Is corporate tax breaks and double inflation a better deal then Clinton's economy?

Question

Come on, the answer is no. The Bush administration has just over printed money America doesn't have. The inflation proves it isn't working.

Answer 1

Absolutely not.

Answer 2

If you're already rich and want to get richer (at the expense of just about everybody else but the top 1-2% of the population), then by all means stay with Bush & the Republicans' policies of tax breaks for the super-wealthy, and low capital-gains and inheritance taxes.

If you put all your money into Euros and gold, you might even be able to survive the coming collapse of the US economy due to the mortgaging of this country's future to Chinese banks thanks to the enormous deficits run up by Bush and the Republican Congress.

In "Clinton's economy," as you put it, there were enormous SUPLUSES: the US was abole to BUY BACK its obligations from overseas interests (the Chinese bankers), we were paying lower interest in servicing the national debt (a debt run up mainly by Ronald Reagan) and your money was worth more. And, as you say, the rate of inflation was much lower.

So, it depends on what you really, really WANT from an economy -- a good return on your investments, stability and a degree of economic fairness to the middle class and the poor...or a huge return on those investments, the specter of national economic collapse hanging over your head, and the poor and middle class being squeezed to pay for your profits, with all the lower life expectancy (health care costs largely paid for by your tax dollars) and crime that brings.

Oh, yes: during Clinton's terms in office, we were at peace, the environment was being protected, ideologues wen't being appointed to the federal judiciary, American citizens weren't being spied upon by the federal government, the US wasn't running a Soviet-style Gulag of prison camps around the world where torture is an accepted practice, this country still had some friends in the world, and gasoline cost an average of $1.35/gallon.

Answer 3

Presidential influence on economic performance is overstated. About the only area of significant economic policy difference between presidents in the two decades has been the issue of tax cuts. This is the one measure that can be directly linked to presidential policy. There is no doubt that tax cuts do stimulate the economy and generate even more tax revenue.The congress on the other hand has a profound effective on economic performance as it has the largest impact on spending and deficit management. The fed through its management of the money supply also has a greater effect than the presidents.

Answer 4

Under Clinton the average inflation was about 2.4% per year.

Under Bush it's been about 1.5% per year for the first five years.

So, I guess it's Bills bills you should be complaining about.

Sorry to get in the way of the usual drivel for people who went to public school.

Answer 5

The president has little or no control over congressional spending. The presidency is one of the most over-rated jobs in the US. The president is more like a carnival huckster than a manager or performer.

Answer 6

Our economy mainly depends on consumer spending, not Clinton. Alan Greenspan has more bearing on the economy than any of our presidents.

Answer 7

Of course. Clinton got lucky. Bush actually had a challenge with the economy, and thanks to his plans, unemployment is at an all time low, despite immigration.

Answer 8

Considering that Clinton sent our jobs to Mexico and gave our market to China, yes.

Answer 9

Against my better Judgement I Re-answered your other question with Detail

Answer 10

Only if you're stupid! That's why the republicans & bush think it's working well!

Answer 11

unemployment low right now? Are u a dumbass D12. send your propganda elsewhere.