Our budget is broken: Clinton

Much was smoke and mirrors. Besides, Frank and others in the Clinton era were laying the groundwork for the Fannie / Freddie problems.

Here are the annual budget deficits during the Clinton's 2nd term as reported by the U.S. Treasury. Note: there are NO surpluses.

Fiscal
Year YearEnding National Debt Deficit
FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion
FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion
FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion
FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion
FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion
FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion
FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion
FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion


Quote from tradingjournals:

Were the economic numbers also lies? 8 years later, and there are still people who not understand it even in hindsight.
More...
 
THE BUDGET STRUGGLE; CLINTON WINS APPROVAL OF HIS BUDGET PLAN AS GORE VOTES TO BREAK SENATE DEADLOCK

With Vice President Al Gore casting the tie-breaking vote, the Senate gave final Congressional approval tonight to President Clinton's five-year economic program.

This means that the budget plan, the most important legislative issue of the Clinton Presidency so far, cleared Congress by the narrowest possible margin and awaits only the President's signature before becoming law. Enactment of the legislation was viewed at the White House as essential to Mr. Clinton's ultimate success as President.

George J. Mitchell of Maine, the Democratic leader, declared: "The American people want change. They voted for change last year. And tonight we're going to deliver change. President Clinton has given us a fair plan. I say it's fair to give him a chance."

But Senator Pete V. Domenici of New Mexico, the top Republican on the Budget Committee, said the increased taxes in the program would devastate the economy. Senator Bob Dole of Kansas, the Republican leader, said the main flaw in the plan was that the tax increases would be retroactive to the first of this year, while most of the spending cuts would occur after the next election.

In the House Thursday, every Republican voted against the economic plan, and all Republican senators had announced their opposition before the Senate debate began.

"To retroactively impose taxes on the living and the dead back to Jan. 1, 1993, is the height of unfairness," said John McCain of Arizona. "It establishes a precedent that ought to frighten every American."

--------

Republican buffoonery circa 1993. And to see the Party of the Dumb supporters on here try and claim it was their buffoons that made the difference, hah!

The 2000-2008 era was typical Party of the Dumb; corporate socialism in bailing out the big banks, creating a bogus war in Iraq and Afghanistan to enrich their corporate ties and then cutting taxes for the rich.
 
Managing the economy of a country, I think, is not too different from trade management we do. Simple is good. Complicated (in a vast majority of time) is bad. I personally like Bill Clinton a lot. But we do not need to do all the complicated things we are doing if we get simple stuff right, like NOT kicking out a $600 million export order with 1000 domestic jobs flushed down the toilet. I like green energy. But what is the point in doing this? Now the Chinese will sell Reliance that we refused to sell them. Someone tell me how that would reduce emissions? It will probably be inferior technology and would emit more greenhouse gases than if we built it.

Politicians, backed by stupid us would burn the country to the ground. It does not matter dems or repubs. Dems: unions screw us, Repubs: Investment bankers & halliburton screw us - it's all the same. We are fucked, that is for sure :mad:. Everyone look out for themselves!
 
It's always, always the same BS.
He's raising taxes! The economy's going to tank! Oh nooeess!!!

Meantime, back in the real world, the economy consistently does better under Dems, and so does the actual, real world performance of the budget.
Incompetence was defined by the Bush presidency. We're not even two years into Obama yet. At this time under Reagan, unemployment was still soaring, and he inherited a situation that was objectively bad but not as bad as what Obama inherited.
At this point, ex the seasonal factors, employment is growing. You'd never know it from this place.
Under Reagan, it took until August '82 for the stock market to turn around. Unless we get the fabled double-dip, whose existence is as touted as the Sasquatch, if not more, Obama will have done him better by nearly a year and a half.
 
You're an idiot. But you already know that.

The Nasdaq broke 50% during Clinton's last 10 months in office but of course, ONLY OBAMA inherited an imploding economy. Average, two term, unemployment rates between Clinton and Bush were almost identical (low 5's)

How, if the market was to "turn around", would Obama be eclipsing the Reagan market by a year and a half? The Reagan rally started 20 months after he was inaugurated. Obama is now entering his 18th month.

If you think global investors are stoked by an administration that's running projected deficits over twice those of Bush, penalizing businesses with expensive to enact health care legislation, cap in trade and proposed across the board tax hikes, then you're as stupid, socialist-left and anti-freedom as you appear. It's people like you who are dooming America to shithole, third world status.


Quote from trefoil:

It's always, always the same BS.
He's raising taxes! The economy's going to tank! Oh nooeess!!!

Meantime, back in the real world, the economy consistently does better under Dems, and so does the actual, real world performance of the budget.
Incompetence was defined by the Bush presidency. We're not even two years into Obama yet. At this time under Reagan, unemployment was still soaring, and he inherited a situation that was objectively bad but not as bad as what Obama inherited.
At this point, ex the seasonal factors, employment is growing. You'd never know it from this place.
Under Reagan, it took until August '82 for the stock market to turn around. Unless we get the fabled double-dip, whose existence is as touted as the Sasquatch, if not more, Obama will have done him better by nearly a year and a half.
More...
 
Quote from HelloDollar:

You're an idiot. But you already know that.

The Nasdaq broke 50% during Clinton's last 10 months in office but of course, ONLY OBAMA inherited an imploding economy. Average, two term, unemployment rates between Clinton and Bush were almost identical (low 5's)

How, if the market was to "turn around", would Obama be eclipsing the Reagan market by a year and a half? The Reagan rally started 20 months after he was inaugurated. Obama is now entering his 18th month.

If you think global investors are stoked by an administration that's running projected deficits over twice those of Bush, penalizing businesses with expensive to enact health care legislation, cap in trade and proposed across the board tax hikes, then you're as stupid, socialist-left and anti-freedom as you appear. It's people like you who are dooming America to shithole, third world status.
More...


Sorry, Trefoil. If the shoe fits wear it.
 
Quote from HelloDollar:

You're an idiot. But you already know that.

The Nasdaq broke 50% during Clinton's last 10 months in office but of course, ONLY OBAMA inherited an imploding economy. Average, two term, unemployment rates between Clinton and Bush were almost identical (low 5's)

How, if the market was to "turn around", would Obama be eclipsing the Reagan market by a year and a half? The Reagan rally started 20 months after he was inaugurated. Obama is now entering his 18th month.

If you think global investors are stoked by an administration that's running projected deficits over twice those of Bush, penalizing businesses with expensive to enact health care legislation, cap in trade and proposed across the board tax hikes, then you're as stupid, socialist-left and anti-freedom as you appear. It's people like you who are dooming America to shithole, third world status.
More...

The market started to come back in March 2009. I'm not responsible for the fact your returns from that time until now suck.
Yes, the Naz started to tank the last year Clinton was in office. Big deal. Bush wasn't the first, and won't be the last, to take office while the market is going down. Odds would say that happens 50% of the time, no?
Next: averages for unemployment, when the rate is already an average. Wow.
Bush II's performance, re jobs, was the worst in the modern series, which only goes back to the late forties, but I think being worse than anyone in more than half a century is bad enough.
As for the rest, you can't eat or pay rent with your ideological viewpoint. Objectively, Dems do better than Reps when it comes to the economy. Period, the end.
 
wow, so you think the Dems are better for the economy, they have already wrecked Michigan, Illinois and California, the 3 permanent Blue states. Then look at Texas, the best economy of the entire country, the permanent Republican state.

You must be on the government payroll, errr, I mean tax payers payroll.

Quote from trefoil:

It's always, always the same BS.
He's raising taxes! The economy's going to tank! Oh nooeess!!!

Meantime, back in the real world, the economy consistently does better under Dems, and so does the actual, real world performance of the budget.
Incompetence was defined by the Bush presidency. We're not even two years into Obama yet. At this time under Reagan, unemployment was still soaring, and he inherited a situation that was objectively bad but not as bad as what Obama inherited.
At this point, ex the seasonal factors, employment is growing. You'd never know it from this place.
Under Reagan, it took until August '82 for the stock market to turn around. Unless we get the fabled double-dip, whose existence is as touted as the Sasquatch, if not more, Obama will have done him better by nearly a year and a half.
More...
 
Don't change the subject. What we were talking about was the national economy. Local budgets and what happens to them are a function of what happens nationally.
I see you have no answer to whether

a) the market has in fact turned around since March 2009, and
b) unemployment has done better in these first couple of years under Obama than they did under Reagan at this exact time in each of their terms, and
c) on average, the economy has done better under Democratic Presidents than under Republican presidents.

If all you have is hot air, I'm not interested.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top