Printable View
Ok maybe I have to spell this out for you. Cliton was riding the reagan economy....Liberals are smoking way to much crack these days. Now do we understad BballadQuote:
how are you tieing him into reagan
By the way who are you voting for this go round? pls respond if your not embarrassed!
So you are saying that it takes 20 years for presidential economic changes to take affect?
now I am truly confused. You do relise that there was a president between reagen and clinton, and that for eight years post reagen(and about 15 years after he instituted his vodoo econmics) the econamy was crap. It wasn't untill clintons second term that we saw the econamy take off (which then turned into the buble that burst in 2001). So how did regans econmoic changes that where largly undone during bushes attemtpt to save his presidency and further undone during clintons first term account for the economic gain in clintons second term.
Or are you saying that 12 years of republican rule killed the econamy and left voters hopeing for some fiscal sanity so they ran from trickel down to the democrats? If that is the point you are trying to make then I would agree that Reagens econamy directly lead to clintons election.
bballad,
I disagree that Bush Sr. was a bad president. I will say that due to the Democrat controlled congress that he was an ineffective president, since he was unable pass any laws that significantly spurred the economy. I think that what glacier is trying unsuccessfully to say, is that he believes that Clinton took office, essentially with the economy guided by Reagan, due to Bush Sr's said inability to affect the economy. I personally do not see where Clinton really affected the economy in a positive way. Yes Clinton and the Democratic congress worked significantly to reduce the national debt, which is a cause I would like to see Republicans pick up and also champion, but this still did not spur the economy. Clinton was lucky that he was in office when PC prices became affordable and Internet transactions and technologies became in demand. If it was not for Regan's "voodoo" economics, I do not think that the tech bubble would have manifested when it did. Trickle down economics is really very simple. If corporations are not seeing significant returns on investmets, then corporations are not going to invest in additional research, benifits packeges, etc..., however when corporations are seeing significant returns on their investments, then these returns are more likely to be passed on to the employee. I don't know about you but, I know my pay raises were significantly higher prior to the bursting of the tech bubble, and significantly lower prior to its advent. Just my thoughts.
The tech buble happened almost 20 years after regans policies, when clinton took office the econamy was an abosolute mess. If what you are saying is true then the tech buble burst and our current economic down turn is bush seniors fault and we will have to wait 12 more years to see the effects taht clinton had. Add that to the fact that clinton wasn't elected in a time of a good econamy, he inharetid a bad one and it didn't get better untill his second term. I agree that it takes time for economic changes to take effect but I doubt it takes 12+ years for it to happen.
If he said that bush seniors econamy was the fault of regan I would by that, and the first clinton term was from bush I would by that, but not clintons second term being effected by regans first term, that dosn't work.
We also must look at the econamy when clinton took office for his first term, it was crap, more over his econmic plans where vastly difrent then regans why would anyone who liked regans econamy vote for clinton. why would anyone who was happy with the econamy at the time not vote for bush his argument is ludicris.
I think we have to agree to disagree on this one bballad. I can see it taking 12 years for an economy to turn, since Regan and Bush did not have the support of the House and Senate to reduce taxes. And Clinton certainly did not reduce taxes. I personally see this as a unique set of circumstances that led to the eventual tech bubble. However your arguments certainly have merit, 12 years is an awful long time to see an economic turn around.
As for why people voted for Clinton. Everyone was hoping that if the Democrats wer given the power, perhaps they could make some positive changes in the economy. As I said before, I do not see where Clinton or the Democrat controlled Congress spurred the tech bubble or positively affected the economy in any other way during Clintion's presidency.
ok so how did clinton rid regans econamy to the presidency?
and if bush and reagon could do nothing do to a democratic congress how could they have created the boom of the 90's?
one last question, if it takes 12+ years for the presidential economic changes t oaffect the econamy then regan and bush are responsable for the curent downturn in the econamy and for the buble bursting.
Your reply was kind of confusing, but I will attempt to reply.
Simply put - Trickle down economics worked in spite of Bush Sr's inability to reduce taxes and Clinton's atempt to raise them. This stagnation of economic stimulus delayed what was to become the eventual tech boom of the 90's.
The tech bubble burst, partly because of the loss of the Twin Towers, but mostly because of major Corporate dishonesty. I.e. Enron.
Now let me ask you a question. If Clinton did not "ride" the Regan economic plan during his Presidency, then what did Clinton do to stimulate the economic boom that occured in the 90's?
I never said he stimulated the econamy, personaly I dont think the president has much say in how the econamy gose. Once again Imust point out that at the time of clintons elction the econamy was very bad so how would he be rideing any ones econamic coate tales, especialy some one whos econamic plans he didn't agree with? that is the question you still haven't answered.
Oh and are you in the work force, your grasp of the curent econamic down turn leads me to think you are not. We could all see the tech buble start to burst in 1999, the down hill track started in 2000 well before 9/11 or enron came out. Did tohse events make it worse ...perhapse, but the econamy was poised to go down fast, this was manily due to stupid IPO's and a lot of investors betting with oter peoples money on trends.
You forget taht econamic boom was in the late 90's after clinton got elected a second time, the econamic boom could not have had anything to do with clintons election.Quote:
Originally posted here by OverdueSpy
Now let me ask you a question. If Clinton did not "ride" the Regan economic plan during his Presidency, then what did Clinton do to stimulate the economic boom that occured in the 90's?
Quote:
Originally posted here by bballad
I never said he stimulated the econamy, personaly I dont think the president has much say in how the econamy gose.
The president has a direct impact on the economy. Yes any economy will experience "cycles" of ups and downs, but the leader of a country guides the direction of spending and taxation. It normally takes several years for the results to be seen but the economy will fluctuate due to these implementations.
I have answered this question multiple times, but I will try again. Let me put it like this: It does not matter if Clinton agreed with Regan's economic plan or not. The point is that Clinton and Bush Sr. accomplished nothing where stimulating the economy is concerned. Since they accomplished nothing positive for the economy, then the upturn of the economy can logically be attenuated to Regan's economic policies.Quote:
Once again Imust point out that at the time of clintons elction the econamy was very bad so how would he be rideing any ones econamic coate tales, especialy some one whos econamic plans he didn't agree with? that is the question you still haven't answered.
I'm not sure why you have to turn this thread into a personal attack, insinuating that I am not compotent of evaluating historic economical postures, if I am not currently in the work force, but that is your decision. The truth be known, Yes I am in the work force. And I agree with you that the downward turn of the tech bubble began in the late 90's, however 911 and the Enron scandal rapidly accellerated this downward process by giving corporations an excuse for immediate, massive layoffs and spending cuts. If these events had not occured, there would have been a better chance of a significantly faster economic recovery. Ah well, hindsight is 20/20.Quote:
Oh and are you in the work force, your grasp of the curent econamic down turn leads me to think you are not. We could all see the tech buble start to burst in 1999, the down hill track started in 2000 well before 9/11 or enron came out. Did tohse events make it worse ...perhapse, but the econamy was poised to go down fast, this was manily due to stupid IPO's and a lot of investors betting with oter peoples money on trends.
OK. Earlier you hinted that no president can affect the economy to a great extent, that leads to the question of Why did the economic boom even occur? Do you have a better solution than Reganomics?Quote:
You forget taht econamic boom was in the late 90's after clinton got elected a second time, the econamic boom could not have had anything to do with clintons election.
I think that if you want to see who is effecting the econamy look no further then greenspan, I think his attempts at slowing the econamy in the late 90's was his only mistake. If he had worked earlyr or more agressively we may not have had as bad of a bust.
As for 9/11 and enron, well 9/11 probably helped the econamy in the long run (more military and construction contracts.) and quite poassably sped up the recovery (wars often do this, although we will pay for it later when the full weight of the deficite hits us). Enron was a symptom of the bad econamy not a cause. Look through the historu at ****edcompany.com you will see the bust starting well before any of the rest of this crap happened.
Back to the origional point how did linton rid regans coat tails to the election, if the econamy had been good in the early 90's bush senior (the man how rode regans coat tales) would have been elected. It wasn't, so in came clinton. We could see he start of a recovery in te mid 90's so he got another 4 years (well that and the fact that bob doll came across as a compleate tool.). Unless you are claming that regan was so inept that the populace was sick of the republicans I find it hard to see any convinceing argument that regan was responsable for clintons election
to stop the boom, yes, better corperate regulation and further oversite in the markets, curoption in the investmant banks that underwrote the IPO's for webvan and pets.com (as well as the rest of the dot coms) led to the boom and enevitable bust, the tech boom was a pyramid scheam (although I am not blameless I took part in the VA Linux IPO, was smart enough to read the writeing on the walls and got out quick), a giant pump and dump of worthless companies with useless busniess plans. No amount of goverment can stop human greed, but proper regulation and oversight can keep it form geting ou of hand.Quote:
Originally posted here by OverdueSpy
OK. Earlier you hinted that no president can affect the economy to a great extent, that leads to the question of Why did the economic boom even occur? Do you have a better solution than Reganomics?
As for reganomics, if you want to stimulate the econamy its best to put mony in the hands of those who spend the most, thats the middel class not the 1% of the nation that is helped by reganomics