Replies

Clinton in 1993 claimed that the economy was driven by housing which was driven by interest rates which were determined by deficits or surpluses....that was his stated reason for raising taxes at the top. He even broke is promise to cut middle class taxes because of his desire to balance the budget...even though he claimed it was impossible to balance the budget “before 2005 without throwing granny off a cliff”. When the economy stalled after his excessive tax increase & too steep code, Clinton said “that’s what we want....slow, steady growth is better than fast growth”.....and claimed he would “balance the budget, but NOT on the backs of the poor & middle class” —which was a reference to Ronald Reagan raising the Social Security tax so high, it ran a revenue surplus for 30 years...as a first dollar tax with a low cap to pay for welfare programs such as child survivor benefits & disability for people who didn’t pay much into the system.....it also was an acknowledgment that the faster the economy growths & the faster the unemployment rate falls, the sooner & harder the Federal Reserve slams on the brakes, cuts the fuel line, slows down the economy & causes the next crash.
But both long term & short term interest rates rose under Clinton, and he cut the capital gains tax rate by 30% in 1997 and got fast growth & a balanced budget, followed by the NASDAQ crashing over 50% in his last year in office of 2000.....from 5,200 to 2,400-——a crash worse than 1929.
Obama’s economics & Clinton’s economics differs greatly. Obama believes that consumer spending from giving food stamps to bums drives a boom that trickles down wealth to rich folks and business, and low taxes on the middle class & handouts to the poor end up paying for themselves by taxing the rich guys and business more.
Supply side economics refers to the dollar, money supply and the business spending/investment/venture capital side of the economy that trickled down the internet and PCs and cell phones to the people. Tiger Woods earned over $50 million for 14 straight years of money that trickled down from corporate sponsors. Business spending is a big part of the economy...eg, when a business pays $250,000 to buy a new forklift.....so it makes sense to leave money in the pocket of business, where the big spending is.
Liberals believe that consumer spending drives the economy on the demand side...so they think giving more money to consumers at the bottom is the best economics....but for some reason, liberals don’t seem to understand that inflation is bad for consumer confidence & consumer spending. Oddly, it’s the supply siders who are the inflation hawks but the demand siders who think inflation is good for jobs and support the Fed’s dual mandate to let prices rise when the economy is bad & people least can afford them, but don’t let wages rise during good times...and always causing crashes/recessions.
Because lower inflation is good for the economy & jobs, whenever the Fed begins a tightening cycle, the economy actually improves & growth increases....which the Fed interprets as the need to keep tightening harder until it begins to hurt the economy...at which point it’s too late & the next big crash & recession already has happened....like late 1980s & 2000s. In 2008, it was premature stimulus that cause the crash & recession and then against in 2009-2011. The Fed violated its dual mandate (1977 law) by easing before consumer prices fell & before unemployment rose...and—combined with fiscal stimulus in 2008 and 2008.. skyrocketed gas prices drove up food prices and producer prices...causing money flight into gold, foreign markets & currencies....causing massive layoffs and business failures..exacerbated by effects of Obamacare. “core” inflation was zero, but consumer prices almost hit 4% inflation, but producer prices went up almost 8% and caused the layoffs and deep recession. Clinton never said a words about Obama’s deficits.....even though in 1992, he claimed that budget deficits were the worst possible thing for the economy...because they drove up interest rates and harmed housing. You’d think that if Clinton really believed that deficits were death for housing, he & she would have been huge critics of Obama after the housing crash...but they were silent.
It seems that Obama’s taxes & regulations & deficits are such a drag on the economy that they proved that “slow, steady growth “really is better than fast growth, because the drag on the economy is so great that the Fed has to remain ultra accomodative....but still it’s competition that is holding down inflation and interest rates. In the 1970s we had stagflation because the tax code was so steep, it artificially held down salaries at the top because no corporate board of directors or team owner would pay $10 million salaries if government got 70% above $200,000. In the 1970s, the burden of taxes and regulations was so high it barred market entry, competition and venture capital...so we didn’t have ESPN or the Golf and Food channel in the 1970s.....or Tiger Woods caddie being a millionaire from trickled down money......and we didn’t have Twitter or Facebook or Internet in the 1970s.....
Clinton comtributed nothing to economic literacy in this country & it’s very difficult to make sense of his economic ideas which were contradictory and incoherent. The 1990s mostly were successful because of low gas prices & lower inflation with lower government spending but against ample COLAs. The price of gas in 1981 was $1.11 but fell to $1.04 under Reagan....by 1993, gas price was just $1.07.....and even fell UNDER $1 late in the 1990s....causing Greenspan to lower interest rates while warning against irrational exuberance in the stock market mania........ gas prices was $1.29 when George W Bush took office in 2001, but weak dollar & deficit, spending policies of Bush and then Obama causes gas price to double then double again. Gas price fell starting at the end of 2013 when the Fed finally ended its QE.....and gas prices leveled off under Bush after his supply side tax cuts kicked in 2003 & the Fed began its over-tightening cycle from 2004, ending in 2006.
Clinton sent an INS immigration raid into Elian Gonzales’ uncle’s home & nobody ever explained why masks and machine guns were necessary, but the uncle never broke any laws, never was arrested or charged with any crime and Florida courts had awarded him custody of Elian until Clinton denied him asylum & chose to deport him without any warning. Instead of calling up Elian’s uncle & saying “we chose to deport him back to Cuba, we will come to pick him up at 9am so have him ready”.....the stormtroopers were sent in pre-dawn. When did Clinton ever launch any other INS deportation raid other than that one? Usually it’s because somebody BROKE the law.
In 1998, Clinton claimed that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were close allies working together to build WMDs, but was silent after 9-11-01 when people in his own party swore there was no connection between Iraq & Al Qaeda.
Clinton was quick to blame Rush Limbaugh for Branch Davidian and ignored Mcveigh’s diary ramblings in support of Saddam Hussein or Terry Nichols trips to the Phillipines where it’s almost certain he met with Islamic terrorist cells of the sort that were built in the USA on Clinton’s watch. Clinton cared more about abortion protesters than the country being infiltrated by Islamic fundamentalists. Clinton was a slick politician who really just wanted to be president...and did and said anything necessary to win. He seemed to have a core of beliefs, many of them further to the Left than he pretended to be, but he really seem to care about the country and knew how to sound intelligent, even when he wasn’t.
he helped bring peace to Ireland, but war to Israel when he brought Arafat back from exile, which led to the murder of Itzak Rabin because Clinton pressured him to deal with somebody he knew was a devil......