Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: slacker711 who wrote (60698)	4/22/2008 11:17:37 AM
From: Bridge Player	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541777

You are quite right, slacker. Here is what infoplease has to say: Democrats enjoy taking credit for the slower growth of the national debt from 1992 to 2000, President Clinton's administration. During that period, the debt increased from $4.1 trillion to $5.7 trillion, or by 39 percent, well under the almost 300 percent of the Reagan administration. However, the Clinton administration had two things going for it: First, from 1992 onward, the economy grew even more rapidly than it did in the 1980s. Tax receipts rose dramatically, generating budget surpluses from 1998 through 2001. Second, inflation and interest rates remained at historical lows, and the monetary policy that partly engineered that phenomenon clearly contributed to the length and growth rate of expansion. (President Clinton wisely reappointed Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, twice.) The Clinton administration also benefited from a new focus on fiscal discipline in both parties, prompted by the deficits of the 1980s. Groups like the Concord Coalition and individuals like Ross Perot—who based his quixotic presidential campaign on deficit reduction—were emblematic of this concern. In 1990, President George H.W. Bush even agreed to a tax increase. It was politically difficult given his famous campaign promise: “Read my lips: No new taxes.” Recession followed in 1991, and given the reaction of the public, candidate Clinton won the presidency in 1992. infoplease.com

To: slacker711 who wrote (60698)	4/22/2008 11:27:38 AM
From: Sam	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541777

Dont get me wrong, both Clinton and the Congress deserve credit for restraining spending, but they had a strong wind at their back when it came to reducing the deficit. Yes, they had a strong wind at the their back--but they also had a strong wind blowing in their faces. When Clinton and the Democrats argued that tax increases were necessary, the Republicans screamed as much bloody murder against them as they had against Bush41's tax increases. Even more so, in fact. Good ol' boy Phil Graham and many others in both the House and the Senate screamed over and over again that the increased taxes would result in a recession or--worse. The end of the "Reagan boom." And, in fact, Clinton and the Democrats paid dearly for it in the '94 elections. The Contract with American was, IMO, only a small part of the Republican takeover, the largest culprit was anger at the tax increases.

To: slacker711 who wrote (60698)	4/22/2008 1:59:30 PM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 541777

they had a strong wind at their back when it came to reducing the deficit. Indeed. It was really a sweet spot. They deserve credit for taking advantage of the opportunity. They could have squandered it but they didn't. I hope if we ever hit another sweet spot the leadership at that time will have the will and the wisdom to take advantage of it. But we can't count on another sweet spot. If we want to do it without the wind at our backs, well, I don't think we can. We either have to really suck it in or we have to quit thinking of the government as Uncle Sugar. So unlikely, both, as to be impossible.