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 : Clinton's Scandals: Is this corruption the worst ever? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Doughboy who wrote (3087)	8/25/1998 11:59:00 AM
From: Les H	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

The S&L crisis caused the recession of 1990 to stretch into 1992 due to contraction in credit. It also contributed to the ballooning deficit directly because of the 60-70 billion dollars a year that were being spent till 1992. It contributed to the deficit indirectly because it prolonged the recession and restricted credit. Clinton had nothing to with the recovery which began before him. Go back to 1992 and you will see growth rate of 7% in the 4th quarter. By the time Presidents try to pass fiscal stimulus packages for the economy, it is usually too late. The economies have already bottomed and started to recover. The politicians are only reacting to unemployment figures that are lagging indicators. The other motivation is that the politicians want to take credit for an economic recovery. Without looking like having done something, they can't take credit.

To: Doughboy who wrote (3087)	8/25/1998 12:04:00 PM
From: John Hensley	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 13994

DougH- it was the tax increase that started the deficit going down and the tax increase did not throw the economy into recession as many republicans warned. What has started the deficit going down is the reduction in spending (primarily the defense department) and the significant increase in tax receipts because of the sound economy, and hence lower interest rates. It's my belief that the tax increases didn't help or hinder the economy all that much, but since nothing of substance can pass both the legislative and executive branches, we now have a laissez-faire policy by default. What we really now need is a vast reduction of regulations.

To: Doughboy who wrote (3087)	8/25/1998 12:16:00 PM
From: Zoltan!	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

>>But my analysis holds; it was the tax increase that started the deficit going down and the tax increase did not throw the economy into recession as many Republicans warned. True enough, the tax increase did not abort the recovery, but it did restrain it and consequently it restrained government revenues from what they would have been. The best analysis of that tax increase is that the middle class paid more while "the rich" did what they always do in response to such schemes, they redeployed $$$ into less productive "tax-free" investments, or just deferred income and taxes. Consequently that tax increase is not responsible for anything more than a small part of the deficit reduction, rather it has been a combination of economic growth (which Clinton slowed) and budgetary restraint that has closed the gap. Most of the restraint has come from the decrease in Defense spending that is now possible with the end of the Cold War (the "Reagan Peace Dividend"). Perversely, the ending of the Cold War is also blamed by many commentators for the tolerance of a less than serious person, Clinton, as President by the American people. That will end when the people see just a sample of how debased and disgusting Clinton is.

To: Doughboy who wrote (3087)	8/25/1998 2:41:00 PM
From: RJC2006	Respond to of 13994

<<<which is clear in the context that I was writing because the GOP has never called for a tax increase in my memory.>>> God love 'em. <<<As for your criticisms of Clinton reneging on his promise, that's fine, but is it better for the President to do something responsible and economically sound (which later proves to be so) or is it better to stick with an election year promise that ends up being disastrous >>> Gee, I guess we'll never know. Maybe it wasn't Monica that the President was getting himself off over after all....