I like Bill Clinton, but he really didn't do much to change the downward trajectory...

[ginchinchili]

this country has been on since Reagan. I think Hillary is a competent women, but not as talented as her husband and, frankly, our country needs more than what Bill Clinton did during his presidency at this point in time. Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton. It's getting redundant, and in the meantime our country continues its decline. Bush, Clinton, Bush, Biden. That's better.

[Blashyrkh]

1. I think the decline will continue regardless of who wins.

The political establishment is corrupt and as long as members of it are elected to office, the status quo in its base form will continue, indefinately.

[Yupster]

29. I don't think corruption is the main reason

Coming out of WWII, we were a mean-lean fighting machine, and more importantly, the other main engines of the world were destroyed.

Germany and Japan were in ruins. USSR and China had lost 20 million people each and had their countries overrun and their populations displaced.

It 's been a pretty steady march ever since as the world's economies recover, it's only normal that we will lose our dominant position, and eventually our frontrunner position entirely. While we added medicare and medicaid and unemployment and welfare and product protections, and labor protections and environmental protections to our economic engine, China has not.

China is still running on mean-lean-fighting machine and is growing at 2-3 times our rate. It's only natural that they will overtake us and then they will take a breath and slow down and add many of the comforts we have now.

Then the American century that we enjoyed will be followed by the Chinese century.

And there's really not a whole lot we can do about it.

[SharonAnn]

2. At least we had an economic surplus and he protected women's rights.

[Zueda]

5. The surplus what built up to fund the war...

as far as women's rights...Neocons are, for the most part, are social liberals...

[karynnj]

20. The surplus was not built to fund war

It was partially the function of prudent fiscal policy and the tech boom. The tech boom, which became almost a legal Ponzi scheme where the prices skyrocketed well about the likely value of the companies created huge capital gains for people who sold the stocks before the bubble burst. These gains produced a bonanza for the treasury and produced the surplus. In the 1990s, the Clinton projections showed the deficit declining, the surplus in the late 1990s was a pleasant surprise. In 2000, the market started to decline.

Clinton should get credit for controlling spending - it was one of the factors that led to the surplus. However, it is easier to make the case that Greenspan advised Clinton to use the surpluses to buy down the debt, then with Bush in spoke of the danger of doing so (?) and backed the Bush tax cuts. The Republicans used the subsidy to get tax cuts that quickly exceeded the surplus as it declined and turned into a deficit again.

War is always paid for even as it was when the US was still comiing out of a depression.

[LostinVA]

36. Neocons are social liberals????????????

:rofl:

That must be some great weed you're smoking...

[Djinn]

7. and what happened with that surplus

was there any attempt to alleviate the obscene rich/poor gap in the US.

Since when is an economic surplus in and of itself something to cheer?

[sandnsea]

12. We had a FICA surplus

and since Clinton didn't tell the truth about it, it set the country up to give it all away to the wealty with the Bush tax cuts.

[karynnj]

22. exactly! Remember that someone wanted to put it in a lockbox.

[Yupster]

27. Yes - the lockbox

maybe the most worthless proposal ever put forward by a politician anywhere. I still don't know if he actually understood how nonsensical his proposal was or not.

[karynnj]

34. I disagree

In the mid 1980s, the relatively regressive payroll taxes were increased because it was stated that they needed to create a surplus over time to have adequate resources when the baby boom retired. The problem was that through accounting sleight of hand, the money from these payroll taxes were included as revenues and it calculations of the deficit were included with the general revenue. This made the deficits smaller and made it appear in some years as if there were surpluses.

This allowed income taxes cuts that in aggregate benefit the top more than the bottom. Now, Greenspan, one of the people who in the 1980s wanted to prepare for the babyboom says that money is gone - spent and the government can't pay it back.

Had Gore done what he said, I doubt he would simply have pulled the money out of circulation and not used it. There would be ways to use it and have it available. One way might be a Gore proposal this year to Boxer's committee. He said that the government should give a loan that equals the additional cost of equipping a house with better insulation, better windows and more efficient components to new home buyers. This additional loan would make the purchase price the same - and the lower cost of maintaining the house would balance out repaying that additional loan.

[slipslidingaway]

38. Now we just forget about the Two Trillion plus in the trust fund. n/t

[Yupster]

45. That's because it's gone

It's been spent on missiles and salaries for government workers, and building new cells at Guantanamo.

It's gone. Pffft. It's a dead parrot.

But what about the bonds?

Here's what's going to happen. When the social security system starts running a defecit, the congress will do what it's done a number of times already. It will adjust the bendpoints formula to pay out what they want to and what they feel they're obligated to and what they feel they can afford.

That's all the congress can do.

And notice it has nothing at all to do with whether there are any bonds in the trust fund or not. - because they don't matter.

[karynnj]

46. I completely understand that

my point was that it appears that the intent was likely dishonest on the part of some from the beginning. By lumping them together, we traded raising a regressive tax for cutting a progressive one - in the same of prudent long term actions.

I am in complete agreement with you on what will happen.

[Yupster]

44. Interesting, but does it have anything

to do with a lockbax?

In fact the mistake was made in 1986 when Reagan and the congress reached the grand tax increase to save social security. That deal assured the government taking in huge surpluses for decaders to save up for the baby boomers. Probably good thinking.

The mistake was not taking the surplus money out of the government's hands. It should have been put into CD's, investment grade corporate bonds, insurance fixed accounts.

By putting the money in the government, you assured that it would be spent, and then it wouldn't be there when it will be needed 30-40 years later.

[karynnj]

47. I completely agree

not doing that traded a regressive tax increase with cuts in a progressive tax.

[durrrty libby]

3. Bill is right on. Only fools will deny

[dkf]

4. So true.

[HughMoran]

6. He didn't?

What kind of statement is "didn't do much to change the downward trajectory" anyway? Sounds kinda "I'm gonna say this 'cause it helps me make my point". Anyway, your opinion is fine but I can use actual arguments pertaining to Hillary when I discuss her candidacy. Not sure what talking about Bill and this whole discomfort with family names is all about - they are not even blood related.

[Djinn]

8. so what

John Howard ALWAYS presided over budget surpluses, he was still a reactionary arsehole who used dog whistle attacks against Asians, gay people, indigenous people, Muslims, refugees, single parents, anyone on welfare etc etc etc

Seems like half of DU would have happily voted for him though...hey surplus.

If I sell my home to pay off my gas bill I will also be in surplus - few people would consider it a wise economic move

[ginchinchili]

9. I think you're confusing "downward trajectory" with budget deficit.

I said I like Bill Clinton. Eliminating the budget deficit is one of the reasons. But he did little to prevent America from continuing to be the world's biggest emitter of greenhouse gases. He did little to wean us off of foreign oil and on to alternative energy sources. He did little to end corruption in our government. He did little to encourage Americans to be more than the sum of their wealth, i.e., less consumer driven and materialistic. He did little to improve our education system. He did little to bring down the cost of prescription drugs. He did little to improve our health care system (tried but failed). But he did manage to bring down crime in our nation. Oh yeah, that was in large part due to the Biden crime bill. He did little to...

[HughMoran]

10. The chart was a distraction - and hindsight is 20:20

Yes, he could have done more, but we the people could have pushed him to do more as well. The urgency of many of the issues you mention has risen considerably since Bill's very successful Presidency.

[silverojo]

14. Whoa, back up!

Apparently you don't remember the early 1990's trend of scaling down and living more simply. Heck, it was even referred to in an Archie comic, when Veronica traded in her expensive car for an economy-sized one, LOL.

That was during the Clinton years, my friend.

[ginchinchili]

21. I must admit, that's pretty compelling evidence.

An Archie comic.

[karynnj]

23. I thing that was the Carter years, the Clinton years had the increase in SUVs

By the Clinton years, oil was plentiful and we did little to deal with global warming. (In 2006, Kerry used a Churhill phrase to describe the years after the RIO agreement till the present- "the years the locust ate". The effective mileage that cars got when down when you include SUVs that for CAFE purposes were counted as trucks.)

Part of the charm of the 1990s was that it was not a period like Carter's years where austerity was promoted - much the opposite, Carter was mocked for having been almost out of the American belief that you can have everything.

[ginchinchili]

39. Thank you. You seem to understand what I'm getting at.

I'm not saying Clinton was a bad president, but he wasn't a great president. There were a lot of squandered opportunities on some very important issues. I don't put this all on Bill Clinton, but I do think that many of the issues that I mentioned above (post #9) were ignored because of Bill's "It's the economy, stupid" mantra. There were certainly upsides to that, like balancing the budget, but he played a part in perpetrating the current American obsession with money, the belief that money is the panacea for all our problems. As important as money is, that belief is toxic in the long term.

Expect Hillary to be very similar to her husband, just not as gifted. I think we need a stronger kick in the seat of the pants.

[1corona4u]

11. I don't think she meant fiscally....

;-)

[HughMoran]

26. I don't think anyone realized that I wrote text below the pic

..and that it was simply eye-candy. I didn't mean it that way - apparently nobody read what I was actually saying.

Oh, well :D The "what she was saying" had no particular evidence associated with it anyway, so it left open the possibilities.

[sandnsea]

13. Bush gave it all to the rich

Because Bill didn't tell the truth about FICA, so what good did it do working people.

[slipslidingaway]

37. This must include the One Trillion in surplus Social Security

payments made while Clinton was in office and transferred to the general budget. Is that correct?

[regnaD kciN]

15. Agreed...although progressives may not like it...

...Clinton's two major "achievements" were the passage of NAFTA and the signing of a Republican-authored welfare "reform" bill that essentially enshrined Social Darwinism as the economic/social foundation of this country. And you could also probably include the Defense of Marriage Act as well.

By failing to take a strong stand for liberal values, (and thus proving they worked while conservatism didn't), Bill unwittingly reinforced the meme that "there's no real difference between the two parties, anyway"...a belief that people learned wasn't the case only too late. :-(

[Perry Logan]

16. I think this election will be very different. Americans are totally repulsed by the Republicans.

[earthlover]

17. The Clinton years were terrible for democrats....

Democrats lost in the House, the Senate, in governorships and in state assemblies. Worst of all, we lost the presidency when Gore had to distance himself from Bill's errant penis in what should have been an easy landslide defending peace and prosperity.

Sorry, but we as a party have been on the defensive ever since.

[Perry Logan]

18. The neocon theft machine got into full swing at about that time. Not Bill's fault.

He was tied with FDR as most popular President of the 20th century, so it's a little hard hard top pin the Congressional losses on him. But your reasoning would please a Republican.

[earthlover]

35. Don't shoot the messenger!

It is simply an observation and a statement of FACT that Democrats lost seats in both houses of Congress, lost majorities in both houses of Congress, lost governorships, and state legislatures as well as the presidency during the Clinton years. How do you argue with facts? They are not debatable! This is what happened.

So I repeat, the Clinton years were not good for Democrats.

Get it, yet?

I sure hope we don't see a similar performance if Hillary gets elected.

[Onlooker]

19. Clinton was quite good

The reason he's well respected in the black community was that he focused on economic issues, and created a lot of jobs and a more equal playing field. His big mistake was that he was a true outsider and surrounded himself with outsiders. The Dem establishment at him alive, and created a climate for Repubs to win Congress, after which Clinton surrounded himself with insiders who knew how to play the cynical game.

Clinton's foreign policy was the most progressive in decades, and his national policy was mostly corporate Democrat, but at least it was Democrat, and he did raise taxes on the rich.

[ginchinchili]

41. Good post. I agree.

[rAVES]

24. He was very likable.

[Armstead]

25. The 90's were the 80's on steriods

People often conveniently forget that Reagan presided over the same kind of "economic boom" that Clinton did.

And the charactyeristics were the same too. The country's economy went upward dramatically upward in terms of some measurements and the creation of wealth among the Corporate Sector and Wall St. and some segments of the upper class, but the fundamentals for average people and the poor in the real world were sliding downward.

This was followed by a bust.

Cl;nton didn't ultimately do much more the Reagan to address the underlying decline that was occurring beneath the shiny surface.

[Orangepeel]

28. it wasn't the same kind of boom

The Reagan era boom was built on deficits and the Clinton era boom was built on balancing the budget, which reduced government borrowing, lowered interest rates and spurred economic investment.

Reagan charged his boom on the country's credit card and Clinton paid it off.

[Armstead]

30. Some difference in policies but both were based on bubbles

I won't argue that in terms of some of the nuts and bolts , the two decades were different. And Clinton was not a Reagan. But he was a milder version of the same Markets as God mentality.

However, both were basically following the same pattern in which an exaggerated version of normal business cycles mixed with corporate propaganda created a shiny happy surface on top of very destructive underlying trends.

Reagan benefitted from an improvement over the stagnant malaise of the 70's, and booms in investment markets and real estate. Clinton benefitted from the recovery of financial markets after a recession, combined with a sudden explosion of the Tech Sector. This generated revenues which eventually allowed a surplus to form.

However, just as in the 80's, these booms were based on a House of Cards. They also masked an underlying restructuring of the economy to favor concentrations of welath and power, while the position of the majority of average people and the poor were being eroded.

[Yupster]

32. Main thing that fed the Clinton boom

was the tech revolution.

Do you remember back then?

The Republicans were trying to puch Clinton to balance the budget in 4 years and he was holding out for 7 years, and then each quarter they'd announce the new defecit figures and the projected defecit would be down by another 40 billion dollars even though congress hadn't done a thing since the last projection? The treasury was reaping incredible amounts of extra taxes they weren't expection coming from capital gains from tech stocks that were sold for ridiculous profits. JDSU went from $ 1 a share to $ 120 a share. Sae with INTC and many others. When you sold those stocks you sent a giant check to the government and the government was getting hundreds of thousands of surprises like that every quarter.

Meanwhile the congress and president argued over whether to balance the budget in 4 or 7 years and it happened in 2-3.

PS - The opposite also happens and hurts. When the tech boom went bust, the government stopped getting those extra capital gains tax checks and instead investors got to write off their capital losses so the government got a lot less money than it anticipated. I lost $ 3,000 when ENRON went down. (I bought a bit when it went below $ 1 a share). I could write off my stupidity as a tax loss and that cost the government $ 500 in tax revenues I didn't have to pay them. And I was just a tiny dabbler.

A sure fire way to pay off the defecit by the way would be to announce you're raising the capital gains tax on stocks to 40 %. That would cause all the people who have highly appreciated stocks to sell them before the increase went into effect and the treasury would be drowning in tax dollars. There are an awful lot of people out there with huge gains in the stocks they currently hold - especially oil stocks.

[Orangepeel]

33. chicken and egg

a balanced budget and the resulting reduction in government competition to borrow (along with an increase in government investment in technology) helped fuel the tech boom. The relative prosperity during the Clinton years was due in part to luck and timing, but it was also the result of having a competent president.

[Armstead]

40. Plus a lot of insane speculation

[karynnj]

42. nice description

:)

[BeyondGeography]

31. Ideologically speaking, Clinton had to play defense

The country was skeptical about government and drunk on the ability of the private sector to solve virtually all of its problems. So they had to make a big deal about downsizing government, privatization, welfare reform and announcing that the era of Big Government was over, just to keep independent voters in the fold.

We're in a different place now. A more assertive government is needed and the balance of power between the public and private sectors needs to be redressed. His wife doesn't see the possibilities, and neither does he. Clinton was politically right for his time, but that time has passed. Time for government to play offense again on behalf of the people. They're ready for it. Until we move forward, we're still playing Reagan's game.

[Rowdyboy]

43. I refuse to oppose senator Clinton because of her last name....we all deserve better....