Need help refuting GOP talking points re: economics & Clinton.

[AZBlue]

My boss spews GOP talking points on a regular basis (and yet he pretends to be a Dem - don't ask). One of his favorite is that the good economy in the 90's was not because of Clinton - it would have happened anyway because of the economic factors put into place by Bush and Reagan before Clinton. It's the old "trickle-down" theory that they so often misquote: the economy take a long time to react so if it's good, it's a reflection on the prior president, not the current president. (I know, I know, that's not even the definition of trickle-down economics, but don't try and explain that to them)

Anyway, I've googled this weekend trying to find some facts I can quote to refute this stupidity but I can't find any. I may be mis-googling, who knows, but I wanted to see if anyone here has a link or quote or something I can use to shut him up on this point. He'll bring it up again in about a week or two (he just recycles his monologues over and over) and I'd love to have new info to use on him. I've pointed out the obvious but he doesn't like to listen to anyone but himself - maybe if I have some facts and hard info, he'll pay a little more attention.

(as you can tell, I'm not fond of my boss - did I mention I'm looking for a new job?? - and would love to hit him with this info - thanks!)

[papau]

1. There no "facts" to refute - no economic study has produced such a correlation - but I think the

Reagan years were a reflection of Carter - sounds about right - or were those years the result of Hover's policies?

It is so hard to remember right wing bullshit.

It is true that there is a 6 month to a year lag on monetary policy decisions affecting the economy. And the "accelerator" effect of more spending plays out over the year.

Clinton inherited a recession/flat near no growth economy from Bush's last 2 years - was that a Reagan left over?

Ask him just how many years it takes for a given decision to affect the economy! :-)

People are born with the need to see patterns in data - that is what math is useful for - to test if those patterns we think we see are really mathematically a solid correlation. Tell your boss that he is reading Wall Street Journal BS and note that when they make statements like that they do not quote any econ or math folks as support.

[SharonAnn]

11. Then the Bush I recession was caused by Reagan and Reagan's boom was caused by Carter.

Clinton's economic boom did not really take effect until he had been in office a couple of years.

[papau]

15. Try to sell the idea that Reagan did anything wrong -ever :-) The monetary lag is not

really known - but it seems to be about 6 months - the effect of larger spending is more immediate.

The idea of a time lag is typical GOP taking a truth - a time lag - and twisting it to covered up blunders.

The Clinton uptick began early on (Bush had moved into positive growth in his last quarter and it continued under Clinton - what was new was the fact it was an 8 year period with no recession (Reagan and Bush both had recessions) and that boat of the middle class and even the lower class rose for 8 years for the first time in decades (since 73 - we are not back to 73 in workers wages yet - but Clinton reversed the downward trend. Under W workers wages have again slipped back - although we may be even with 2002 at this point - all of the above comment is after adjusting for inflation of course)

[Yupster]

2. I'm not much help

because I don't think the President has very much to do with the economy short-term good or bad.

Just as a for-instance, in 1995 the President and Congress were fighting over how fast they could balance the budget with the Congress demanding (I don't even remember what the time period was) was it balance in 5 years? and the President saying 7 years was too fast?

And meanwhile while they were fighting, every time a new quarter was reported, another $ 40 billion was taken off the projected defecit and the budget was balanced in three years while the two sides argued whether it was possible in 5 or 7.

In fact, it was the internet tech boom that did way more to balance the budget than either group of politicians.

As people in California bought and sold their JDS Uniphase stock for 400 % profits, they sent in giant capital gains taxes to the treasury that the treasury wasn't expecting and all of the sudden the defecit went from $ 280 billion a year to a $ 100 billion a year surplus while the two sides argued about whether it was safe to raise taxes by $ 30 billion or not.

Unfortunately it turned out that much of the stock market growth of those tech stocks was not real, a-la Enron so now JDS Uniphase is $ 2 a share and DrKoop.com has gone bankrupt with hundreds of other internet based companies, and now instead of the government getting tens of billions of capital gains taxes they weren't expecting, now people are claiming tens of billions in capital losses from Enron and Worldcom and the like.

If you want to help the budget, the quickest way is to help the stock market go up. The treasury will reap incredile amounts of extra taxes they weren't expecting and the budget numbers will magically look incredibly better than they do.

It's kind of been happening the last 2-3 years as the defecit has come down dramatically while Bush has done everything possible to screw it up.

[MadMaddie]

3. Ask him if there was a surplus when Clinton left office....

Ask him did most of Americans have health care, jobs and homes when Clinton left office...

If his premise is true, * Junior has served two terms right...then it would stand to reason that his 2nd 4 year term is reflective of his first 4 year term....which means the decisons he made we are living and experiencing the results of the first term...

Daddy * only served one term...So Clinton had time to clean up the mess and get the economy back on track for 8 years or two terms....the single biggest blunder by Clinton was NAFTA and other similar trade agreements....this has had a huge negative impact on the US and it's citizens

[OHdem10]

4. Ask your boss the following::

If the Republican Policies were in place when Clinton arrived in
office, then one would assume that the GOP would have validated
these policies and voted with Clinton. Remind him that not one
Republican Congressman voted on the Clinton's Financeial Plan.
Not one Republican. It was passed by only Democrats. When it
succeeded the GOP jumped all over it trying to claim credit.
This is fact. Also remind him that the Greatest Democrat FDR
saved Capitalism and Democracy.

Not one Republican voted for Clinton's Economic Plan.

[ourbluenation]

5. since he's the boss, ask him how much he's willing to go into debt to keep the business afloat...

Reagan and pappa bush sunk the deficit into the toilet (all though Jr has topped them both). does you boss have kids? does he wanna leave his children with a mountain of debt? Probably not, so why would he think it's so wonderful that reagan, bush and bush jr had record deficit spending, passing on massive amounts of debt to the next generations. we democrats like a little policy called pay as you go, not go and pay some other time. that's what your boss teaches his kids I'l bet...so then why the double standard bossman?

[indypaul]

6. Suggested reading

"Greenspans Fraud" by Ravi Battra, Prof of Economics Southern
Methodist Univ.

[MannyGoldstein]

7. Show Him These... And Bring An Extra Diaper For Him

Democratic vs. Republican Presidents: Economic Prosperity
http://blueworksbetter.com/PresidentsDebt">Democratic vs. Republican Presidents: Federal Debt

(from my blog)

Turns out that Democratic presidents are more fiscally prudent compared to Republicans, and the economic outcomes are also better.

[rucky]

12. Manny, your blog is fantastic.

:yourock:

[MannyGoldstein]

13. Obviously, You Are A Discerning Individual

of superior intelligence.

[AZBlue]

14. Fascinating view of politics!!

Thanks for the links

[papau]

16. ditto as to Rucky's comment - a numbers guy with nice web page that can write - awesome combination!

n/t

[wuushew]

8. My observation is that America benefited from a strong dollar in the 1990s

That and the already low price of oil had the effect of transferring additional discretionary income into the domestic economy. Clinton can take credit for a much saner foreign policy and needed tax hikes, but the obstructionist Republican Congress gets some credit for the lack of new federal spending.

[sandnsea]

9. 1987 crash, 10% unemployment

Right, Reagan's economic policies leaped over the 1987 stock market crash and 10% unemployment and landed smack dab in the middle of the 90's. Roll your eyes and walk away.

On edit:

And if he mentions Bush, say, yeah, didn't he lose because he raised taxes? So you're saying raising taxes helps the economy sometimes?

[AZBlue]

10. Thanks to all of you!!! This is awesome.

I may even have to bait him to bring up the topic, hee hee!