Bill Clinton Is Right: The Economy Really Does Do Better Under Democrats

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer

"He inherited a deeply damaged economy," Clinton said of Obama, "put a floor under the crash, began the long, hard road to recovery and laid the foundation for a more modern, more well-balanced economy that will produce millions of good new jobs, vibrant new businesses, and lots of new wealth for the innovators."

"No president, not me or any of my predecessors, could have repaired all the damage in just four years," he said, going on to suggest that Obama's work was only half finished.

If you look at the headlines from 2008, the economy was in total meltdown. We were losing 750,000 jobs a month. Every other nation that went into recession went into double-dip numbers. We were only just able to stop the free-fall and claw back out of it.

I know we can't keep "blaming Bush", but we also can't keep ignoring just how badly damaged the economy was in 2008-9.

Shh....republicans
don't like talking about this stuff.
It kinda ruins their whole schtick .

Originally posted by thesungod
reply to post by milominderbinder

 

Wow. You don't even understand the concept of a "12 month % change", let alone that "Supply-side economics" was an answer to " Keynesian economics" and was from the 70s, NOT 80s. So your trying to call out my "formal education" huh?

You wanna know a little bit about me try reading this ATS Intro thread .

I'm done chatting with you until you post data. Anything other than talk and misunderstanding about how things work will be ignored.

Have a good one.

What have I said that would lead you to think that I somehow don't understand year over year change?

...and read my post again. I said that prior to 1980 anyone who would have taken the supply-side manner of thinking on an Econ test at the university level would have failed the course. This is true...the idea was out there...but at that time it was correctly being relegated to realms of quackery and lunacy where it belongs. The marketing efforts of the Reagan campaign is what made it OK for otherwise intelligent people to throw away the economic knowledge that the human race had previously acquired.

After the whole "i never had sex with that women" ordeal, I cant believe anything

that clinton says.

More fodder from clinton for his buddy obama
there all liars

Nobody really believes that trickle down economics works. the rich people KNOW it doesn`t work but they aren`t going to argue against it because they reap all the gains from it.
It still astounds me that the american people were so easily fooled into believeing that it would actually work.

Originally posted by Tardacus
Nobody really believes that trickle down economics works. the rich people KNOW it doesn`t work but they aren`t going to argue against it because they reap all the gains from it.
It still astounds me that the american people were so easily fooled into believeing that it would actually work.

You know...I would be OK with that...except for people like thesungod on here that make voting decisions based upon their belief in this nonsense.

Originally posted by RealSpoke
You'd figure everyone by now would realize that nothing trickles down. Just look at New Jersey.

Well, except for maybe homophobia, I think.




And poo.

reply to post by milominderbinder


You said...

What have I said that would lead you to think that I somehow don't understand year over year change?

and

SEASONAL BOOM!!! That means that if the seasonal "boom" is -10% the whole state will be in a world of sh^t when winter rolls around AND YOU LOSE EVEN THOSE CONSTRUCTION JOBS.

Again I provide the link. Look over at the [1] [2] [3] and what they mean.

seasonally adjusted

What's seasonal adjustment? Let's find out... Seasonal Adjustment

Seasonal adjustment is a statistical method for removing the seasonal component of a time series that is used when analyzing non-seasonal trends. It is normal to report seasonally adjusted data for unemployment rates to reveal the underlying trends in labor markets.[1] Many economic phenomena have seasonal cycles, such as agricultural production and consumer consumption, e.g. greater consumption leading up to Christmas. It is necessary to adjust for this component in order to understand what underlying trends are in the economy and so official statistics are often adjusted to remove seasonal components. [2]

So this "seasonal boom" your trying to push is already calculated into this data? No way someone thought of this before you right? This is where I question your understanding of year TO year change. Thinking that something so basic was left by the wayside and not calculated already.

-

Okay you also said...

...and read my post again. I said that prior to 1980 anyone who would have taken the supply-side manner of thinking on an Econ test at the university level would have failed the course. This is true...the idea was out there...but at that time it was correctly being relegated to realms of quackery and lunacy where it belongs. The marketing efforts of the Reagan campaign is what made it OK for otherwise intelligent people to throw away the economic knowledge that the human race had previously acquired.

In rebuttal to this I'll point that the term "supply-side economics" was coined in the 70s. However...

4 President Herbert Hoover's response to the Great Depression was often criticized because it failed to provide direct relief for the neediest persons. Hoover was a believer in supply-side economics. This approach to the economy stressed stimulating the supply side of the economy—manufacturers, banks, and insurance corporations. The theory is that if there is growth in the supply side, there will be a general economic revival and the benefits of a robust economy will trickle down to everyone. The alternative approach is to stimulate the demand side—consumers. Demand-side economics would emphasize government policies designed to increase workers' wages and benefits, such as welfare and unemployment benefits. As a believer in supply-side economics, Hoover implemented policies that he thought would stimulate business. One of Hoover's major initiatives was the Reconstruction Finance Corporation. This agency extended loans to manufacturers and banks. Hoover resisted extending relief programs to individuals in need, believing that direct relief would make people dependent on the government rather than on their own resolve.

Source

So Hoover the US President from 1929–1933 was already using supply-side economics under a different name? And then the economy boomed under FDR with a "New Deal"? Also lead to the banks being reined in by the Glass-Steagall Act in 1933. No way, couldn't be.

-

Anyway, I've got a great book for you to read. "Supply-Side Follies: Why Conservative Economics Fails, Liberal Economics Falters, and Innovation Economics Is the Answer" by Robert D. Atkinson. It's a leftist book put does a great job of describing both the pros and cons of right economics. But since I have no formal education, let's just read the book via osmosis shall we?

Oh and even this leftist book admits that Reaganomics worked for it's time and place. AND IT'S LEFTIST. If you want a right-wing book, just let me know and I'll consult my book shelves, I have a few of them on my shelves too.

Please Consider the Following:

Bill said, in his speech:

Everybody (inaudible) when President Barack Obama took office, the economy was in freefall. It had just shrunk 9 full percent of GDP. We were losing 750,000 jobs a month. Are we doing better than that today?

AUDIENCE: Yes!

CLINTON: The answer is yes. Now, look. Here's the challenge he faces and the challenge all of you who support him face. I get it. I know it. I've been there. A lot of Americans are still angry and frustrated about this economy. If you look at the numbers, you know employment is growing, banks are beginning to lend again, and in a lot of places, housing prices have even began to pick up.

But too many people do not feel it yet. I had this same thing happen in 1994 and early '95. We could see that the policies were working, that the economy was growing, but most people didn't feel it yet. Thankfully, by 1996, the economy was roaring, everybody felt it, and we were halfway through the longest peacetime expansion in the history of the United States. But...

(APPLAUSE)

... the difference this time is purely in the circumstances. President Obama started with a much weaker economy than I did. Listen to me now. No president, no president -- not me, not any of my predecessors -- no one could have fully repaired all the damage that he found in just four years.

Now, read the following excerpt from an article written in 2007:

To get an idea of the size of these negative effects, the Center for Economic and Policy Research commissioned Global Insight, one of the country’s leading economic forecasting firms, to project the economic impact of increased military spending over a long period of time. We asked them to model the impact of a sustained increase in military spending of 1 percent of GDP (about $145 billion at present), which is somewhat less than current spending on the wars Iraq and Afghanistan.

While the model shows that increased spending initially provides an economic boost, the spending soon becomes a drain on the economy.[3] By the tenth year increased military spending is projected to lead to a loss of 460,000 jobs. Twenty years of increased military spending is projected to lead to a loss of 670,000 jobs.

The construction and manufacturing sectors are projected to be hardest hit. After ten years they are projected to lose 140,000 and 90,000 jobs, respectively. After twenty years, the job losses in construction rise to 210,000, although they remain at 90,000 for manufacturing.

The model also projects that higher military spending leads to a large increase in the trade deficit. The increase in military spending is projected to raise the annual trade deficit by almost $90 billion after ten years and more than $130 billion after twenty years. Over a twenty year horizon, the increase in defense spending would add more than $2 trillion to the country’s foreign indebtedness.

In short, the model shows that an increase in defense spending, comparable to what we’ve seen with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, will lead to fewer jobs, especially in construction and manufacturing, and a considerably larger trade deficit. The Global Insights model is just one model of the economy, but almost any other model would produce similar, and quite likely larger, projections of economic harm.

If you have informed yourself truly with the facts and figures of our economic crisis...and you remember what changed 11 years ago almost to the day...in 4 days, actually, it will be 11 years...then you should realize that what the writers of this article were predicting has come to pass...pretty much exactly as they said it would.


PLEASE read the entire article for every link I give, if you want to get a clear view on this that cannot be attributed to our present petty battles over parties and other distractions...all of these things were being revealed around 4 or 5, even 6 years ago....and they all agree...with each other and with our present state of affairs.

Here is another article:

However, the actual impact of the war on the economy is different than in the past, largely because the US economy is so much bigger now. During World War II, some analysts calculate that the US spent as much as 30 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP) on the war effort. The Korean War, at its spending peak in 1953, represented 14 percent of GDP; Vietnam was about 9 percent. The current war, however, is less than 1 percent of America's annual $13 trillion GDP.

...continued...

reply to post by PvtHudson

How is the sub prime loan implosion (Clinton policy, which was helped along by Obama), Bush's fault? What you're giving people here is not facts, but rather spin and opinion from left wing Democrats posing as journalists in the media.

Bush could have put his foot down on the derivatives fraud that the banks were committing. But no he listened to Alan Greenspan and totally ignored it and then what happened? He gave the banks and wall street hundreds of billions of our tax dollars because they started crying we are too big to fail. This is something Romney wants to start again he wants to deregulate the banks and wall street But then again Romney pocketed 10 million from the bailout.

continuing....

Payment due: in the future

The US can certainly afford the war, says budget analyst Stan Collender, a managing director of Qorvis Communications in Washington. But the spending is taking resources from other areas, he notes. Because the US is borrowing to finance the war, the cost will be borne by future generations. "And it's still going to be one of the most expensive wars we have ever fought," he says.

Unlike in previous major wars, the United States has cut taxes at the same time it has increased military spending. "It's fair to say all of the money spent on the war has been borrowed," says Richard Kogan, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a think tank in Washington. "But eventually everything has to be paid for."
Congressional questioning

Congress hopes to hold hearings on the financial implications of the war before the president releases his budget proposal for fiscal year 2008 on Feb. 5. Democrats, now in the majority, plan to ask a wide range of questions, from the future costs of the war to how those costs should be budgeted.

"We won't balance the budget in one year. The best we can expect is five years," says Rep. John Spratt (D) of South Carolina, the new chairman of the House Budget Committee, in a phone interview. "But we need to know: What is the bar we need to reach?"

Estimating the budget deficit has become more difficult in recent years because the White House has funded much of the war through emergency supplemental bills, which are not included in the federal budget. According to a Congressional Research Service report, it is a practice that other administrations have employed since the Korean War. This year, the White House is expected to ask for another $100 billion in supplemental war funds, but Representative Spratt says he would like to get the war back on the budget since it can be argued the war is no longer an emergency.

Same article goes on to say:

A war-by-war cost comparison

Numbers are fuzzy on how much has been spent so far on the global war on terror. According to the House Appropriations Committee, some $471 billion has been committed so far. Spratt says it's closer to $507 billion. By the end of this year, on a cash basis, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will be closing in on the costs of the Vietnam War ($650 billion in today's dollars) and the Korean War ($691 billion).

Some analysts believe the cost of the war is much higher than Congress estimates. In a study last January and updated in October, Harvard Prof. Linda Bilmes and Columbia Prof. Joseph Stiglitz estimated the budgetary and economic cost of the war at $2 trillion.

Ms. Bilmes, in a phone interview, says Congress looks only at its cash outlays, not at the war's future costs. For example, she says, an estimated 42,000 light trucks are in use in Iraq. Although it costs something to run them, the major cost will be replacing them. "That's not factored into the cost of the war," she says.

The same is true of the cost of taking care of injured veterans in the future. "After our study came out, what surprised us is that the VFW, the Vietnam Vets, and others said, 'Thanks for shining the spotlight on this issue, but your numbers are too low,' " Bilmes says. After working with the vets, she concluded that the future costs of caring for the wounded were much higher than she had estimated.

Just the cash costs alone have mushroomed over the past two years, says Steve Kosiak, an analyst at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a think tank in Washington. He estimates that Congress has appropriated nearly $300 billion during that period. "Perhaps some of the additional cost is for repairing the equipment," he says. "But it's fair to say it's partly a mystery why it's up so much."

Polls show people are concerned about the war, says Dennis Jacobe, chief economist at the Gallup Organization in Washington. But, he adds, "they are not concerned about the cost."

This is partly because of the way the war is funded through the supplemental budget process, Mr. Jacobe says. But it's also because the war has not disrupted the economy the same way past wars have. "It's really had no significant impact except for the deficit spending," he says.

This is about an author and economist who was going to speak to congress about the matter...I don't know what happened as I just found this today...the article is long but please read it as I'm not going to quote any of it. It is all too relevant to pick just a part of it.

This is a literal look at WWI and how these things were approached by our grandparents.

Nothing is going to change as long as we are at war and spending money faster than we can make it...faster even than we can borrow it, evidently.

This is the truth!

reply to post by primus2012

The economy did extremely well under Clinton because his vice-president created the internet and kicked off the home pc and .com explosion. Thanks Al!.

Gore never claimed to create the internet.

No invention: Al Gore’s Internet honor

The names were announced Monday at the Internet Society’s Global INET 2012 conference in Geneva, Switzerland, and Gore was placed in the “Global Connectors” category for having “made significant contributions to the global growth and use of the Internet.” The group’s description of Gore states: “Al Gore, the 45th Vice President of the United States, was a key proponent of sponsoring legislation that funded the expansion of and greater public access to the Internet. Instrumental in helping to create the ‘Information Superhighway,’ Gore was one of the first government officials to recognize that the Internet’s impact could reach beyond academia to fuel educational and economic growth as well.”

reply to post by buster2010


Correct however... He did say these things.

David Letterman Formerly hosted off-the-wall post-midnight show which influenced the likes of Jonathan Ross in UK; now Leno's big late-night (but not so late) rival. Both candidates have guested on his Late Show: Gore read out a Top 10 list including: "Remember America - I gave you the Internet, and I can take it away. Think about it."; Bush made a tasteless and contorted reference to Letterman's recent heart surgery. The audience booed their disapproval.

Source

But it will emerge from my dialogue with the American people. I've traveled to every part of this country during the last six years. During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.

Source

Some of this economic growth he spoke of was the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act which let the stock market and banks off the leash so to speak.

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
I think you need to settle down, put the talking points/rhetoric handbook down and realize that your tactics of deflection and humorous irrelevancy will not work on anyone here.

LOL! You're the one repeating word for word the talking points of the media and you call me on regurgitating rhetoric? Wow, I've not seen such delusion in a long time.

The housing bubble popped under Bush.

Right, thanks to Clinton's policy and policy that Obama helped to make happen. How is that Bush's fault? He warned Democrats about it and was dismissed.

This was Bush's second term. He could have handled it in his first term

He tried. Watch the clip above. (I know you won't)

So you can take your "liberal media" cry-baby hogwash back to wherever you got it and bury it next to Old Yeller. It doesn't work anymore and it's about time that archaic nonsense was finally put to rest.

Whatever happened to all that outrage over Gitmo? Wiretaps? Rendition? Drone strike? The Patriot act? High gas prices? High deficits? It all ended when "The One" took over, because the media is made up of Democrats who are lockstep behind Obama. How could you possibly deny this?




Now go whine about fox and deflect some more.

The part I cant' seem to figure out is why is this even being debated in this forum in this fashion? Good cop bad cop, bad cop good cop. Left/right ....blah blah blah....

As much work as this site does to expose truth and cut through BS that is basically thrown in our face every day 24/7 and we still are acting like kids that don't get it? What the %$#$ !

I mean can you honestly think that either one of these parties give a rats ass about what good or bad happens to you? You and I are just tools and votes for the machine. We are a means for money/ cheap labor/ slave labor...etc.
Are you serious?

Are we still that infantile as to buy into this programming? The us congress and government in general are pawns for the real power. If they are pawns than we are pawns of pawns. If any one of these people in congress announced tomorrow that they didn't have health insurance or were broke, who would care? Who would take up collections to help them out? Nobody. So, if that's the case why in the hell would they give a rats but about YOU or ME whom they don't know, have never met, probably never will meet? Your ONLY value is a vote for the machine, and hard work and sweat for those in office to take it from you and spend it on themselves and whatever they want.

Can you tell me one name of a senator or congressman who said they should take all the money that was put into the BANKS and WALL STREET and instead cut a check to every person of working age in the US?

You and I are nothing to these people past votes and slave labor and infinite taxation. Get over it, because I guarantee you none of these people lose one minute of sleep at night about the unemployment rate in this country. They will tell you whatever soothes the soul. They offer lollypops laced with cyanide, and we keep coming back for more. Shocking.

reply to post by PvtHudson

You're the one repeating word for word the talking points of the media and you call me on regurgitating rhetoric? Wow, I've not seen such delusion in a long time.

Fair enough. Please be so kind as to quote exactly what I said that can be considered a "media talking point".

Right, thanks to Clinton's policy and policy that Obama helped to make happen. How is that Bush's fault? He warned Democrats about it and was dismissed.

Actually, this is untrue. The housing bubble was caused by the banks that were given a free pass to do whatever they liked after the Glass_Steagall act was trumped by the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999. Better known as the Gramm-Leach-Biley act. (All Repubs)

The banks were now able to manipulate prices and bundle their housing investments into handy little instruments that could easily be bought and sold as any other commodity on the market.

Manipulated prices+ no regulation+ profit motive= housing bubble.

Sorry to burst yours......

He tried. Watch the clip above. (I know you won't)

No he did not. He tried to go after Fannie and Freddie for their money problems. That has nothing to do with the GLB act or Glass Steagal. It's a completely different issue.

Oh, and I watched the vid.

Whatever happened to all that outrage over Gitmo? Wiretaps? Rendition? Drone strike? The Patriot act? High gas prices? High deficits? It all ended when "The One" took over, because the media is made up of Democrats who are lockstep behind Obama. How could you possibly deny this?

I don't know. Ask them. You are wanting me to be some sort of media-apologist and that is not for me. If you got beef with them....ask them.

But do not expect great reception from people like me that get tired of hearing that "liberal media" crap in every thread you participate in. That is a NeoCon talking point and unless they got on their knees to service the Republican party, you wouldn't be happy with them anyway.

Now go whine about fox and deflect some more.

Fox is a different kind of monster and it makes me happy to see how Fox has outed themselves over the years. It is no longer a matter of opinion that Fox is a biased news organization and in the court of law have made the legal case for just that.

I have been very up front and honest with you. I do not see where I have deflected at all. If you would point it out to me, I would gladly rectify that as quickly as I can.

Originally posted by PvtHudson

Right, thanks to Clinton's policy and policy that Obama helped to make happen. How is that Bush's fault? He warned Democrats about it and was dismissed.

I see, Obama went back to the future to undermine Bush.

Let's see what W has to say about it (Don't get butt hurt now if Bush puts it in your face)

Ouch, he really puts it in your face





Republicans wrote the language repealing Glass Steagal and deregulation Wall street

Dems agreed to the bill when they were allowed to add credit card privacy protection
for consumers.

That was the compromise Clinton sign

reply to post by buster2010


It doesn't matter if anyone thinks the democrats do better with the economy or the republicans do worse. The US has not tried an independent lately.

Plus if China or India are doing better or on their way to doing much better than the US, then the dems and reps obviously have it all wrong. Time for a change away from mainstream politicians. Just because a party gets it 55% right isn't very good because they got it 45% wrong.

Cheers - Dave

Originally posted by Tardacus
Nobody really believes that trickle down economics works. the rich people KNOW it doesn`t work but they aren`t going to argue against it because they reap all the gains from it.
It still astounds me that the american people were so easily fooled into believeing that it would actually work.

Nope, not really, but hate to tell you, Government Guaranteeing everything doesn't work either.

Thats right Comrade! I for one take everything that Bill Clinton says as gospel, after all when he looked us all in the eye and said, "I did not have sex with that woman" he changed the definition of sex in America forever. "Eatin aint cheatin", damn straight and Bill Clinton said so...my wife didn't buy it and slapped me upside my head with a cast iron frypan...but I digress. Yep good ole "Slick Willie" would NEVER lie to you. Ocean front property in Arizona for ya too!

reply to post by sheepslayer247


Mostly correct. While the bill that was picked up was Repub bill, Glass-Steagall was repealed with nearly unanimous support from both dems and repubs.

On September 11, 1998, the Senate Banking Committee approved a bipartisan bill with unanimous Democratic member support that, like the House-passed bill, would have repealed Glass-Steagall Sections 20 and 32.[341] The bill was blocked from Senate consideration by the Committee’s two dissenting members (Phil Gramm (R-TX) and Richard Shelby (R-AL)), who argued it expanded the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). Four Democratic senators (Byron Dorgan (D-ND), Russell Feingold (D-WI), Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), and Paul Wellstone (D-MN)) stated they opposed the bill for its repeal of Sections 20 and 32.[319][342]

Source

You can actually read the statements made about the bill here Senate Report

Now that being said. Repubs did write the bill, but again passed in the House near unanimous support and a fight in the Senate But when they couldn't (the house and senate) couldn't agree on a joint bill they...

The bill then moved to a joint conference committee to work out the differences between the Senate and House versions. Democrats agreed to support the bill after Republicans agreed to strengthen provisions of the anti-redlining Community Reinvestment Act and address certain privacy concerns; the conference committee then finished its work by the beginning of November.[9][12] On November 4, the final bill resolving the differences was passed by the Senate 90-8,[13][note 4] and by the House 362-57.[14][note 5] The legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999.

Source

Sound familiar anyone? Only thing is "reconciliation" was NOT required to get this done like it was for the health care bill. (That's another political mess that I have SERIOUS questions about, but another topic for another day.)

Anyway, an interesting note about the debate over is Gramm-Leach-Nliley Act is John Dingell.

During debate in the House of Representatives, Rep. John Dingell (Democrat of Michigan) argued that the bill would result in banks becoming "too big to fail." Dingell further argued that this would necessarily result in a bailout by the Federal Government.

I guess my point is, if they're in Politics they're evil, end of story. Food for thought.