Clinton - The Master at work

[TillEulenspiegel]

TCS:"
So you're saying I should find a site that exposes the fraud, run by the very people who are committing the fraud? "

Umm. no . The agencies named are official organs of the state but enjoy a relative amount of autonomy. Perhaps You should familiarize Yourself with organizations before You criticize them with a broad brush.

 

[RichardR]

That is the way dishonest governments do their accounting.

I think most of them do it this way, actually.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

TCS:"
So you're saying I should find a site that exposes the fraud, run by the very people who are committing the fraud? "

Umm. no . The agencies named are official organs of the state but enjoy a relative amount of autonomy. Perhaps You should familiarize Yourself with organizations before You criticize them with a broad brush.

1) Do you honestly believe that politicians tell the truth when it comes to the federal budget?
2) Do you honestly believe that federal income exceeded federal spending (thus a surplus), without any borrowing against any trust funds or other accounting gimmicks, during the years in question?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I think most of them do it this way, actually.

Then I would say "most of them" are dishonest.

 

[TillEulenspiegel]

1) Do you honestly believe that politicians tell the truth when it comes to the federal budget?
2) Do you honestly believe that federal income exceeded federal spending (thus a surplus), without any borrowing against any trust funds or other accounting gimmicks, during the years in question?

No and no .
The bodies I named are not politicians.

 

[RandFan]

Either his policies can affect the economy or they can't.

If they can then you have to judge his management of the economy by the indicators available (surplus, employment, GDP growth etc).

If they can't, then how can he have "mismanaged' the economy?

Excellent point Richard.

Two things need to be kept in mind.

1.) Any credit or blame must be administered equally.

2.) This is politics. A president must accept responsibility for the events that transpire during his tenure.

"Yeah, nothing worked right but it is not my fault" just doesn't cut it.

I think Clinton's policies had a net positive effect on the economy. I don't think it was all his doing. In fact I think that his policies were a small part of the economy. It doesn't matter though. He was in charge and he gets the credit.

Central was right, there really was no surplus.

It should also be pointed out that a correction was predicted long before Bush took office. Many economists believed that the correction was going to be significantly worse than it has. Add to that the loss of revenue and taxes from the Air Lines due to 9/11 and it could have been much, much worse. Of course that doesn't advance anyone's agenda does it?

We will have to wait and see how politics play out come November. I'm giving Kerry a better than 50% chance of winning because I don't think the economy can improve enough in time. The same thing happened to his father. The economy started to grow a year before he left office.

Get ready anti-Bush people, the parades, cigars and slaps on the back are just around the corner. And the increase in the economy that is already started will be credited to then next president who ever he is.

RandFan

 

[TillEulenspiegel]

no
WTF is it with the no delete thing? This blows. I think there should also be a timed limit on edit functions also . I posted at 11:00 and because of spelling edited at 11:01 and the board reacts like its a major rethink
Is it just me?

 

[TillEulenspiegel]

Case in point look at my post and it's edit times............Bleh

 

[corplinx]

OK. The Clinton Technology Policy Initiative definitely put the US in the right direction with respect to technology. I think Clinton and Gore understood the value of technology, so they worked to foster it. Want proof? Well, here's an excerpt:

As much as I hate AOL, they had more to do with the Internet craze than anyone else. When AOL (which was a glorifed BBS) let loose the technically illiterate onto the Internet it set the wheels in motion.

Who else gets credit? The Bells, Cisco, AT&T, Sprint, and the list goes on.

Amazon, Ebay, and a few other key commerical sites redefined the internet into a virtual mall and really spawned the commericalism that led to the dot boom.

I mean really, the people who deserve the least respect are the politicians. The geeks, the telcos, and the entrepreneurs are who made the internet into what it is today.

We can agree to disagree on this one.

 

[clk]

I mean really, the people who deserve the least respect are the politicians. The geeks, the telcos, and the entrepreneurs are who made the internet into what it is today.

I agree that the entrepreneurs deserve alot of credit. I don't think Clinton should get all of the credit for the information revolution and the technology boom. But I definitely think Clinton and Gore deserve a large amount of credit for realizing that computer technology will change the way we live. And their policies reflected this fact. I think Clinton's policies at the very least sped up the arrival of the information revolution. Clinton understood that technology would be very important in the economy of the future. He also knew that research played an important role in technological growth.

We have the means to stimulate innovations that will bring economic growth and help us reach our goals and other important objectives. Foremost is a sound fiscal policy that reduces the federal deficit and lowers interest rates. But that is not always enough. We must also turn to:
-Research and experimentation tax credits and other fiscal policies to create an environment conducive to innovation and investment
-Support for private research and development through research partnerships and other mechanisms to accelerate technologies where market mechanisms do not adequately reflect the nation's return on the investment
-Support for contract R & D centers and manufacturing extension centers that can give small businesses easy access to technical innovations and know-how

So I think it's unfair to say that Clinton had nothing to do with the technology boom. He saw it coming, and did everything he could to speed up its arrival. People laugh at Gore because he claimed he created the internet. Well, he obviously didn't create it, but he did more to bring the internet to every home than 99.9% of people.

Now, how do we create a nationwide network of information superhighways? Obviously, the private sector is going to do it, but the Federal government can catalyze and accelerate the process by establishing standards, protocol, insuring interconnection, connectivity, and removing barriers that slow down the pace, barriers of anti-competitive behavior, barriers in regulations, barriers in the form of obsolete laws that were created when we didn't have any trouble understanding the difference between a telephone and the computer.
-Al Gore in a speech given in 1994

http://www.robson.org/gary/captioning/gorespeech.html

And that's just one of the many things that the Clinton administration did.

We can agree to disagree on this one.

What's there to disagree on? You said: "Why do leftists still attribute the tech bubble tax surplus to Clinton's economic policy?

The burden of evidence is on you the leftist (clk and till) to somehow link the tech bubble to a Clinton policy that intended to produce that surplus." I provided you with one of Clinton's policies which helped bring the information revolution.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

No and no .

Then you agree with me that there never was a surplus.

 

[peptoabysmal]

I agree with RF on this one. When you are president and the economy is booming, you get the glory. When the economy takes a downturn, you get the blame. It just goes with the job.

Oh, and the "Clinton surplus" is laughable enough to be included in modern urban legends.

 

[clk]

I agree with RF on this one. When you are president and the economy is booming, you get the glory. When the economy takes a downturn, you get the blame. It just goes with the job.

Oh, and the "Clinton surplus" is laughable enough to be included in modern urban legends.

Yeah, and I bet the "Bush deficit" isn't real either, huh?

 

[RandFan]

Yeah, and I bet the "Bush deficit" isn't real either, huh?

Oh it is real. But I'm going to let you in on a little secret....shhhhh....don't tell anyone... there has never been a surplus!.

The National debt grew every year that Clinton was in office.

Visit the U.S. National Debt Clock

 

[clk]

Oh it is real. But I'm going to let you in on a little secret....shhhhh....don't tell anyone... there has never been a surplus!.

The National debt grew every year that Clinton was in office.

Visit the U.S. National Debt Clock

http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/09/07/debt.clock/

CNN says otherwise.

President Clinton announced Wednesday that the federal budget surplus for fiscal year 2000 amounted to at least $230 billion, making it the largest in U.S. history and topping last year's record surplus of $122.7 billion.

"Eight years ago, our future was at risk," Clinton said Wednesday morning. "Economic growth was low, unemployment was high, interest rates were high, the federal debt had quadrupled in the previous 12 years. When Vice President Gore and I took office, the budget deficit was $290 billion, and it was projected this year the budget deficit would be $455 billion."

Instead, the president explained, the $5.7 trillion national debt has been reduced by $360 billion in the last three years -- $223 billion this year alone.
http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus/

 

[clk]

http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/09/07/debt.clock/

CNN says otherwise.

After further inspection...
There seems to be alot of contradictory evidence:

09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
09/28/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06
09/29/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm

When it first was plugged in, the odometer-style clock whirred furiously as the national debt rose by $13,000 a second. Often the last few digits increased so fast they were just a blur. And at one point in the mid-1990s, the debt was rising so fast the clock's computer crashed.

But the clock, which calculated the second-by-second increase in the debt based on data from the U.S. Treasury, began doing a strange thing this year.

Rather than cranking higher, it started ticking in the opposite direction, shaving off roughly $30 a second at last count, with a newly frugal Washington to thank.

"Eight years ago, our future was at risk," Clinton said Wednesday morning. "Economic growth was low, unemployment was high, interest rates were high, the federal debt had quadrupled in the previous 12 years. When Vice President Gore and I took office, the budget deficit was $290 billion, and it was projected this year the budget deficit would be $455 billion."

Instead, the president explained, the $5.7 trillion national debt has been reduced by $360 billion in the last three years -- $223 billion this year alone.
http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS...linton.surplus/

I dunno...maybe it's not contradictory, I'm not about to figure it out at this time of night...it's getting late, I'm out of here for now...

 

[RandFan]

After further inspection...
There seems to be alot of contradictory evidence:

No not really. There are facts and then there is "spin". The evidence that you think supports the notion that there was a surplus is really just "spin" which is political bull ◊◊◊◊.

Look, servicing the debt is part of the budget. Let's assume for sake of argument that in a given year there is no surplus and no deficit. We take in as much as we spend. There is no need to borrow to pay for anything. Remember that servicing of the debt is part of the budget. To reach 0 we must take in enough to make any payments to meet our responsibilities.

1.) The debt would earn interest.

2.) Since servicing of the debt exceeds interest the debt would go down.

A surplus would have to also make the debt go down. The debt has not gone down in any year that Clinton was in office. That is a demonstrable fact.

Clinton's surplus was simply looking at the numbers in a friendly light.

 

[clk]

No not really. There are facts and then there is "spin". The evidence that you think supports the notion that there was a surplus is really just "spin" which is political bull ◊◊◊◊.

Look, servicing the debt is part of the budget. Let's assume for sake of argument that in a given year there is no surplus and no deficit. We take in as much as we spend. There is no need to borrow to pay for anything. Remember that servicing of the debt is part of the budget. To reach 0 we must take in enough to make any payments to meet our responsibilities.

1.) The debt would earn interest.

2.) Since servicing of the debt exceeds interest the debt would go down.

A surplus would have to also make the debt go down. The debt has not gone down in any year that Clinton was in office. That is a demonstrable fact.

Clinton's surplus was simply looking at the numbers in a friendly light.

Isn't it true, though, that Clinton defined the budget in the same way that every President has? I thought the budget never took the debt into account. So yes, technically, there was never a surplus because we still had $7 trillion in debt. But we've always had a debt, and the budget never took that into account. The surplus means that we took in more money than was required when you look at everything except the debt. So when Clinton said 'surplus', I don't think he was defining it any way that had not been done in the past. When we say Bush has a $500 billion deficit, that's not including the $7 trillion debt. Otherwise we would say that Bush has a $7.5 trillion debt. But that's not the way the numbers have been traditionally defined. Is it spin? I don't know.
Clinton atleast was using the surplus to slowly start paying off the debt. With Bush, it seems we'll be in debt for as far as the eye can see.

 

[RandFan]

Isn't it true, though, that Clinton defined the budget in the same way that every President has? I thought the budget never took the debt into account. So yes, technically, there was never a surplus because we still had $7 trillion in debt. But we've always had a debt, and the budget never took that into account. The surplus means that we took in more money than was required when you look at everything except the debt. So when Clinton said 'surplus', I don't think he was defining it any way that had not been done in the past. When we say Bush has a $500 billion deficit, that's not including the $7 trillion debt. Otherwise we would say that Bush has a $7.5 trillion debt. But that's not the way the numbers have been traditionally defined. Is it spin? I don't know.

You are right that it has always been done that way. Just as social security has always been used to decrease the deficit. In the end the only thing that really matters is the debt. Did it go up? Yes!

Clinton atleast was using the surplus to slowly start paying off the debt.

He didn't even do that. If the debt goes up it can't be said to be going down (paying off). No all Clinton did (assuming that he did anything is slow the rate of growth.

With Bush, it seems we'll be in debt for as far as the eye can see.

For those who are intelectually honest (and I don't mean to suggest that you are not clk) we must admit a couple of facts.

1. The debt grew 1.4 trillion under Clinton (the debt is not calendar but is calculated from Sept to September. We need 8 years to determine how much growth there was) It would seem fair to calculate the debt for clinton from 9/1994 to 9/2001 since his policies would have had more of an impact for those years.
   
2. We only have two years of numbers for Bush. Under Bush the debt grew a stagering 920 billion.[/list=1]

 

[Roadtoad]

Sorry, but I thought the reason the debt's growth slowed was because we had a Republican Congress in 1994. Prior to that, I distictly recall Robert Reich saying "We don't want to pay off the national debt." No, that's not the whole quote, but if someone has it, I'd appreciate seeing it.