... is Bill Clinton responsible for the current "economic growth"?

Question

... it's often said by Republicans that Clinton's economic boom was a result of actions taken during the Reagan admin. and that economic policy takes years to produce an effect...

so is the "economic boom" of today that Republicans talk about a result of Clinton's policies?

another queston: Was Jimmy Carter's economic woes a result of Nixon's/Ford's incompetence?

Just wondering?

now before everyone tells me "I need a lesson in economics"... I'm just following through some Republican logic to see what everyone things about it...

I didn't say I believed it... I'm just saying Republicans say "a+b=c" for one president... then that should hold true for every president

Answer 1

No,

the numbers don't tell the whole picture.

The funniest thing about the numbers they use is they are magic.

for example....one set of scary numbers will be used to justify social security privatization

at the same time they will use happy numbers to justify tax cuts.

they live in alternet paralle realities.

Bush is bankrupting this country.....at what point do we owe more than the country generates in fedearal taxes.

the story of the current economic situation is another and longer story....but no.

I feel that enron was the canary in the cole mine.
and that the reality of the stock market crashing is very very real.

Answer 2

Wonder no more, because I know the answer.

(I lived it).

The economy in America was high with inflation during the 1970"s. Although there were more people unemployed per capita than now, those that had jobs were paid decent wages.

The new economy that started with the election of Ronald Reagan was about cutting jobs and keeping wages and other business expenses low by favoring supply over demand.

Inflation slowly went away as the American economy was looking to expand all over the world.

Businesses began copying each other, by buying out competiton and downsizing through elimination of overlapping jobs and other related expenses. For awhile, Japan was dominating in business expansion, but that economy ran out of steam in the early 1990's (hasn't come back until two years ago)

Jimmy Carter inherited an economy with high inflation, and Bill Clinton's focus was on balancing the huge American Budget and cutting deficits. Why does Bush do the opposite, is beyond me.

The American economy was strong at the mid to end of the 1990's, but there are signs of impending economic instability on the horizon due to higher and higher energy costs (which is inflationary), higher interest rates to ward off inflation...and the various skirmishes and fears that hold the stock market hostage.

Answer 3

Oh, give me a break. It's been more than five years since Clinton left office. Clinton's policies don't have a lot to do with the economy now. And, the economy is not performing as well as the Republicans would have us believe. Bushies manipulate the figure, delete certain statistics, omit very pertinent details. For example, they will talk about jobs growth, but neglect to say that fewer jobs are being created in recent years than were created during Clinton's administration. They will overestimate budget shortfalls, under estimate future tax collections, all deliberately, then they will crow about how the economy is performing better than expected, how tax cuts are working to stimulate the economy and increase revenues. You will often hear this, that the economy is performing "better than expected"This is because dishonestly low predictions were made.

Answer 4

all of us understand that each and each subject interior the international is the fault of the lord of lies and the grasp of deception: William Jefferson Clinton. Take 9/11, case in point - now, a lot of human beings say that the present administration replaced into too inept to examine their protection briefings, briefings with titles like "Al Qaeda desperate to strike in US" and "Osama Bin laden is status suitable at the back of you." What the LIBERAL MEDIA would not inform you although, is that Clinton replaced into sneaking around the White domicile hiding those briefings from the righteous conservative Christian human beings interior the Bush administration. comparable factor with the financial disaster. as quickly as back here, the communist press talks approximately "systemic threat," "unbridled hypothesis," "extreme leverage," and different liberal nonsense. despite the fact that, all of us understand greater helpful. The non-Obamabots (hehehehe!) accessible understand finished nicely that's all crap and that unfettered capitalism is nice in each and every way. they are in elementary terms overlaying for a great-secret socialist time table by utilising attempting to persuade us - utilising, as liberals oftentimes do, so-referred to as "information," that have a nicely-primary liberal bias - that it wasn't in elementary terms some undesirable black human beings no longer able to pay their CRA-regulated mortgages that led to huge companies like Lehman and AIG going below, triggering a international-extensive financial implosion. In seriousness, whilst Clinton does undergo a pair duty for this mess as a results of his signing of the Commodities Futures Modernization Act - which presented unregulated credit default swaps and financial derivatives - he bears perhaps 5% of the completed blame. For the administrative branch, it extremely is regularly on Bush, and for that rely, Reagan in the previous Clinton.

Answer 5

You need a lesson or 10 in Economics.

Q1: NO.
Q2: NO

Answer 6

NO. CLINTON WAS A HORRIBLE PRESIDENT WHO SOLD OUT AMERICA FOR SOME LOVING FROM A FAT INTERN.

Answer 7

Not sure.