Bill Clinton thinks he knows how to fix the country, do you agree?

[teamjordan79]

Originally Posted by eight2one

of Clinton was so horrible, how come our country was at its best?

The computer was entering mainstream society. Not to mention cell phones and other communication and information technologies. This created a technological boom and the economy was growing rapidly. U could have put george w. bush in the white house in the late 90's and we would have been proporous. 

 

[antonlavey]

I don't claim to be an expert on politics but I do know the 2 wars this country fought for Bush has a lot to do with the state this country is in today.

 

[antonlavey]

I don't claim to be an expert on politics but I do know the 2 wars this country fought for Bush has a lot to do with the state this country is in today.

 

[rashi]

Originally Posted by cguy610

Originally Posted by rashi

What inflationary policies?  You mean like his budget surplus?  The higher tax rates?

Ah yes. Inflationary policies were done by Alan Greenspan when they artificially lowered interests rates in order to let banks lend money to people to buy home when they couldn't afford it. Do you know anything about economics? Do you even know how to balance a check book for that matter? Budget surpluses aren't real, they don't even exist. When you run a SURPLUS, that means you debt has to be DIMINISHED.

• In 1997, the federal debt was $5.370 trillion.
• In 1998, it increased by $109 billion to $5.479 trillion.
• In 1999, it increased by $127 billion to $5.606 trillion.
• In 2000, it increased by $23 billion to $5.629 trillion.
• In 2001 it increased by $141 billion to $5.770 trillion.

Those stats are from the Economic and Statistics Administration. Now, how they in the hell can you have surpluses of anything when you are constantly in debt and rising?

Also, you have to take into account on how Social Security is even counted. Up until recently, Social Security always use to take in more than it shelled out. Social Security use to be counted separately from the federal budget, but since the 1960's or so, they started counting it together where Social Security was LOANING money to the Treasury to pay down their debts. Why? Because Social Security was taking in so much money that they could lend the money to the Treasury and not make the debts look that bad.

Social Security = Ponzi Scheme
Clinton's "surplus" = FRAUD

What does Alan Greenspan's rates have to do with Clinton's policies?  Also, in the context of current and past Presidents, a 400 billion dollar increase in the debt over 5 years is not inflationary. 

What does social security have to do with this? 

(There's also a pretty good chance I know more about economics than you, unless you are actually an economist)


Maybe I should clarify, because you tend to take every single word literal instead of looking at the big picture. Alan Greenspan loosened credit for 2 reasons during the Clinton years. 1. For the housing market and 2. Clinton's protectionist policies regarding the tech industry. Low interest rates + increased money supply = inflation i.e. financing government.

Clinton's policies over the tech industry with a few cozy multinational companies over invested and when the Fed began to reduce the money supply and that's why you has the recession of 2001. The recession was just the readjusting of the market because when you lower interest rates and increase in the money supply you discourage savings and people spend beyond their means. Instead of the market working naturally, the government encouraged spending just get some friends a higher return in the stock market i.e like Enron.


What does Social Security have to do with it? Did you even bother to read your own link?

 

[rashi]

Originally Posted by cguy610

Originally Posted by rashi

What inflationary policies?  You mean like his budget surplus?  The higher tax rates?

Ah yes. Inflationary policies were done by Alan Greenspan when they artificially lowered interests rates in order to let banks lend money to people to buy home when they couldn't afford it. Do you know anything about economics? Do you even know how to balance a check book for that matter? Budget surpluses aren't real, they don't even exist. When you run a SURPLUS, that means you debt has to be DIMINISHED.

• In 1997, the federal debt was $5.370 trillion.
• In 1998, it increased by $109 billion to $5.479 trillion.
• In 1999, it increased by $127 billion to $5.606 trillion.
• In 2000, it increased by $23 billion to $5.629 trillion.
• In 2001 it increased by $141 billion to $5.770 trillion.

Those stats are from the Economic and Statistics Administration. Now, how they in the hell can you have surpluses of anything when you are constantly in debt and rising?

Also, you have to take into account on how Social Security is even counted. Up until recently, Social Security always use to take in more than it shelled out. Social Security use to be counted separately from the federal budget, but since the 1960's or so, they started counting it together where Social Security was LOANING money to the Treasury to pay down their debts. Why? Because Social Security was taking in so much money that they could lend the money to the Treasury and not make the debts look that bad.

Social Security = Ponzi Scheme
Clinton's "surplus" = FRAUD

What does Alan Greenspan's rates have to do with Clinton's policies?  Also, in the context of current and past Presidents, a 400 billion dollar increase in the debt over 5 years is not inflationary. 

What does social security have to do with this? 

(There's also a pretty good chance I know more about economics than you, unless you are actually an economist)


Maybe I should clarify, because you tend to take every single word literal instead of looking at the big picture. Alan Greenspan loosened credit for 2 reasons during the Clinton years. 1. For the housing market and 2. Clinton's protectionist policies regarding the tech industry. Low interest rates + increased money supply = inflation i.e. financing government.

Clinton's policies over the tech industry with a few cozy multinational companies over invested and when the Fed began to reduce the money supply and that's why you has the recession of 2001. The recession was just the readjusting of the market because when you lower interest rates and increase in the money supply you discourage savings and people spend beyond their means. Instead of the market working naturally, the government encouraged spending just get some friends a higher return in the stock market i.e like Enron.


What does Social Security have to do with it? Did you even bother to read your own link?

 

[shaze804]

postin 4 lata

 

[shaze804]

postin 4 lata

 

[biggie62]

Originally Posted by rashi

Originally Posted by cguy610

Originally Posted by rashi

What inflationary policies?  You mean like his budget surplus?  The higher tax rates?

Ah yes. Inflationary policies were done by Alan Greenspan when they artificially lowered interests rates in order to let banks lend money to people to buy home when they couldn't afford it. Do you know anything about economics? Do you even know how to balance a check book for that matter? Budget surpluses aren't real, they don't even exist. When you run a SURPLUS, that means you debt has to be DIMINISHED.

• In 1997, the federal debt was $5.370 trillion.
• In 1998, it increased by $109 billion to $5.479 trillion.
• In 1999, it increased by $127 billion to $5.606 trillion.
• In 2000, it increased by $23 billion to $5.629 trillion.
• In 2001 it increased by $141 billion to $5.770 trillion.

Those stats are from the Economic and Statistics Administration. Now, how they in the hell can you have surpluses of anything when you are constantly in debt and rising?

Also, you have to take into account on how Social Security is even counted. Up until recently, Social Security always use to take in more than it shelled out. Social Security use to be counted separately from the federal budget, but since the 1960's or so, they started counting it together where Social Security was LOANING money to the Treasury to pay down their debts. Why? Because Social Security was taking in so much money that they could lend the money to the Treasury and not make the debts look that bad.

Social Security = Ponzi Scheme
Clinton's "surplus" = FRAUD

What does Alan Greenspan's rates have to do with Clinton's policies?  Also, in the context of current and past Presidents, a 400 billion dollar increase in the debt over 5 years is not inflationary. 

What does social security have to do with this? 

(There's also a pretty good chance I know more about economics than you, unless you are actually an economist)

Maybe I should clarify, because you tend to take every single word literal instead of looking at the big picture. Alan Greenspan loosened credit for 2 reasons during the Clinton years. 1. For the housing market and 2. Clinton's protectionist policies regarding the tech industry. Low interest rates + increased money supply = inflation i.e. financing government.

Clinton's policies over the tech industry with a few cozy multinational companies over invested and when the Fed began to reduce the money supply and that's why you has the recession of 2001. The recession was just the readjusting of the market because when you lower interest rates and increase in the money supply you discourage savings and people spend beyond their means. Instead of the market working naturally, the government encouraged spending just get some friends a higher return in the stock market i.e like Enron.


What does Social Security have to do with it? Did you even bother to read your own link?

Rashi is pretty much on point.  There's a few other things involved.  But for the common layman, this is the simplest and best explanation.  This "free market" economic policy that Greenspan ran in the 90s and continued to run in the 00s is the real route of the problem.  And of course Reagan knew this and this is why he nominated him for the position when he did.  And no matter what data an economist puts out there.  No "free market" is self correcting.

 

[biggie62]

Originally Posted by rashi

Originally Posted by cguy610

Originally Posted by rashi

What inflationary policies?  You mean like his budget surplus?  The higher tax rates?

Ah yes. Inflationary policies were done by Alan Greenspan when they artificially lowered interests rates in order to let banks lend money to people to buy home when they couldn't afford it. Do you know anything about economics? Do you even know how to balance a check book for that matter? Budget surpluses aren't real, they don't even exist. When you run a SURPLUS, that means you debt has to be DIMINISHED.

• In 1997, the federal debt was $5.370 trillion.
• In 1998, it increased by $109 billion to $5.479 trillion.
• In 1999, it increased by $127 billion to $5.606 trillion.
• In 2000, it increased by $23 billion to $5.629 trillion.
• In 2001 it increased by $141 billion to $5.770 trillion.

Those stats are from the Economic and Statistics Administration. Now, how they in the hell can you have surpluses of anything when you are constantly in debt and rising?

Also, you have to take into account on how Social Security is even counted. Up until recently, Social Security always use to take in more than it shelled out. Social Security use to be counted separately from the federal budget, but since the 1960's or so, they started counting it together where Social Security was LOANING money to the Treasury to pay down their debts. Why? Because Social Security was taking in so much money that they could lend the money to the Treasury and not make the debts look that bad.

Social Security = Ponzi Scheme
Clinton's "surplus" = FRAUD

What does Alan Greenspan's rates have to do with Clinton's policies?  Also, in the context of current and past Presidents, a 400 billion dollar increase in the debt over 5 years is not inflationary. 

What does social security have to do with this? 

(There's also a pretty good chance I know more about economics than you, unless you are actually an economist)

Maybe I should clarify, because you tend to take every single word literal instead of looking at the big picture. Alan Greenspan loosened credit for 2 reasons during the Clinton years. 1. For the housing market and 2. Clinton's protectionist policies regarding the tech industry. Low interest rates + increased money supply = inflation i.e. financing government.

Clinton's policies over the tech industry with a few cozy multinational companies over invested and when the Fed began to reduce the money supply and that's why you has the recession of 2001. The recession was just the readjusting of the market because when you lower interest rates and increase in the money supply you discourage savings and people spend beyond their means. Instead of the market working naturally, the government encouraged spending just get some friends a higher return in the stock market i.e like Enron.


What does Social Security have to do with it? Did you even bother to read your own link?

Rashi is pretty much on point.  There's a few other things involved.  But for the common layman, this is the simplest and best explanation.  This "free market" economic policy that Greenspan ran in the 90s and continued to run in the 00s is the real route of the problem.  And of course Reagan knew this and this is why he nominated him for the position when he did.  And no matter what data an economist puts out there.  No "free market" is self correcting.

 

[knightlovesqueen]

lotta angry browns in here

 

[knightlovesqueen]

lotta angry browns in here

 

[lacez]

BILL CLINTON IS ONE OF THE MOST INTILECTUAL POLITICAL MINDS THE PRESIDENCY OF THE UNITED STATES HAS EVER HAD THE PRIVLEDGE TO FOLLOW. HIS VIEWS ON RIGHT WING AND REPUBLICAN ISSUES SET A STANDARD FOR ALL AMERICANS TO FOLLOW. ALL THESE PROBLEMS STEM FROM LAZY AMERICA AND IT HAS BEEN SHOWN. WE NEED JOBS, YOU HAVE HEARD IT ALL BEFORE BUT BILL CLINTON'S VIEWS ON THESE ISSUES ARE TOP NOTCH. I COULD SIT HERE FOREVER AND TALK ABOUT THE BUDGET AND JOBS AND EVERYTHING ELSE BUT IT WONT MAKE A DIFFERENCE. LAZY AMERICAN STRIKES AGAIN. YOU DONT SEE EUROPE, CHINA,JAPAN WITH THESE ISSUES.SORRY FOR THE PAGE BUT I THINK IF BILL CLINTON HAD ANOTHER SHOT AT THE PRESIDENCY WE WOULD NOT BE WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW !

 

[lacez]

BILL CLINTON IS ONE OF THE MOST INTILECTUAL POLITICAL MINDS THE PRESIDENCY OF THE UNITED STATES HAS EVER HAD THE PRIVLEDGE TO FOLLOW. HIS VIEWS ON RIGHT WING AND REPUBLICAN ISSUES SET A STANDARD FOR ALL AMERICANS TO FOLLOW. ALL THESE PROBLEMS STEM FROM LAZY AMERICA AND IT HAS BEEN SHOWN. WE NEED JOBS, YOU HAVE HEARD IT ALL BEFORE BUT BILL CLINTON'S VIEWS ON THESE ISSUES ARE TOP NOTCH. I COULD SIT HERE FOREVER AND TALK ABOUT THE BUDGET AND JOBS AND EVERYTHING ELSE BUT IT WONT MAKE A DIFFERENCE. LAZY AMERICAN STRIKES AGAIN. YOU DONT SEE EUROPE, CHINA,JAPAN WITH THESE ISSUES.SORRY FOR THE PAGE BUT I THINK IF BILL CLINTON HAD ANOTHER SHOT AT THE PRESIDENCY WE WOULD NOT BE WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW !

 

[juggy4805]

Originally Posted by rashi


I addressed this logic in another thread. Why would you hire someone who just walked off the stage as opposed to someone who has more experience in that field with a lower education? Especially in a time like this, where companies are making money with a cut labor force, they need the people with experience more than the ones who have a degree. Why? Because they don't have to pay them as much. Make sense? Also, with the amount of training a new grad would need as opposed to someone who already had the job doesn't make much sense either when it comes down to the bottom line.  B.S. = More money, but money is tight right now, so High School = less money, but better chance for more production with a lower wage. So what are you going to do?

Bill Clinton just addressed in that vid the same thing he addressed signing the Community Investment Act in 1994. Everyone is entitled to own a home and everyone with a Bachelors degree means you are entitled to a job.

False, new graduates mostly get entry level positions. For example would you hire the newly graduated engineer who will take the 40k a year or the 20yr experienced engineer who is worth 150k a yr. I see it all of the time with defense contractors. 
  

 

[juggy4805]

Originally Posted by rashi


I addressed this logic in another thread. Why would you hire someone who just walked off the stage as opposed to someone who has more experience in that field with a lower education? Especially in a time like this, where companies are making money with a cut labor force, they need the people with experience more than the ones who have a degree. Why? Because they don't have to pay them as much. Make sense? Also, with the amount of training a new grad would need as opposed to someone who already had the job doesn't make much sense either when it comes down to the bottom line.  B.S. = More money, but money is tight right now, so High School = less money, but better chance for more production with a lower wage. So what are you going to do?

Bill Clinton just addressed in that vid the same thing he addressed signing the Community Investment Act in 1994. Everyone is entitled to own a home and everyone with a Bachelors degree means you are entitled to a job.

False, new graduates mostly get entry level positions. For example would you hire the newly graduated engineer who will take the 40k a year or the 20yr experienced engineer who is worth 150k a yr. I see it all of the time with defense contractors. 
  

 

[Betonblck]

Originally Posted by rashi

Originally Posted by cguy610



What does Alan Greenspan's rates have to do with Clinton's policies?  Also, in the context of current and past Presidents, a 400 billion dollar increase in the debt over 5 years is not inflationary. 

What does social security have to do with this? 

(There's also a pretty good chance I know more about economics than you, unless you are actually an economist)

Maybe I should clarify, because you tend to take every single word literal instead of looking at the big picture. Alan Greenspan loosened credit for 2 reasons during the Clinton years. 1. For the housing market and 2. Clinton's protectionist policies regarding the tech industry. Low interest rates + increased money supply = inflation i.e. financing government.

Clinton's policies over the tech industry with a few cozy multinational companies over invested and when the Fed began to reduce the money supply and that's why you has the recession of 2001. The recession was just the readjusting of the market because when you lower interest rates and increase in the money supply you discourage savings and people spend beyond their means. Instead of the market working naturally, the government encouraged spending just get some friends a higher return in the stock market i.e like Enron.


What does Social Security have to do with it? Did you even bother to read your own link?

You are acting as if Clinton created the Federal Reserve.  The Federal Reserve has had an active role in "managing" the economy for a long time before Clinton.  Easing and tightening of rates was not invented by Clinton. 

And yes I did read my link

But even if we remove Social Security from the equation, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while.


  

 

[Betonblck]

Originally Posted by rashi

Originally Posted by cguy610



What does Alan Greenspan's rates have to do with Clinton's policies?  Also, in the context of current and past Presidents, a 400 billion dollar increase in the debt over 5 years is not inflationary. 

What does social security have to do with this? 

(There's also a pretty good chance I know more about economics than you, unless you are actually an economist)

Maybe I should clarify, because you tend to take every single word literal instead of looking at the big picture. Alan Greenspan loosened credit for 2 reasons during the Clinton years. 1. For the housing market and 2. Clinton's protectionist policies regarding the tech industry. Low interest rates + increased money supply = inflation i.e. financing government.

Clinton's policies over the tech industry with a few cozy multinational companies over invested and when the Fed began to reduce the money supply and that's why you has the recession of 2001. The recession was just the readjusting of the market because when you lower interest rates and increase in the money supply you discourage savings and people spend beyond their means. Instead of the market working naturally, the government encouraged spending just get some friends a higher return in the stock market i.e like Enron.


What does Social Security have to do with it? Did you even bother to read your own link?

You are acting as if Clinton created the Federal Reserve.  The Federal Reserve has had an active role in "managing" the economy for a long time before Clinton.  Easing and tightening of rates was not invented by Clinton. 

And yes I did read my link

But even if we remove Social Security from the equation, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while.


  

 

[bobertorey]

It's been nice to read some of the comments in this thread. Turns out some folks actually see what is going on...

IMO the biggest problem is that we have tied ourselves to the true capitalist vision. The strong will survive. Only its not entirely true. We have devalued the American employee. We have seen so many areas; energy, American automotive, and even housing affected by the nostalgic vision of what America "is". In terms of energy we need to start producing something again. We don't make anything "in house". I think the key to keeping America atop the international power structure is to be the key developer of clean energy. I think even if that energy is only focused on the automotive side we still need to have the leverage to both tax others for using our technology or build a wealth of distributing power i.e. the middle east. By staying so dependent on oil we are tied to the middle east and any fluttering idea they might impose. Opec is in itself a capitalist venture if ever there was one, sadly the problem is that we are on the wrong end of the stick. With American automotive we have decided to "save" companies who either did not modify their long term business strategy, (hybrids, smaller more fuel efficient cars, bad quality) or were just too American to change... By doing this they dug a hole for themselves that we have to finance as American people. We should all have standing shares in all of these companies since it was our taxes that paid for them to survive. Both of the previous points are so heavily tied together. We have a class of politicians that were heavily financed by either oil, auto or both... Because of this we can't get an unbiased opinion on what direction either industry should take. If we cant get some fresh thinkers that aren't so heavily influenced by group think, we will be doomed to see things decline at an ever quickening pace.

Also, whomever brought up the point of the educational devaluing is right on point. We can't honestly look folks in the eye and tell them you have one of two options, either graduate high school and work from the ground up, or get your masters or phd and we will give you a middle management job. A regular bachelors is just a piece of paper now. You need additional degree's to even compete now and its a sad day to look at the middle class and see it dissolving.

As far as who's fault it is for the current economic mess I would have to say it was the past 4 presidencies in combination. I am a democrat but I am not subject to agreeing with every democratic move ever made. I judge for myself on what I agree with and what I dont. Clinton did play a part in all of this by inflating the true worth of our economy. However, I think the Bush's son and Jr. killed our international relations by just bullying the nation into doing what they wanted. Whether it was fighting a war or wars that were motivated by things that had nothing to do with us as a country, or deregulating industries to line the pockets of close personal friends of the Bush family it all contributed to a failing of the U.S. government towards its constituents. I think we need Obama to correct things. But when you have to correct no less than 5 critical areas (housing, energy, healthcare, wall street, education) we can't tell him to focus on one thing at a time. All of them are urgent and he see's or at least I think/hope he see's that we need immediate aid in all of these areas. America is not guaranteed to be the greatest nation, despite what the media has told you. We are not entitled to anything and our failing as a country will be that we took the work of the pioneers of this great country. And felt that it would provide for us forever. We need to get rid of the entitled label and get back to hard work and dedication to make America what it was...

Sorry to make that so long just felt it was time to say something... Thanks for bearing with me, and thank OP for the topic. Peace.

 

[bobertorey]

It's been nice to read some of the comments in this thread. Turns out some folks actually see what is going on...

IMO the biggest problem is that we have tied ourselves to the true capitalist vision. The strong will survive. Only its not entirely true. We have devalued the American employee. We have seen so many areas; energy, American automotive, and even housing affected by the nostalgic vision of what America "is". In terms of energy we need to start producing something again. We don't make anything "in house". I think the key to keeping America atop the international power structure is to be the key developer of clean energy. I think even if that energy is only focused on the automotive side we still need to have the leverage to both tax others for using our technology or build a wealth of distributing power i.e. the middle east. By staying so dependent on oil we are tied to the middle east and any fluttering idea they might impose. Opec is in itself a capitalist venture if ever there was one, sadly the problem is that we are on the wrong end of the stick. With American automotive we have decided to "save" companies who either did not modify their long term business strategy, (hybrids, smaller more fuel efficient cars, bad quality) or were just too American to change... By doing this they dug a hole for themselves that we have to finance as American people. We should all have standing shares in all of these companies since it was our taxes that paid for them to survive. Both of the previous points are so heavily tied together. We have a class of politicians that were heavily financed by either oil, auto or both... Because of this we can't get an unbiased opinion on what direction either industry should take. If we cant get some fresh thinkers that aren't so heavily influenced by group think, we will be doomed to see things decline at an ever quickening pace.

Also, whomever brought up the point of the educational devaluing is right on point. We can't honestly look folks in the eye and tell them you have one of two options, either graduate high school and work from the ground up, or get your masters or phd and we will give you a middle management job. A regular bachelors is just a piece of paper now. You need additional degree's to even compete now and its a sad day to look at the middle class and see it dissolving.

As far as who's fault it is for the current economic mess I would have to say it was the past 4 presidencies in combination. I am a democrat but I am not subject to agreeing with every democratic move ever made. I judge for myself on what I agree with and what I dont. Clinton did play a part in all of this by inflating the true worth of our economy. However, I think the Bush's son and Jr. killed our international relations by just bullying the nation into doing what they wanted. Whether it was fighting a war or wars that were motivated by things that had nothing to do with us as a country, or deregulating industries to line the pockets of close personal friends of the Bush family it all contributed to a failing of the U.S. government towards its constituents. I think we need Obama to correct things. But when you have to correct no less than 5 critical areas (housing, energy, healthcare, wall street, education) we can't tell him to focus on one thing at a time. All of them are urgent and he see's or at least I think/hope he see's that we need immediate aid in all of these areas. America is not guaranteed to be the greatest nation, despite what the media has told you. We are not entitled to anything and our failing as a country will be that we took the work of the pioneers of this great country. And felt that it would provide for us forever. We need to get rid of the entitled label and get back to hard work and dedication to make America what it was...

Sorry to make that so long just felt it was time to say something... Thanks for bearing with me, and thank OP for the topic. Peace.

 

[likethematrix]

Bill Clinton left office with a Surplus.
G. W. Bush left office with a Deficit.

obviously Bill knows a little something about how to get money

 

[likethematrix]

Bill Clinton left office with a Surplus.
G. W. Bush left office with a Deficit.

obviously Bill knows a little something about how to get money