Clinton's tanking economy?, page 1

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]