To question this is to question the reality of Santa Claus.
Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.
Posted on 01/23/2011 10:23:30 AM PST by Nachum
For years, Democrats and their media minions have maintained that the economic boom of the '90s was caused by the fiscal policies of President Bill Clinton, in particular his 1993 income tax hike.
Appearing on ABC's "This Week" Sunday, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman shockingly said what conservatives have been claiming all along (video follows with transcript and commentary):
PAUL KRUGMAN: I think the model is something like Clinton who, in fact, mostly was just riding on a successful economy that was successful mostly for reasons that had nothing much to do with him. But he was able to, to be a very popular president by presiding over that, by providing competent management on those things you could control. I think that is Obama’s model now. It’s, I’m not sure it will be enough cause this, we’re in much deeper economic than we were in the ’90s, but given the realistic political limits, you can’t expect him to do too much.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
Clinton lucked out by catching the wave of the technology boom. Anyone who attributes the boom to the largest tax increase in history is crazy.
Oil dropping from $40 a barrel to $10 also helped.
OMG, so Krugman actually DOES know at least a thimbleful of economics. Who would have guessed?
You don't say....knock me down with a feather.
He could but won't. His ideology prohibits him.
I think there were many factors that led to the boom:
The deficit was under control, low inflation, oil was cheap, there was the internet, welfare reform, and the Republicans nipped in the bud any massive government take-overs of the economy.
Oil at $13 per barrel is the entire story. George H.W. Bush can take more credit for that than Clinton.
To question this is to question the reality of Santa Claus.
Later
But he will turn right around tomorrow and write or say how the current Administration is creating jobs and that they must keep spending to create a “boom”. Hypocrite.
JoMa
The liberal morons who’ve I’ve tried to explain this to for years will still not believe it even though one of their own said it.
That is correct. The Micro-Chip and software products became almost fungible.
Productivity enhancements via CAD/CAM/FEA and Office Product Suites were just a start. By the Mid 90's Financial Software came available that could do things never done before in the hands of advisers and brokers that was a staggering advancement.
I often argued with Clinton/Lewinsky apologist that his boom would have been even bigger without the tax increases on top of the CAD/CAM argument. They were silent, especially those in the Engrg/manufacturing arena, they couldn't argue it....
Shockingly, I agree with him. What caused the boom was that Americans were building something (personal computers) that the rest of the world wanted and overseeing a new industry (the internet) that the rest of the world was eager to join.
It's really no more complicated than that. In the spirit of bipartisanship, I will give Clinton credit for not trying to interfere with the boom by taxing it or regulating it, but that's as far as I'll go.
Ironically, it was the internet (Drudge) that blew the cover off the Lewinsky scandal after Newsweek and the Washington Post (old print media) decided to squelch the story.
No, he doesn’t. This is political innoculation, since things aren’t going to get better for a while. If it’s not something Obama can really address, he shouldn’t be held responsible, right? (sarc)
the economy took off like a rocket ship when the Contract with America went into effect in ‘94. the grownups were back in charge. Hopefully, what happened in in November ‘10 is going to cause the same thing, and watch zer0 take credit with all this economy in overdrive talk.
Clinton was on a straight path to a one term presidency until 1994. The economy happened in spite of him, not because of him. There doesn’t seem to be any magic waiting to burst out on the economic scene that will launch us into another decade or two of growth. The enviroweenies envisioned their green enlightenment, but like all things liberal, they had it ass-backwards. The pyramid scheme that is global warming will bury us.
He interfered big time. He attempted a government takeover of the industry, filing frivolous anti-trust lawsuits against the 3 biggest tech companies in the world; Microsoft, Intel, and Cisco. All 3 cases were eventually dropped, but the damage was done. The day MSFT lost the first trial, was the day the 57% nasdaq crash began. His sole contribution to the tech boom was killing it.
Did he go to rehab? bookmark.
Clinton had the good sense to get out of the way of what the Republican congress sent him.
GWB rarely had the good sense to get in the way of what Congress sent him, thereby killing what little reputation the Republicans had for fiscal responsibility.
obama then encouraged even more from that same Congress and here we are, world class progressive beggars who still can't stop spending.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.