Quick question on Clinton/Bush

During a recent argument for a speech I've been writing, a republican friend told me the only reason that Clinton had a good economy was because of the infamous dot com bubble.

However, I find things that show 20 million jobs were created, 4% growth for four consecutive years...is this all due to the dot com bubble? I can't really find any information on it...

the biggest factor that fueled the Clinton boom was the lowering of interest rates, which was made possible by Clinton's budget discipline.

When the 1993 Clinton budget and tax hike were passed, without one Republican vote, the Republicans predicted it would lead to a severe recession.

Wrong.

Thanks! Any help I can get is appreciated...we're torn down after these speeches and scrutinized...best to have everything on my side I can get.

:toast:

Didnt Clinton sign a middle class tax cut package too?

There is a case that really foreshadowed what was coming when the SOB came into power.

I am an accountant, so maybe I have a bias about tax law. I have always believed the US used tax law to advance its priorities. That is the way it is supposed to happen.

It is called TAASC - kind of infamous.

It couldn't be clearer, to me and many, Clinton's push for the country to "go tech" for our countries future went up in smoke that day. And it is equally clear, this "pretender president"
took those same tax credits designed by Clinton's administration to advance the technical base of our country and gave them to the oil companies - he just did, a year or two later.

It always has been to me, in a way, the battle of old line capitalists vrs the new. So for every Chevron out there there is a Steve Jobs or Warren Buffet.

I bet on Buffet - at least in the end.

The ultimate fight is in ten months now. I really believe the SOB shaved two points in his favor in 2004. I bet he can't shave ten points in all fifty states this year. And if that is true, we will win in the end. I am certain we have "most significant" friends in this coming fight.

And I sure believe - what goes around comes around - and it is coming around.

Best, Joe

increase investment in technology and education to increase productivity. He skewed tax policies away from old time companies like oil and towards the new economy like internet and technology. The economy did improve because of the dot com boom but it was also aided by appropriate government policies. * has skewed benefits to old time companies and away from education and technology. Look what he did with the stem cell research which moved much medical research and investment offshore. All his tax breaks and policies have benefitted oil and traditional car companies. Instead of pushing solar, hybrids, energy savings, and new technologies, * tried to re-ignite the old line companies that have little to no economic stimulus to the rest of the economy.

Because the middle class had confidence his administration gave a damn about them.

Consumer confidence started fading near the end of his second term out of concern that someone less mindfull of protecting the middle class might come into power. That someone turned into Bush, and consumer confidence turtled up out of self defense.

is this a typical thing? something you see with each democratic president vs republican, or was Clinton ahead in this area?

Clintons administration stands out, I think, not so much because his economic policies were so on target (although they were.) He stands out because the economic practices and the administrations immediately before and after him were so clearly, demonstrably bad.

Here's come interesting graphs. They weren't the exact ones I was looking for, but they will do:
http://www.scamcity.co.uk/journal/?p=439

Clinton and Gore basically got the Internet into mainstream America. There would have been no dot.com bubble if Republicans had their way.

"You just aren't being honest...It really is that simple.

First, let's address the GDP growth issue. I would greatly appreciate you stop telling tales about 4% growth for 4 years. Here is what the joint economic committee released in March of 1996

*******************************

During 1995, GDP expanded at an anemic 1.4 percent growth rate (4th quarter to 4th quarter). Fourth quarter economic growth was very slow at 0.9 percent per annum. Last year's growth rate was significantly below 1994's GDP growth of 3.5 percent, and was the weakest performance since the recession ended in 1991. If the American economy is limited to 1.4 percent growth, the living standards of America's workers will continue to stagnate.

*********************************

Here are the facts; the first Q following the 2003 tax cut was the fastest growth in 20 years and that, and the 9 quarters that followed, are the fastest 10 straight quarters in 50 years.

Next, let's deal with unemployment. You said;

***********************************

Perhaps you dont understand what unemployment is.

Its not based off of circulating money and inflation - its based off of the number of people who stated they had been unemployed and actively looking for a job in the last six months.
******************************************

In a word... DUH

but companies who have surplus cash, build, expand and hire. What we had under Clinton was actualy OVER employment in the tech sector that covered over bleeding in manufacturing, construction, and small buisness jobs. I saw this phenomena first hand. When I went to work in a western New Jersey buisness campus, near the end of clinton's reign, there was a tech company that was leasing space in 4 buildings, totaling about 3 million square feet. By the time the market bottomed out in 2002, they were down to 3 floors in a single building, and 1 of them was only half full.

Stock buyers and Companies lost their minds in the 2nd half of the 1990s and went on a crazed, drunken and COMPLETLY UNSUSTAINABLE binge. It wasn't an economy at all, it was a frenetic sugar high that came crashing down as fast as it went up.

You Clinton apologists are so brazenly dishonest it defies imagination. Clinton inherited a booming economy and crashed it. Bush inherited a crashed economy and has turned it into a seemingly unstoppable juggernaut that brushed off Katrina like an annoying insect.

As far as your "20 million jobs", that is also a high degree of book cooking. It is well known that the Clinton administration added a "bias" to the payroll job numbers, of about 140,000 jobs per month. So that means they overstated the number of jobs created from January 1994 to January 2001 by...what?....11.8 million jobs?

In fact, the Clinton administration's complicity in economic book cooking is well established...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/730355/posts

The other amusing thing is the way that you stop the economic counting at January 2001.

The massive job losses that occured? 70% were in 2001. Those were CLINTON job losses, not Bush job losses. Bush's economic policy wasn't even PASSED until Q3 2001 and, even then, it had to weather the blow of 911.

You are not a "watch dog", you are just a Clinton apologist who wants to spin. However, when you look at the Clinton record vs the Bush record HONESTLY, there is no comparison... Bush beats him hands down.
Posted 1/10/2006 at 8:58 AM by anewtone"