Clinton's tanking economy?

I've heard people like Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and Savage state that the economy was "tanking" prior to Bush being elected, but where is the proof of this decline in the economy? Can someone site a valid reference to this "alleged" past?

Well if its links you are looking for,I will try to find some later.
But from personal experiance I can tell you the economy was going downhill about 2 years before Clinton left office. I was in construction back in those days. Construction/housing are good indicators of how the economy is doing. Work came pretty much too a stand still the last two years of Clintons term. I went from building new custom homes,to re-working homes,to no work. We all saw it coming,the economy went up so fast with no plan on letting it level out. Plus most of the money was in stocks,bonds, etc. It wasn't cash money,just borrowed money.
So yeah it was on a decline.


[Edited on 9/16/03 by nyeff]

I was seeing the decline beginning in 1997 because if we know that the economy follows a cyclic wave when plotted, it was unavoidable. Clinton tried to avoid it, I'll give him that...but laxing the laws that force companies to report profit losses in 1995 only added steam to a locomotive that was barreling straight for a rickety bridge. Maybe he thought with enough speed, it could jump the conyon but forgot about the hundred cars attached to the back.

I was also in the Construction business and left it for higher ground, engineering work which always lags behind the economy a few years and is just now feeling the pinch everyone has felt for the last two years. With the 14% tax increase in 1993, the government was able to grow fat but instead of conserving the funds, they sought to only increase spending above and beyond even those limits. See, many people think Clinton had his supoosed surplus in a huge pile in a locked room in the whitehouse but what they don't realize and don't want to hear is that surplus was a 10 year estimate based on the same fake economy built on false reporting such as the 1998 Enron loan from Citycorp which compounded until it could no longer be hidden. Citycorp hired Robert Rubin, Clintons former cabinet member who oversaw the dealings with Enron in effort to keep some influence in Washington that would allow Enron officials to make off with their loot and stick their employees with the check. He gets 40 million a year for that little chore, I reckon.

Republicans and conservatives everywhere blame Clinton for a declining economy prior to Dubya's term. I just want to know where this info is coming from. Everything I've found states otherwise.

Originally posted by kramtronix
Republicans and conservatives everywhere blame Clinton for a declining economy prior to Dubya's term. I just want to know where this info is coming from. Everything I've found states otherwise.

Republicans are natural born liars. All of them. I've been trying to tell people that but, you just witnessed it here.

Now, don't get me wrong. Its not really an effect that Clinton had just the nature of the beast, you might say. He tried something to skirt it but all it really did was delay it a few years. It had to happen. It has always happened..and it will probably always happen as there will never be a true balance between government and business. Its sort of like the pendulum that swings toward either labor or management if you study labor economics to any degree. When one has their guy in power, they take advantage of it as far as they can. Things were pretty good through the Clinton years numberwise so the advocates of government rule took advantage and taxed it to keep power where they think it needs to be. Now that things are not so good largely because they took it too far, the people have their guy who will take away from the government rule side of it to return power to the private sector. They will most likely push a little too far as well casuing our government, who can't for the life of them cut their spending, to go into deficit therbye building support for them. Its a balancing act because neither side knows when enough is enough so if you must get on one side or another, you have to ask yourself, do you want power (money) with the people or the government? The pwer is swinging toward the peeps right now but give it a few years and the government will spend themselves into a whole and then begin their pity party campaign.

I think it is beyond rediculous that they blame Clinton. I actually blame All presidents. It seems we get worse after each one. They seem to be good right after being elected (or just given the job) then after a while, they drive the economy to shyte.

I personally think this particular bout of economic fall was actually started with Bush Senior.

What is the lie? Can you be specific?

Yeah...here is one for ya.....
"WHY PROSPERITY HAPPENED AND WHAT WENT WRONG: Part THREE: The Damaging Legacy Of Clintonomics!"
Link:
www.iconoclast.ca.../newPage20.asp

Excerpt:
"by R. Bastiat, Iconoclast Economics Editor

When he took the oath of office in January 1993, newly elected President Bill Clinton inherited a robust economic recovery that had been under way for almost two years, fortified by the strong momentum that had been building up in the US economy for more than a decade. When he left the White House eight years later in January 2001, Clinton bequeathed his successor -- and the American people -- an incipient recession and a severely wounded economy that has yet to recuperate from the long-term damage inflicted by his administration during its two terms in office.

What happened in between is a sorry tale of how Clinton's ill-conceived legislation, and abuse of the regulatory mechanism, ultimately left the economy bleeding and battered, despite Clinton's failure to get much of his agenda enacted and even after his reluctant embrace of constructive initiatives put forward by the political opposition.

It's time to blow the whistle on the fairy tale spun by media mythmakers about Clinton's much-celebrated economic "achievements," and to expose the destructive results that were partially masked during the 1990s by the momentum that carried over from the Reagan economic restoration of the 1980s (see Part Two of this series, below) and propelled the economy through most of the subsequent decade. Although Clinton's two terms did coincide with an extended period of relative prosperity, it is perfectly clear that the good times rolled along during those years in spite of -- rather than because of -- the policy initiatives of his administration.

Contrary to popular folklore, Clinton's stewardship of the US economy was a major disaster, characterized by the imposition of destructive policy measures, on the backs of businesses and individuals, which had dire long-term consequences for future economic activity. If we separate what occurred on Clinton's watch from what his administration was actually responsible for, we find that little of the good that happened in the economy during the period of Clinton's presidency was actually his responsibility, and little of what was actually his responsibility was good for the economy.

The relative prosperity that coincided with Clinton's years in office was an outgrowth either of earlier measures put in place by his predecessors (Reagan and Bush Sr.), or of Republican initiatives (including key parts of Newt Gingrich's "Contract With America") that were forced upon him ( to which he reluctantly acquiesced and subsequently claimed credit for). The measures Bill Clinton initiated himself were, in the main, actually or potentially destructive of the prosperity he was falsely credited for having created.

As the economy in 2003 struggles to regain its footing, after the bursting of the Clinton bubble at the turn of the century and the trauma of the 2001 recession, Americans are currently paying a steep price -- in terms of reduced output, sluggish growth, and lost jobs -- for Clinton's misconceived policies and unfortunate actions. We are likely to be doing so for years to come."........
This is but a snipit of the complete article...whole lot more to read.

Here is some cud for Colonel to chew on also....

Clinton received less than 50% of the votes in both "victories" (remember Ross Perot?). A quick look at charts of the stock market show the recovery actually began in 1985. It took a modest downturn during the 1st Bush administration, but started recovering during the latter part of the administration (prior to Clinton taking office). The leftist media helped Clinton turn an economic recovery into "the worst economy since the Great Depression", or whatever. If the media had told the truth Clinton would have lost by a landslide, indeed!

Also recall the corporate scandals began during the Clinton administration, and in at least one, the illegal Citicorp merger, Clinton and Reuben had complicity. And, lo and behold, Reuben got a cushy job with Citicorp after he left Washington. You can read more about this on Frontline- www.pbs.org...

Also recall that the NASDAQ dropped by more than half prior to G.W. Bush taking office in Januar 2001 (from 5,048.62 on March 10, 2000 down to 2,291.86 on Jan 2, 2001). The economic downturn actually began around March 2000, the same time everyone's 401k's started taking a hit. It was hurt even more by the 9/11 terrorism, and even more by the obstructionism of leftists in the Senate. BTW, George W. Bush warned of the impending recession during his 2000 campaign; but the leftist media elites, rather than telling the truth and admitting he was right, actually scorned him.

This is the exact opposite of the truth of what went right in the 1990s. This analysis is the Liberal version of the Big Lie: the idea that Clinton "saved' the economy by raising taxes and thereby driving down long-term interest rates. It is clever circumlocution but is contradicted by facts.

After Clinton's budget passed in 1993 long term interest rates ROSE and the stock market went DOWN. The economy itself teetered on the verge of another recession in early 1994. It was at around this time that Orange County went bankrupt because their treasurer was speculating in interest-rate derivatives. Clinton and the economy was saved by the Republican tsunami in the 1994 off-year election.

The economy started its amazing 1990s trajectory starting in 1995 after the Republican-controlled Congress passed capital gains tax relief. The boom gained substance driven by capital spending on Enterprise software and the creation of ubiquitous corporate computer networks. The defeat of Hillary-care was also an essential part of the boom environment.

The notion that long-term interest rates are determined exclusively by the presence or absence of Government deficits is kindergarden economics. It is far more complictaed than that being related to inflation expectations and other borrowing activity in the market. As evidence of this ask this: Why, if Clintonomics saved the economy by raising taxes and lowering the deficit did Japan and Germany, who had larger nominal deficits than the US, have lower real long-term interest rates than the US throughout the 1990s?

It is a matter of perspective isn't it?

Colonel is wearing them damn coca-cola bottomed glasses and can't seem to correctly read those Democrack "fairytale" books!


regards
seekerof



[Edited on 16-9-2003 by Seekerof]

every action has an equal or opposite reaction...
and every action can be percieved from many different view points...
which is why the web is unraveling...
only positive intentions begets positive actions, that can be percieved by negative persons as negative..
quite simple this game is....

Seekerof, good informative post and as I've been reading further into the link you posted it jumps out at me that the Glass-Steagall Act was put into law in 1933 to prevent such a collapse as 1929 from ahappening again. Its lobbied and repealed in 1998 and not 3 years later the economy takes a downer. Maybe these kinds of superbanks aren't a good idea..and just maybe that law should be re-enacted. Since our democrat friends think so little of the rich high class bankers, I doubt they would have any objection to placing a little control on the kinds of activities that led to the Enron / Citycorp scandel. You're never gonna get to strike a blow at a richer class than superbankers unless you hit DC for their riches. Andrew Jackson was right. bankers are a den of vipers.

Nice LYING post, Seekerof. Look, you're gonna hgave to make a decision. Are you gonna be on the side of the just and right AND GOOD or are yougonna be on the side of the repugnants? NO MORE WAFFLING.

Originally posted by Colonel
Nice LYING post, Seekerof. Look, you're gonna hgave to make a decision. Are you gonna be on the side of the just and right AND GOOD or are yougonna be on the side of the repugnants? NO MORE WAFFLING.

Colonel.....I made this clear before and I will make it clear again....
I do not like Bush...fact.
I dispise Clinton...fact.
I claim no party affiliation...nor have I in any post....fact.
In such....I have the right to point and condemn as I, an American citizen, see's fit....fact.
If your a Democrack...thats your problem...fact.
If you are republickin'...thats another problem....fact.

Matters not to me Colonel....whats the issue with you?
Regardless of if I am bashing Bush or Clinton......I have yet to see what the hell your talking about in "waffling"?!?

As for my information being "lies," dispell them and see if they are "lies." Sometimes the pill is pretty bitter to swallow Colonel but swallowing the pill will help ya.....fact.

regards
seekerof

[Edited on 16-9-2003 by Seekerof]

"sometimes to do right i had to use my left hand"
big sage...
and the struggle continues...

Here's an example of the lie, Seekerof:

"When he took the oath of office in January 1993, newly elected President Bill Clinton inherited a robust economic recovery that had been under way for almost two years, fortified by the strong momentum that had been building up in the US economy for more than a decade."

If I remember correctly, there was a big influx of students heading to grad schools at that time. Why? BECAUSE THERE WERE NO JOBS. I remember, do you?

for it moves like the leaves of a fall tree before winter...
make sure you have a sweater...

Seeker.... That is one of the best posts I have read in my short time here. Cudos!

Actually, I don't remember it that way at all but I guess after you wait 10 years, you can claim just about any reality you need to back your point. I graduated with a BS in 1991 directly into a nice entry level position and if I remember, so did most of my friends..and that was from a state university in KY for crying out loud. It seemed everything boomed for the 3 years I was there and then begin to fade in the mid 90s. I rolled with the punches and the friggin tax increases and remember that i coudn't help wondering that if this was good times, why the hell was it so hard. Little did I know that it was only good times if you were

A. a criminal
B. a politician and thus A applies
C. Totally dependant on government handouts.
D. all of the above

Let me ask you this. If you hate Bush and Bush is the government, why the hell do you argue for him to keep more and more of the people's money? Looks like you'd want less power (money) in Washington during your enemy's reign and more in your party's hey day. Your philosophy doesn't add up.

Here is a more links to Clintons doomed economy plan..................
********************************************
But the Clinton administration forgot that more abundant money carries certain dangers. One is higher prices. Known popularly as inflation, this lowers the purchasing power of money, which forces the Fed, sooner or later, to raise the interest rates back to a higher level. The usual consequence is an economic slowdown or even recession. A by-product may be a lower exchange rate internationally.
www.mises.org...
********************************************

Originally posted by astrocreep
Actually, I don't remember it that way at all but I guess after you wait 10 years, you can claim just about any reality you need to back your point. I graduated with a BS in 1991 directly into a nice entry level position and if I remember, so did most of my friends..and that was from a state university in KY for crying out loud. It seemed everything boomed for the 3 years I was there and then begin to fade in the mid 90s. I rolled with the punches and the friggin tax increases and remember that i coudn't help wondering that if this was good times, why the hell was it so hard. Little did I know that it was only good times if you were

A. a criminal
B. a politician and thus A applies
C. Totally dependant on government handouts.
D. all of the above

Let me ask you this. If you hate Bush and Bush is the government, why the hell do you argue for him to keep more and more of the people's money? Looks like you'd want less power (money) in Washington during your enemy's reign and more in your party's hey day. Your philosophy doesn't add up.

I graduated at the same time---1991. And I remember people running to grad school for fear of unemployment and bad economy caused by that THUG Bush 41.

I hate the Bush 43 thug b/c he is mismanaging our economy. "Giving us our money back." WHat a load of BS. He's bankrupting our government!

"I need 87 billion dollars for the unneccesary war in Iraq (on top of the other 200 billion or so that I asked for before). I may have ot ask for more next year.