Naturally, when Clinton was in the White House, the GOP controlled Congress actually cared about fiscal discipline.
Printable View
Naturally, when Clinton was in the White House, the GOP controlled Congress actually cared about fiscal discipline.
I see no reason why this should be true. What about the Austrians?Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
The theory of credit cycles does seem to explain the biggest busts of the last century. Isn't there a danger that keynesian spending just inflates the next bubble?
And Keynes' prescription was for an economy that had been mired in depression for years. Nowadays it's used as justification for various policies even when the economy is actually growing.
Lest we bother to think about the asymmetric monetary policy prescriptions used by our central bank.
You were the one who brought up inflation in 1980. I don't really take issue with your take on the Clinton surplus, except that, if it were possible to return to the *phony* situation of surplus under him, I would do it in a heartbeat.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Changing the argument now, are we?Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
The reason the percentage decreased is because we had a growing economy. Had democrats been in charge of congress, I'm sure they would have found ways to keep the percentages high as well!
You should ask, with a growing economy, why did we still have deficit spending? We were not at war either. Congress and the president should have paid down the debt. Not increase it farther.
Back to our original argument.
Did the debt ever decrease under president Clinton?
Debt and deficit, though related, are not the same thing. You're derailing the conversation, WC.
Please focus.
The Clinton administration of 1995-2001 was more conservative than the Bush one of, oh, 2001-2009.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
I too, share your nostalgia for that time period, for at least then Republican conservatism did include a concern for fiscal discipline and avoiding foreign entanglements.
I only brought that up for a short response to Marcus' posting the quadrupling of debt over 12 years during the Reagan/Bush years, in case he didn't know the truth. It has nothing to do with the current administration, or the argument concerning president Clinton. It responded to show what can happen of we get high inflation again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
If not, it'll go down the collective memory hole as we try it again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
1) President Clinton had republicans in control of congress for six of his eight years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant
2) We were at peace and had a growing economy as everyone prepared for Y2K.
3) 9/11 occured during president Bush's first year. It stalled the economy momentarily, we prepared for war, and we went to war.
I would say we can safely assume president Clinton was in the right place at the right time. President Bush was unlucky.
You blame the growth of debt on Carter and high inflation, rather than the growth of spending, government and debt under Reagan. How telling.
He was a Keynesian until the 50's, when he then changed his mind and proposed the word you used earlier (stagflation) to depict the use of the Keynes consumption function. He claimed the Great Depression could have been avoided entirely by applying monetary policy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant
He was against government regulation of pretty much any kind.
The reason it declined is because you had a Congress who cared enough about fiscal discipline as well as an opportunistic president ready to sell out his own party.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Of course, it was derailed once you had a new 'conservative' president who was ready to sell out his own party and force the Congress to forget about fiscal discipline.
He said the Great Depression could have been avoided had the Fed actually acted as the lender of last resort. Sure, he opposed regulation in most other areas, but he certainly did not approve of excessive monetary growth and deficit spending as you so attached to him.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
Not true. There is no one thing. Are you single minded? Cannot see there are generally multiple causes?Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
This deserves it's own thread. I'm done talking about president Reagan here. Besides, I'm getting off for now. Have to wait for any farther responses later today, or tomorrow.
But... I will ignore it if it's in this thread!
Back to my question:Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant
Did the debt ever decrease under president Clinton?
What part of the graph you don't understand? I see it clearly shaping down during the Clinton years. That effectively means he did paid down debt, otherwise it wouldn't go down.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
By all means, suit yourself, WC.Quote:
But... I will ignore it if it's in this thread!
Where did I claim that? I pointed that his unregulated free market policies is what brought us here in the first place. That's all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant
Yeah. Actual Republicans who wanted to reduce the scale and scope of the federal government and who weren't for preventative wars.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Yet the GOP found time to oppose Clinton's Balkan adventure.Quote:
2) We were at peace and had a growing economy as everyone prepared for Y2K.
ROFL. Bush doubled down on his unlucky hand and now conservatives will be paying the price for a while. Not to mention that Bush not just diverged from conservatism, he doused it with gasoline and lit it.Quote:
3) 9/11 occured during president Bush's first year. It stalled the economy momentarily, we prepared for war, and we went to war.
I would say we can safely assume president Clinton was in the right place at the right time. President Bush was unlucky.
Rove decided that economic and fiscal conservatism did not sell. He though the path to a permanent GOP majority was to roll with the social conservatives and the neo-progressive militarist 'national security conservatives'. That permanent majority lasted all of about 3 years.
WTF...Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
I never said it didn't decrease as a percentage.
I would go into more detail about how fucking stupid you are becoming, but I don't have time.
My argument was about the increasing debt, period. Real dollars. That even though a budget said we had a surplus we didn't.
Did the debt, in dollars, ever decrease under president Clinton?
If that answer is NO, then there was no real surplus! Get it?
I'm talking about raw millions of dollars adjusted for inflation. There's no percentage there. Again, can you read a graph?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
The problem is, that's not what caused the current problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
Who cares? Did it grow at a rate anywhere close to what it did from 2001-2006?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Let's see your revisionist history of what caused this recession. I'm all ears.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant