months of Clinton's Presidency that the warning signs appeared. I remember the last quarter of 1999 the U.S. economy grew roughly 8%, thats extremely fast, so 2 years before there was no problem. The Dow Jones didn't start to fall from its peak until March 2000, interestingly right after the primaries.

There was billions of dollars in surplus in in Clinton's last budget that was literally washed down the drain by the 2001 Bush tax cuts BEFORE 9/11 (GOP always uses 9/11 to cover that mistake). Anytime the administration tried to do anything in its final year it was accused of propping up the Gore Campaign, so if he did do something you guys would be angry about it then and when he didn't do anything you ridicule him for it now.

[ATFFL]

Yes but why do you think the 2001 Budget was the main reason for the recession? I thought its basis was the internet and technology companies. Its hard to argue with a budget that had a multi-billion dollar suplus like the '01 did.

The budget establishes the economic climate for the country.

Really Clinton gets the blame for the March 2001 recession for not doing anything to try and stop it from happening for the last two years of his Presidency.  It was obvious the bubble was bursting and the the Clinton admin took no action.  By this point he was desperately looking for a legacy.

Well now you're just bashing Clinton and ignoring what actually happened back then. It was only in the final 9 months of Clinton's Presidency that the warning signs appeared. I remember the last quarter of 1999 the U.S. economy grew roughly 8%, thats extremely fast, so 2 years before there was no problem. The Dow Jones didn't start to fall from its peak until March 2000, interestingly right after the primaries.

There was billions of dollars in surplus in in Clinton's last budget that was literally washed down the drain by the 2001 Bush tax cuts BEFORE 9/11 (GOP always uses 9/11 to cover that mistake). Anytime the administration tried to do anything in its final year it was accused of propping up the Gore Campaign, so if he did do something you guys would be angry about it then and when he didn't do anything you ridicule him for it now.

Can you cite a source for that 8% growth in 1999?  I can point to CNN Money That the 7.2% growth in 2003 was the strongest in 20 years.  If you can;t back up your claim, I will haev to operate under the assumption you are engaged in the time honored tradition of "Making sh**t Up."

[A18]

Can you cite a source for that 8% growth in 1999?  I can point to CNN Money That the 7.2% growth in 2003 was the strongest in 20 years.  If you can;t back up your claim, I will haev to operate under the assumption you are engaged in the time honored tradition of "Making sh**t Up."

That 7.2% (I have 7.4%) was just for quarter three. But yeah, real GDP growth for 1999 was 4.5%, which is very good (best we've had since 7.2% in 1984), but doesn't come close to 8%.

[A18]

Wait, he said last quarter of 1999. He's sorta kinda close then. It was 7.3%.

Source: http://www.bea.gov/bea/dn/gdpchg.xls

[Cubby]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Can you cite a source for that 8% growth in 1999?  I can point to CNN Money That the 7.2% growth in 2003 was the strongest in 20 years.  If you can;t back up your claim, I will haev to operate under the assumption you are engaged in the time honored tradition of "Making sh**t Up."

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No need to insult. I didn't say 8% was a fact, without looking it up I remember the GDP growth 4th Q 1999 was about 8%, this is from memory (not like I know every quarter). The economic numbers are adjusted all the time. If its really was closer to 7% like Monopolization says, then I was a bit off but it still proves that at the end of Clinton's term the U.S. economy was still booming.

[A18]

Um, no. Clinton's term didn't end in 1999. Clinton's term ended in 2001.

The NASDAQ losing half its value would tell just about anyone a recession was coming.

[Palefire]

He's right about that. The economy was turning down at the end of the Clinton run. I don't now why Democrats even try to argue that point. The NASDAQ dropped from over 4000 in the middle of the year 2000 down to around 2500 by the end of the year. A pretty clear sign the economy was going to have some problems. If Democrats want to fight on this issue, maybe pretending it didn't happen isn't the best plan. Noting that the NASDAQ is still lower today (so is the DOW & the S&P 500) than when Clinton handed it off to Bush might be a better way.

[Carioca]

Slightly better than average

[Hitchabrut]

Poor

[Cubby]

Um, no. Clinton's term didn't end in 1999. Clinton's term ended in 2001.

The NASDAQ losing half its value would tell just about anyone a recession was coming.

I know it ended in 2001. Tredrick was acting as if there had been warning signs for years, I was saying that they only showed up in the final months of his term.

Well I can see I'm fighting a losing battle with this arguement.

I remember telling a friend in early 2001 that having Bush as president wouldn't be all bad because there was a recession coming and he'd be blamed for it, not Clinton/Gore. The recession started March 2001. Thats a fact.

Most voters don't care who was president when a recession starts, they vote against who is in office currrently. It was so stupid how every admin. official who spoke with the press in his first term whined that the downturn started with Clinton, talk about desperately playing the blame game.

Looking back, the economy didn't seem to play a role in the 2004 election. New issues that didn't exist when I made the above statement like homeland security were bigger.

[dazzleman]

Better than average, but not great.

He has no lasting achievements to call his own.  The economy was good, and he was smart enough to stay out of its way, but did nothing when the bubble started bursting.  He never tried to tackle anything important and spent too much time dealing with minor, niggling issues.

I agree.  Clinton was the worst kind of leader -- one who wanted to be leader for reasons of ego, and horded his political capital to deal with his self-created personal problems rather than the issues facing the country.

Whether you like or agree with Bush or not, he has not done that.  Had Clinton been a better leader, we might not be facing some of the problems we face today.

I don't think presidents have that much to do with the short-term economy.  The Bush tax cuts probably headed off a much worse recession which was inevitable with the dot.com bubble bursting in the last year of Clinton's term.

And then there's his typically liberal, morally neutral response to the first World Trade Center bombing.  Never visiting the site, telling people to be calm about it, refusing to address the real issue by treating it as a law enforcement matter, all these things contributed to the problems we face today.

To be fair, all presidents since Carter failed on the growing menace of terrorism, but Clinton failed the worst.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

He was a commie bastard.

[A18]

I don't think presidents have that much to do with the short-term economy.  The Bush tax cuts probably headed off a much worse recession which was inevitable with the dot.com bubble bursting in the last year of Clinton's term.

I seriously doubt the Keynesian tax cut did anything at all. There was next to nothing pro-growth in it.

The supply side tax cut, on the other hand, has been very successful so far. Government revenues are growing at a faster rate than inflation, net job creation has averaged more than 150,000 per month, unlike the negative job numbers beforehand, and real GDP growth for 2004 was 4.4% compared to the 1.9% growth before the 2003 tax cut.

[opebo]

I don't think presidents have that much to do with the short-term economy.  The Bush tax cuts probably headed off a much worse recession which was inevitable with the dot.com bubble bursting in the last year of Clinton's term.

I seriously doubt the Keynesian tax cut did anything at all. There was next to nothing pro-growth in it.

The supply side tax cut, on the other hand, has been very successful so far. Government revenues are growing at a faster rate than inflation, net job creation has averaged more than 150,000 per month, unlike the negative job numbers beforehand, and real GDP growth for 2004 was 4.4% compared to the 1.9% growth before the 2003 tax cut.

That job creation is woefully inadequate.

[George W. Bush]

He was not great, But nothing was really wrong with him. There were alot of jobs created and the economy was good, Thanks to the Dot Com stuff. I think he could have done more to get Osama before 9/11, but bush could have too. CLinton had 8 years compared to 8 mouths. I also think he could have done something to stop Sadam. So I think he was week on National Defense and really dident doo much with the Economy. I do like what he did to welfare and Foodstamps.

[A18]

I don't think presidents have that much to do with the short-term economy.  The Bush tax cuts probably headed off a much worse recession which was inevitable with the dot.com bubble bursting in the last year of Clinton's term.

I seriously doubt the Keynesian tax cut did anything at all. There was next to nothing pro-growth in it.

The supply side tax cut, on the other hand, has been very successful so far. Government revenues are growing at a faster rate than inflation, net job creation has averaged more than 150,000 per month, unlike the negative job numbers beforehand, and real GDP growth for 2004 was 4.4% compared to the 1.9% growth before the 2003 tax cut.

That job creation is woefully inadequate.

Um, 150,000 jobs a month vs. negative job numbers ... oh, wait, I'm talking to a guy who supports a $15 per hour minimum wage. Nevermind then.