Were Bill Clinton's Years of Peace and Prosperity a Myth?

We had a tech Revolution where Windows 95 suddenly made Computers and the Internet a TOOL that ALL of us could use if we had a modem to connect to our phone. While many poorer Americans were cut out of this...most of whatever the "Middle Class" is...found a way to hook up and suddenly find a use for a computer that the early Apples and Commodore 64's didn't really allow. It was "User Friendly" and folks could do ancester searches and suddenly connect with each other in a way that was realtively easy with AOL allowing instant EASY connectivity. Sending Online Greeting Cards, photo's and doing one's own Web Page followed in fast pursuit. Tech was KING and Programmers and Web Designers were getting good pay and much in demand. Silicon Valley was King of the Market.

Clinton wasn't responsible for that...but it helped defray the angst of his Tax Hikes on the Rich and his lack of doing much for the social causes he was elected to address. HE WAS LUCKY! But, he was dogged from the time he took his oath of office by propped up scandals from the Well Funded Mellon-Scaife and others on the Right...and then he finally had his REAL Scandal towards the end of his second term.

NAFTA and finishing off Reagan's Plan for Media Deregulation and other De-Reg that was silent and out of the way from our view that Bush took and ran with were his failures that only became apparent when an Imperial President stole the election from Al Gore.

Clinton is remembered for the good years because of the Tech Revolution, Dot Com Mania where Jobs seemed plentiful and Golf was the Sport to Learn to get AHEAD...

But, underneath the same ROT of loss of jobs to outsourcing and downsizing under Poppy II (which Clinton was elected to stop..) while Wall Street and Greenspan began ruling American Economy by pumping the Wealthiest CEO's and their Lifestyle's on CNBC all day where "YOU TOO CAN MAKE MILLIONS IN THE MARKET" ...if you just start an Investment Club and get in on all of it, ruled.

The HOPE of CLINTON was never realized. Instead he crashed with an Impeachment for a private indiscretion, under the weight of a Conservative "Bought out Media" (which he had rewarded with the '96 Telecom Bill), an Out of Control Speculative Stock Market, and "Hunting of the President" by the RW Conservatives with their Mega Bucks plus the Evangelical Christians who were consolidating their power for the final push.

The Golden Years of Clinton were not without their Military Pre-Emptive Strikes, either... But, that's for others to talk about. Clinton did his share...he just wasn't Bush II.

began under Bill Clinton

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/extraordinaryrendition/22203res20051206.html


Maybe Bush really revved up the kidnappings, but Bill put the machinery in place.

No matter how many times it gets posted on DU, some of you refuse to see it - the economy was clicking BEFORE the tech boom. Under Clinton, the median family income increased from 27,900 in 1992 to 32.7 thousand in 1995...BEFORE the tech boom.

And, because of Clinton's committement to new technologies (Thank you, Mr. Gore, too) he was responsible, in part, for the tech boom.

While the right wing and sadly now the left wing only focuses on the tech bubble in the stock market (which actually happened after the economy had already starting humming along), they neglect the breadth of Clinton's economic accomplishments. Political hubris is the most obvious reason for this denial. Clinton proved many important points. The two most obvious are you can balance the budget and grow the economy.

Most importantly, this was part of Clinton's plan from the beginning. It was not a "happy accident" or the long-term result of Reaganomics. In fact,it was Clinton's undoing of Reaganomics that was a strong part of the reason for his success.

First, let's start with the balanced budget, which was part of Clinton's plan from the beginning of his Presidency.

The following is from On the Edge, by Elizabeth Drew, page 60:



Clinton's economic team of Robert Rubin, Lloyd Bentson (RIP), Leon Panetta and Alice Rivlin were all deficit hawks. All continually argued for a balanced budget. They won. Clinton came to realize the importance of balanced budgets.



But, why is a balanced federal budget so important?

It prevents crowding out. This is a fancy way of saying money that would finance the federal budget deficit is instead invested in private capital. Let me use the current situation as an example. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the US had a $318 billion budget deficit in 2005. That means $318 billion dollars was not invested in the private economy, but instead invested in US government bonds. The larger the deficit, the less money available for private investment.

Psychology and uncertainty. A budget deficit detracts from individual's confidence in the market and the overall economy. As individual's look to the federal deficit, they understand that at some time the government must pay back the money it borrows. That means the government will probably have to either raise taxes (more likely) or decrease spending (far less likely whichever party is in control of the government). Deficits create psychological uncertainty. The larger and more persistent the deficit, the less happy people are and the less prone they are to take economic risks.

Interest rates. The government is the largest borrower in the credit markets. The treasury market is the base interest rate for other credit market borrowers. If the government has to increase the amount of debt it issues, it has to ask for a higher interest rate. The reason is simple supply and demand. When you sell more of a good, you usually have to drop the price (price and yield are inversely related). Therefore, if the government issues more debt, it has to ask for a lower price and higher yield. The inverse is also true. Lower interest rates helps anybody who wants to borrow money because they will borrow at a rate based on the US Treasury curve.

Let's coordinate three sets of data to illustrate the point. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the deficits/surpluses for years 1993-2000 were (respectively and in billions) $-255, -$203, -$164, -$21, +$69, +$125, +$236, +$128. So, the budget deficit continually decreased from 1993-1996, the budget surplus increased from 97-99 and the budget showed a surplus in 2000 although this was lower than the preceding year. In other words, the record indicates a clear path towards balancing the federal budget. This was not the result of a happy accident; it was deliberate.

One of the prime reasons why the 1990s economy was so successful is the incredible amount of confidence this gave private investors. They could look at Washington with confidence, knowing politicians managed national finances were maturity. There was no talk to the deficit - was it too high, could it be maintained at current levels, will they ever get around to fixing it etc..... Simply put, investors had a sense of certainty and confidence about the economy. This encouraged them to take risks which helped everybody.

From an overall jobs perspective, the Clinton team created 22,759,000 from January 1993 to December 2000. This breaks down to 2.8 million jobs/year. The labor participation rate increased from 66.2% in January 1993 to 67% in December 2000. The unemployment rate decreased from 7.7% in January 1993 to 3.9% in December 2000.

In addition to the beneficial effects of balancing the budget, Clinton's economy was geared toward helping the middle class attain a better life. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the hourly pay for non-supervisory workers increased from $10.63 in January of 1993 to $14.26 in December 2000 for an increase of 34.14%. Over the same period, the inflation measure increased from 138.1 to 174 for an increase of 25.99%. Therefore, the inflation adjusted hourly wage increased 8.15%.

Under Clinton, the median family income increased from 27,900 in 1992 to 32.7 thousand in 1995, 33,400 in 1998 and 39,900 in 2001. Over the same period inflation increased 28%, making the total inflation adjusted gain 15%. Average income increased from $44,000 in 1992, to $47,500 in 1995, to $53,100 in 1998 to $68,000 in 2001 for an inflation adjusted increase of 23%.

continuation but only if each one was approved by the President.

There were other safeguards.

In number over 8 years less than the fingers on one hand.

A bit of a difference from Bush.

Indeed the ACLU should marvel at the fact that they know about the Clinton approval - unlike the Ike and later years where no one discusses anything.

were responsible for the Clinton Boom...because Poppy lowered taxes causing the Recession to stop..and Clinton took advantage of that... However, the one thing I'll credit Clinton for a bit...was raising the taxes on the wealthy to get the deficit down. But, even there it was the take off of the Tech Boom that made it impossible to tell which policy was the one that worked. His taxes on the very Wealthy, though, I will always say was a good thing which along with the Tech Boom...did help the Middle Class although not necessarily the very poor who still struggled but managed to get into service jobs because of all the restaurants catering to the Tech Boom and Wall St. Hype. We were still losing the manufacturing jobs in Michigan, though and Textile Mills and Furniture Manufacturing started to leave the Southeast which had boomed when the SunBelt Boomed due to more air-conditioning during the 70's and 80's and the Textile and other Mills moved out of the Northeast down to the Sunbelt...and Oil was Big in Texas until the wells went dry.

I forgot to mention Clinton's big throw bone for Social Programs...COBRA! That helped alot of us who were being downsized because of NAFTA.

Poppy lowered taxes causing the Recession to stop..and Clinton took advantage of that...

ha ha ... what was that famous Bush promise he broke - read my lips, no new taxes! Sorry, lay off the LW kool-aid. We were in recession in 1992.

Clinton said during the campaign "I am going to focus on this economy like a laser beam. I will work non-stop to turn this mess around and create new jobs and lower the deficit and fix the things that are wrong."

The Republicans, in unison, hooted like drunken hyenas and ridiculed Bill Clinton.
( I have the exact quotes but who has the time to look?)

"The banks will fail. Clinton's plans will only worsen the recession."
-- Armey the foul-mouthed Dick, Degree in Economics

"Clinton's pie-in-the-sky fantasies will crash our economy."
-- Phil Gramm, pornographer, Degree in Economics

"A guaranteed disaster, without a doubt."
-- Newt Gingrich, scumbag, thief, History professor

But, as always, their predictioons were dead wrong. This is what happened...



And when it did, every lying son of a bitch Republican changed their tune.


"This is Reagan's recovery!"
-- Armey, the foul-mouthed Dick

"Reagan laid the groundwork, but Bill Clinton is trying to claim all the credit."
-- Phil Gramm, financial backer of "The Hitcher."

"Bill Clinton did not contribute anything to this recovery."
-- Newt the scumbag

"Name one thing that Clinton did to help the economy."
-- The vulgar Pigboy

That's right.
After guaranteeing Clinton would ruin the country, they switched 180 degrees and said, "We knew all along Reagan's genius would save us."

Thank you bartcop.

Now here YOU agreeing with the Republicans.

is held up as a promise of what to expect under the second Clinton administration.

This was a long marriage...they met in Law School. It's a TwoFer! No one would know Hillary...if Bill hadn't been President.

Would you feel the same if Nancy Reagan was running for President under the name "NANCY...NANCY?" How about if Laura Bush decided to run for President in another four years? You say neither Nancy nor Laura had Law Degrees? Well...they both are college Graduates and had husbands who were popular presidents...in some quarters. Bush may not be so popular now...but he STILL HAS POWER that COWERS CONGRESS!

Clinton and Gore met repeatedly with Silicon Valley companies and their staffs. The whole tech boom was because of the Clinton economy , not in spite of it.

Further. Clinton's Treasury Chief, Bob Rubin, set our economy on a course that resulted in the Boom and raised every middle class statistic you could raise, set records for homeownership, and raised more people out of poverty than at any other time in history.

However, there's a big effort to debunk this because the right wing fears a Clinton presidency. A lot of it is hitting the media now, almost all has its origins in ...guess where? The Sciafe ,Olin and Mellon institutes.

Now, I'm not a big Hillary fan, but Bill did more for Americans, especially average Americans, than any other president in my lifetime. Yes, there were mistakes like NAFTA but on the whole, things went so well that the term "peace dividend " came into vogue.

Think we'll see that term any time in the future?

It doesn't take much to be better than Reagen, Bush 1 and Bush2!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

while....well let`s just say that why they call him the big dog. i have a really hard time thinking bush could do the same

case showed that he was a giver also.

the bush 1 recession was just about over when clinton was elected. the economy took off with the dot com boom and the enron business model. nafta was a huge mistake.the balkan`s was another mess a democratic president had to clean up after. jobs were outsourced but jobs were created. the sanctions on iraq were devastating and his failure to understand what was about to happen in Rwanda . he understood the coming problem with bin boy and he did what he could do within the laws to do to stop him. 1999 was the end of the economic growth of the 90`s.
i have no idea how history will judge him but i think he was a brilliant politician and he was`t a saint.

george bush had the same situation when he entered office as did clinton..clinton left with money in the bank and projected figures that would clear long term future debts...bush erased everything the moment the supreme court installed him. now it`s going to take a democrat to bail out a country after a republican leaves

He tried to push his progressive agenda through and the Congress along with the media sandbagged him from day 1. He took a moderate approach going into the 96' election as well as in his second term.
It was not just the insanly radical GOP, but the conservative Democrats who helped to defeat Clinton's progressive programs in the 103rd congress. Remeber, he barely got his economic reform package through the congress in August 1993. Al Gore had the tie braking vote in favor of it. 6 conservative Democratic Senators voted against the bill:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=103&session=1&vote=00247

Bryan (D-NV)
Boren (D-OK)
Johnston (D-LA)
Nunn (D-GA)
Shelby (D-AL)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)

No Republicans voted for the bill.

recall the dire warnings from pundits and people like Dick Armey, who declared it would lead to economic catastrophe.

see this Wikipedia entry for details on how close the vote was, how Al Gore cast the deciding vote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibus_Budget_Reconciliation_Act_of_1993

Also recall how this courageous legislation cost many democrats their seats in 1994. That's the meaning of courage, folks.

people want the dems to be "courageous" but don't fully accept that being courageous by definition puts you at risk of losing.

eom

Raygun lowered taxes on the rich to obscenely low levels. Clinton raised them to 39.5% which is still low compared to the rest of the civilized world and compared to pre-Raygun.

Clinton also wanted to cut taxes for the middle class at the same time but Greenspan blackmailed him saying that he would raise interest rates if he did it.

Thanks for the link, btw - that's an informative article. This clause:



is problematic. John Kerry claims (I don't know where to look this up, but I expect he's correct) that the European Union rate is much lower. This means corporations will want to move operations overseas when they can, to get a lower tax rate. That is why Kerry has been proposing a corporate tax reform that lowers that rate back to 30 BUT (stop jerking those knees, folks) closes a lot of loopholes and removes incentives for companies to offshore jobs.


Edit to correct: I don't recall what number Kerry said the EU is at. Kerry wants to lower US rate to 30 to be more competitive.

pretty good bbc article summarizing Clinton's legacy there

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/1065913.stm

It's a mark of the people skills of President Bill Clinton that it took his visit to unite the people of Northern Ireland, no matter how briefly, in their tens of thousands on the streets of Belfast and Londonderry.

President Bill Clinton's domestic legacy, belittled by opponents and tainted by impeachment, will be picked over for years to come.

But few doubt the importance of the role that he played in helping to get Northern Ireland's divided community to sit down together with the common goal of consigning violence and inequality to the past.

President Clinton is now on his third visit to Dublin and Belfast - three visits more than any other serving US President has ever undertaken.

(...)

eom

I'll bet they chuckle when they see people at DU repeating their arguments--for free.

What's more ironic is the disconnect between rank and file Democrats who have overwhelmingly fond memories of the Clinton administration and the many folks here who don't...

It's amazing how the left and the right swing the same clubs to silence dissent. :eyes:

Because the Clinton era was no accident. If you don't remember, he inherited a recession from Bush 1, and it's looking like the next president will be inheriting the same thing from Bush 2.

Normally I have to listen to Rush when I'm in the mood for stupid right-wing talking points.

Thanks for saving me the effort.

slide, especially after "welfare reform" threw more low-wage workers onto the market for a supply of blue collar jobs that was shrinking due to NAFTA and other "free" trade agreements.

Things weren't as bad under Clinton, but they were a far cry from earlier decades.

:shrug:

Things weren't as bad under Clinton, but they were a far cry from earlier decades.

The 90s were the greatest economic expansion in a generation. All stats confirm.

Then why was African American and Hispanic unemployment at a lower level than at any time in American history?

And why was the number of American living below the poverty line at its lowest level in a generation?

I'll be waiting for your answers (and) evidence...

to the truth.

we had one of the best economies in our history under Clinton. This thread is a right-wing talking point disguised as "concern".

Sorry, the judges have ruled this thread ineligible since it was actually started yesterday.

Instead, please consider this thread.

if you look at four key economic measures, President Clinton scores better than the three Republicans occupying the White House since 1980. One of the most startling data points is gross federal debt as a percent of GDP (unadjusted dollars). In 1993, after Clinton's first year in Office, that number was 64.1%. But when he left office in 2000 the number was down to 58.0%.

For the other three Presidents (Reagan, Bush 41, Bush 43), the nation had significantly more debt as a percent of GDP when they left office than when they entered. The most dramatic, of course, was Reagan, increasing almost 20 points from 32.5% to 51.9%. The current occupant of the White House is on track to match or exceed Reagan, however. When he entered office, debt as a percent of GDP was 57.5%. The current White House estimate for 2007 is 70.2%.

Enough said....

Ben David