"What Would Clinton Do"

By Dave Johnson

Reading today about the latest bad economic news I’m wondering what President Bush is planning to do about it.

Think for a minute about what President Clinton would be doing at the very first hint of an economic slowdown. You know and I know that the guy would be whirling around the country like an Arkansas tornado!

     Clinton would have been in Silicon Valley 5 times by now, visiting with laid-off tech workers.
     Clinton would already be part way through a series of national and regional town hall meetings.
     Clinton would have called for a week-long televised business-labor summit.
     Clinton would have proposed a series of economic stimulus bills.
     Clinton would work to increase our education level by sponsoring programs trading civic volunteer time for college tuition grants
     Clinton would have been working with world leaders to stabilize currencies and prop up weak neighboring economies.
     Etc…

What Clinton Did

To end the last slowdown Clinton’s 1993 budget greatly increased the Earned Income Tax Credit (providing payments to lower-income working families), provided economic programs for the lower and middle class and paid for it all with an increase on the top incomes which eliminated the deficit and freed up money for investment while lowering interest rates. This ushered in the longest economic boom in our history. Every economic group benefited, ESPECIALLY Bush’s top few (who whined about the taxes while their incomes went up dramatically).

So what about Bush?
When it looked like a slowdown was starting earlier this year, I remember Bush couldn’t restrain his joy. You could tell he was just so happy to have another thing he could blame on Clinton – with the bonus that they could sell their tax cut as the cure (never mind that it was a huge tax cut for the top 1% mostly taking effect years down the road.)
On the rare occasions when his handlers let him near a camera Bush would “talk up” the slowdown. His cabinet was out telling business leaders that things were turning sour, doing everything they could to get that economy hurting.

Does Bush care?

So now the economy is hurting. And what is the Bush administration doing about it?
Nothing. It’s like he hasn’t even noticed.
Bush hasn’t given a single press conference and almost no other public appearances in months! Worse than doing nothing, we’re getting fed right-wing ideological free-market religion while they allow the corporations to define the entire agenda of the country. Greenspan says eliminate the minimum wage. Bush says put Social Security money into the stock market. And meanwhile the IRS sends us letters containing Republican Party slogans.

During the presidential campaign George W Bush said that his guiding philosophy is “What Would Jesus Do?”

I wish he would consider changing this to “What Would Clinton Do?”

© 2001, Dave Johnson

-- Cherri (jessam6@home.com), August 01, 2001

Answers

"What would Clinton do?"

DROP TROU

-- (nemesis@awol.com), August 01, 2001.

The question is, what did Clinton do when this economic downturn started LAST year?

Obviously, nothing like what was written above, in fact nothing.

It's irrelevant anyway, becuase symbolism (town hall meetings, meetings with laid-off workers, I feel your pain, etc.) won't buy you a handful of shit in a pig farm.

Make it easier for employers to hire and retain workers, that's how help can arrive.

-- libs are idiots (moreinterpretation@ugly.com), August 01, 2001.

probably get another blow job, have his balls polished by some young and horny intern and that's about it since this economic downturn we are in now started on Clinton's watch! In the middle of the downturn is NOT the time to start to solve it, the solutions should have been started at the beginning and just before (if possible). The number one thing for Clinton to do would have been to demand that Greenspan resign, period!

-- Gary (gcphelps@yahoo.com), August 01, 2001.

this economic downturn we are in now started on Clinton's watch!

The "perceived" downturn started during the campaign because Bush and Co started spouting off about how bad the economy had gotten under Clinton, which was nothing but an outright lie. We were told that the economy was going down, no proof, not facts or figures, just campaign plan to try to convince the public that there was a problem that needed the big tax cut to remedy. It was plastered all over the news and in media blurbs.

You are trying to say that Clinton (or anyone) could have reduced the damage Bush and Co. were doing to the economy by their propaganda in the final three months of his term? Or are you just using illogical propaganda in an attempt to twist reality to hide the fact that Bill Clinton (even with all the damage the repugs were trying to do to him his entire time in office) worked to bring us the best economy we have experienced in 40 years? If Clinton was the cause of the economy experiencing a downturn, what exactly (or even vaguely) were the reasons? Can you actually hide from your own mind the fact that the economy was great under Clinton and selectively focus on the small period of time when "you claim" it began a down turn? It must be uncomfortable for your mind to experience such a disconnect when you deny the logic of your own mind in an attempt to twist facts into a scenario that fits what your propaganda instructors are feeding you.

-- Cherri (jessam6@home.com), August 02, 2001.

Cherri,

You are certainly not one to talk about "what your propaganda instructors are feeding" to someone. You cut and paste a healthy dosing of propaganda to this forum on a regular basis. The start of this thread is a fine example.

The reality of economics is that the economy will cycle. All of the efforts of the Federal Reserve Board, the Congress, and the President (regardless of party), do not, and cannot, change this fact. They can tweak the way that it cycles (both to the good and to the bad), but they do not refute this fundamental truth of economics.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), August 02, 2001.

Cherri,

Reading comprehension is not a real strong point with you , is it? Do you have any grasp of any fundamental economic cycle? Do you think we'd still be in the bull market of the 90's even if Al Gore was today in the White House?? Go back and look at when the Dow peaked, it was January 2000, and the NASDAQ peaked in April 2000.... The symtoms were there all year long... Your cut and paste job of a Dave Johnson article ask *WHat would Clinton Do* neglects to mention the fact that Clinton did nothing at the start of this current cycle to limit the damage, in short, he did nothing... Arguemts could be made (and they are already out there) that the Economy of the 1990's was due to the economic policies of the Reagan and Bush years and it took Clinton 8 years to fuck it all up. I don't buy that at all. The economy is smarter than that! Policies can help or hinder though. I laugh my ass off when I hear the White House spin on these pathetic tax rebate checks coming out now are going to save the economy "'cause we will rush right on out and buy something!" Sorry, but with the economy shedding jobs like a dog losing its winter coat and with consumer debt sky high, these *refund* checks are like pissing on a forest fire. A LOT of people knew there was a bubble in the market, we knew there would be a contraction or some sort of levelling out. Nobody ever thought it would be this bad, especially in the tech sector! Greenspan bitched insessently (sp!) about how outrageous the stock prices were. He got a bug up his ass about inflation and saw it as a way to corral the stock market. He and the fed's murdered the bull market when anyone could see that inflation was no where to be found. In fact, some sectors were already in a deflationary mode (tech's) and had high inventories they couldn't move. My biggest beef is with this person, greenspan. He answers to no one and is NOT help accountable for destroying the economy. But take comfort, Cherri... this downturn will last a lot longer than anyone ever thought and will ensure that this Bush is a one term president, bank on it!

-- Gary (gcphelps@yahoo.com), August 02, 2001.

One thing is certain, Jeffords equaled the end to the Bush Gasoline run-up.

-- (too@funny.haha), August 02, 2001.

One thing is certain, Jeffords equaled the end to the Bush Gasoline run-up.

-- (too@funny.haha), August 02, 2001.

Another thing is that all of a sudden, California is awash in power, so much so, they cannot sell it all on the open market..... things that make you go hmm...... Does this save Gray Davis' re-election?

-- Gary (gcphelps@yahoo.com), August 02, 2001.

One with even a cursory knowledge of macroeconomics realizes the president has very little influence on the economy. "Jawboning" by any president is irrelevant. Clinton or Bush can tour the country "feeling our pain," but it won't do a whit to change the fundamental dynamics of the economy. Federal Reserve chair Greenspan is the only individual with any genuine power to influence financial markets. Even the Fed chair cannot dictate a recovery. He can only adjust monetary policy.

Businesses do not hire or fire, invest or downsize, based on the Oval Office. Workers do not save or spend based on the political stripe of the president. Clinton was fortunate enough to preside over America during a period of strong economic growth. At best, he coopted a few conservative policy proposals like NAFTA and welfare reform. Need I remind you that these successful initiatives were opposed by the leftists in the Democratic party? At best, these policies were only modest influences on the robust economy.

Please feel free to exercise your obsessive hatred of Bush, and to cut and paste every negative rant you find. I suggest you stay clear of economics and other subject areas where you are clearly out of your depth.

-- Remember (the@ld.forum.com), August 02, 2001.

Cherri,

Do you ever start to think about what you write, or is it all knee- jerk? The NASDAQ started its plummet June/2000, and the Dow followed a few months later, along with reduced capital spending by businesses, well before Bush/Cheney entered office. The jawboning you speak of by Bush/Cheney was almost nonexistent and would have had no effect on the economic cycle as the U.S. consumer has continued to spend at high levels, and any jawboning by the candidate Bush would have had its impact there. Bush/Cheney were simply foretelling what any economist saw coming anyway.

If you knew anything of economics you would have realized that the huge buildups in IT spending during the latter 90's (much of it in Y2K preps) was unsustainable.

The weakness in the the current markets have more to do with the unprecedented level of debt holdings by consumers, and low savings, the more-immediate reactiveness by industries to the start of the slowdown by releasing workers and slowing spending (much of it due to the new automation introduced in the last decade) earlier than they have in the past slowdowns, and the consolidation of various worldwide weanesses starting to converge to impact our economy.

So please Cherri, stick to calls for increasing the bloat of the Federal government, and forget about making like a amreket expert. Neither Bush, Cheney, Clinton, Gore, or yourself are that. People who own and run businesses know better.

-- libs are idiots (moreinterpretation@ugly.com), August 02, 2001.

Man oh man how you repugs suck it up. You stupid fuckers benefited greatly under Clinton. It doesn't take a genius to see that dumbya is fucking us all HARD! You stupid repugs are all the same. Fucking dumbasses!

Have you heard the latest? The money that dumbya is sending out is being added to your taxes next April. Say you do your taxes next year and would normally get $1,000 back....well if you received a $600 check then instead of getting $1,000 back you are only going to get $400 back. God these repugs love fucking people in the butt!

-- Tony Baloney (Fuck the@repugs.com), August 02, 2001.

"... This ushered in the longest economic boom in our history." There was no cause and effect there. Clinton had squat to do with the 'boom'. (Remember said it better than I have.) Wall street had everything to do with the 'boom' and now the 'bust'.

I noticed not too many liberals responded on this thread (except for Doc). I find it sad that most liberals do attribute economic growth to Clinton. So much for our 'liberal' education system.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), August 02, 2001.

Folks, there is no sense in trying to reason with Cherri, she cannot see past her Pavlovian hatred.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), August 02, 2001.

God these repugs love fucking people in the butt!

-- Tony Baloney (Fuck the@repugs.com), August 02, 2001.

I love it when you talk dirty to me, big boy! Now tell me sweetheart, exactly which economic policy of clinton's helped this great country of ours the most??? Hmmm????

-- Gary (gcphelps@yahoo.com), August 02, 2001.

Tony Baloney should send his check back to ensure that his taxes don't "rise" next spring.

-- libs are idiots (moreinterpretation@ugly.com), August 02, 2001.

Gary, you stay away from my man. Tony and me are dynamite.

-- (lorelei@jiffy.lube), August 02, 2001.

Maria: "Clinton had squat to do with the 'boom'."

Although few Republicans would admit it, Clinton's personal leadership was actually very instrumental in creating the boom.

The reason why few Republicans will admit it is simple - the single most fundamental reason for the boom was Congress voting to raise taxes in 1993. That Congress also cut spending about $50 billion below the submitted budget - a budget (pay attention) largely put together by the first Bush administration before it left office.

When Clinton took office, he had run and won on a platform of middle class tax cuts. Soon after he got to Washington he met with Greenspan, who told Clinton that such cuts were the wrong medicine at the wrong time. Instead, Greenspan recommended bringing the deficit down by raising taxes and promised that, if Clinton raised taxes, the Federal Reserve would lower interest rates. If Clinton cut taxes as promised, then the Fed would raise rates.

Greenspan could blandly recommend that course because Greenspan didn't have to take the heat for it.

Clinton went to the Democratic Congress, asked them to get behind a tax increase. Democratic Congress critters screamed like wounded animals. Republican Congress critters boggled with glee. Clinton twisted arms and eventually got the tax increase by a single vote - and not one House Republican voted for it.

For those, like Remember and Maria, who assert that the Federal Reserve runs the whole show and the president makes no difference at all, this story has slipped down the memory hole - because it totally contradicts the Reagan supply side religion and gives due credit to Clinton.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), August 02, 2001.

the single most fundamental reason for the boom was Congress voting to raise taxes in 1993.

Surely you jest. And if you think that raising taxes is an economic stimulant, then you must pay due homage to Bush the elder.

-- (Read mah lips@no.new taxes), August 02, 2001.

The "Clinton" years have been setting up a disaster.

-- (moreinterpretation@ugly.com), August 02, 2001.

"...if you think that raising taxes is an economic stimulant, then you must pay due homage to Bush the elder."

Try to think in a less simplified mode.

Raising taxes is not an economic stimulant, but an enormous deficit and high "real" interest rates are an economic drag. In cases where the added taxes are applied to reducing the deficit, allowing real interest rates to drop, then they are a necessary ingredient to the stimulus.

If the added taxes had been wasted on new spending programs with a rotten multiplier effect (like most military spending) then the new taxes would have been worse than the status quo. But the Democrats in 1993 actually cut spending modestly while raising taxes, so that the entire increase could go toward lowering the deficit. Consequently, the deficit went down (IIRC) every year Clinton was in office, until there were actual revenue surpluses.

As a matter of fact, I do honor the elder Bush for raising taxes. I thought his "read my lips" act was the most irresponsible pledge a presidential candidate ever made in my lifetime. When he broke that pledge, it was a good thing for the country, although bad for his reputation. I never thought the worse of him for swallowing that bitter pill. It also (somewhat) vindicated Mondale, who had the courage to tell voters during the 1984 election that taxes would have to be raised, no matter who was elected.

Surprise! I also honor the Republican Congress for not making a hash of monetary policy from 1995 onwards. I hated their spending priorities (they cut Medicare/Medicaid reimbursements much too heavy handedly, among many other mistakes), but I applauded their total restraint on the budget's bottom line.

But, more than anyone else, it was Clinton who had the moxie to do the really hard part - standing in the bully pulpit and speaking in favor of raising taxes. And he did it in a pretty balanced way that didn't impact the working poor. I admire that.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), August 02, 2001.

Little Nipper,

Then why did the income "gap" between rich and poor rise incredibly during the 90's? Government spending has continued to rise beyond the rate of inflation, so both the Republicans and Democrats continued to NOT restrain and spending. And that spending should never have been initiated by the Federal government to begin with.

-- libs are idiots (moreinterpretation@ugly.com), August 03, 2001.

"And he did it in a pretty balanced way that didn't impact the working poor." 'Balanced', yet not impacting a certain group is not 'balanced' at all. He raised the rates for the wealthy from 33 to 39% and cut the lower brackets. That doesn't seem balanced to me. Then he zeroed out defense spending to 'balance' the budget. A truly 'balanced' approach would have been an across the board cut.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), August 03, 2001.

I stand by my first statement, "Clinton had squat to do with the 'boom'." We are seeing the effects of wall street throwing money at every two bit 'high tech' business. Businesses with no business plan except for 'making' it on the internet. No real growth and no real profit making. The market took off and the economy boomed. I couldn't understand that this inane (oops sorry high tech) business could have millions from wall street. The reason the 401Ks that invested in these types of businesses have lost 50% of their funds is because it was based on smoke and mirrors. People were hired (and now fired) based on illusions of grandeur, the prime setup for a recession and possibly a depression. Nothing 'high tech' about the internet but the mentality was that this was the next 'revolution'. No, not a revolution at all but just a different means for doing the same kind of business that we've always done, retail without the brick and mortar. As such it didn't deserve that much attention. (OK off my soap box now.)

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), August 03, 2001.

"We are seeing the effects of wall street throwing money at every two bit 'high tech' business. Businesses with no business plan except for 'making' it on the internet. No real growth and no real profit making..."

In which case, do you believe the Republican Congress had squat to do with the boom?

-- Miserable SOB (misery@misery.com), August 03, 2001.

Well, Nipper, I doubted your reasoning ability before, but your comments on Clinton being "very instrumental" in creating the 90s expansion is beyond silly. Before I start, let me note that once again we have nothing but your opinion without a shred of economic analysis.

It's Not The President, Stupid

As you'll note from the link, the primary reasons for the 90s boom were productivity increases and modest wage demands. The tax increase had absolutely nothing to do with productivity in the private sector.

Clinton succeeded mostly by avoiding the traditional liberal impulse to meddle with the economy. The budget surpluses vanished because the economy finally grew faster the federal government's penchant for spending.

Let's move on to your badly flawed economic analysis. A deficit occurs when government spending exceeds government revenues. Raising taxes takes money from the private sector, money that could be invested in increasing productivity through research, capital accumulation, etc. This moves goes to the public sector to cover its expenses. For example, instead of adding capacity to a factory, the government transfer wealth from the private sector to any number of programs, but none that have the same efficiency of wealth creation as the private sector.

The real key to stimulus is reducing deficits by cutting government spending. This achieves a reduction in the "crowding out" effect and allows the private sector to retain the ability to reinvest profits or earnings.

Higher taxes do not stimulate growth. Higher taxes remove resources from the private sector and create market distortions. Money is spent avoiding taxes rather than maximizing returns.

Annointing Clinton a driving force behind the 90s expansion is sophomoric. It suggests an ignorance of economics of near "Cherri" proportions.

-- Remember (the@ld.forum.com), August 03, 2001.

Little Nipper,

The amazing thing to me is that you probably believe that which you just wrote about Clinton and the economy. I would expect such posts if you had been an employee of the previous administration, and your job was to concoct a load of bs to show Slick Willie in a fine light (no matter what the truth), but I highly doubt that you were so employed.


Remember,

"It suggests an ignorance of economics of near 'Cherri' proportions".

That is a very funny line. : )

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), August 03, 2001.

When the going gets tough... where is Nipper?

-- Remeber (the@ld.forum.com), August 05, 2001.

I could swear the economy has been swinging from bad to good all along since before Clinton's or Bush's grandfathers were born. I bet it keeps swinging back and forth long after we're gone.

-- helen (economics@means.beans.or.icecream), August 05, 2001.