Is it fair to assume that the "great"economy under Clinton was overstated?

Question

Enron, Cisco, etc. One could make a connection that the over-inflated stock market, scandelous companies were part of the "oh so great" economy under Clinton. If many major co.'s stocks are over valued, they were probably hiring more people, therefore indicating a lower unemployment rate as well as driving up the stock market. All fabricated & unrealistic & so like Democrats!! Wouldn't you rather live in a moderate economy than one that's a bubble that iminantly has to burst!!

I'm simply making an observation of what many Democrats & Libs tout on here constantly. That Clinton ws some brain child behind the economy when more likely it was all hot air!!

Answer 1

he got lucky.

He presided over the internet boom and of course the BUST.

But hey he ate Big Macs like a champ

Answer 2

It is not a fair assumption. The economy during the Clinton era was great and not just for the blue chips. It was a time when all businesses flourished. This great time of prosperity was not the doing of Clinton, however. He simply had the fortune of presiding over it. The real person most responsible for that era of prosperity was Ronald Reagan.
Prosperity has more to do with people's sense of the future than any government economic policy. In the 1980s, Reagan spent billions on new weapons. These new weapons rendered every weapon in the Soviet arsenal obsolete. The Soviets went bankrupt in an arms race trying to keep up.
The first President Bush unveiled these weapons in the first Gulf war. The performance of these weapons amazed the world and showed that the USA had the finest weapons on the planet. As a result, Americans were at ease for the first time since the early 1950s. This great sense of security led to the prosperity in the 1990s. Althought Clinton wasn't responsible for the times, he did use the tax revenue generated during the expansion wisely. He paid off a ton of national debt. Lucky for us too, as we would not have had the means today to sustain any military conflict.
Just as Clinton wasn't responsible for the 1990s prosperity, the present President Bush is not responsible for our current economic woes. Our sense of security came crashing down with the World Trade Towers. All our great weapons are doing us no good with this new enemy we face. Our troubles are not because of Bush. He's simply the poor guy who's presiding over it.

Answer 3

Oh, yes, definitely!

I'll take being nine-trillion dollars in debt to the Red Chinese over a half-trillion dollar surplus any day! Who wouldn't?

I guess nobody has to go crazy deciding if you're a real blonde.

Thanks for the two.

Let's have a vote, no Diebold today, thank you very much. Everybody that would rather be on the Titanic with George take one giant step back.

Oh, that's right. Our butts are up against the wall now. We're farther back than we've ever been, at least until tomorrow.

I'm no democrat, but imagine what Wild Bill could have done if Poppa Bush and Ronnie RayGun hadn't left him a trillion in debt, also to the Red Chinese.

It's hilarious that when Bubba paid it back the NeoCons all called him a back-door commie for dealing with the Reds.

It's obviously better in NeoSpeak to be a front-door Commie like SOME people. Like father, like son.

There hasn't been anybody in charge but NeoCons for two years now, and for almost all of the last six. It's pathetic that they have no straw dogs left, so they still have to whup on Wild Bill's ghost until November.

I think they're secretly glad they're going to lose so they can blame that two-to-one democrat majority for this last Hellish six years:

"Oh, thank God! I was almost making MYSELF puke still blaming Clinton! The cavalry has arrived!"

It's just a shame that we independents have no chance to straighten this mess out. The democrats might not have enough sense to fix any of the leaks, but at least they have enough competence to not drill nine-trillion more holes in the boat's hull to let the water run out.

Answer 4

"Is it fair to assume that the "great"economy under Clinton was overstated?"

No.
The economy is what it is regardless of what fuels it. While the stock market was in a bubble that led to the wealth effect that propelled the great spending that kept fueling the stock bubble of the 90's, that does not mean that the wealth generated and national debt paid down were any less real. By the same token today's economy is in shambles, we don't feel the effects because we (our government) are borrowing tremendous amounts of cash to pay for the shortfalls, the state in which we (the USA) has been living in for the last 5 years is akin to a man making 40K a year and charging another 40K to credit cards, yes of course it will feel like we are living standard of somebody that makes 80K because we are spending at that level, but someday the credit will end and we will have to pay what has been borrowed plus the interest. What we are doing today is borrow even more to pay debt and interest. During the 90's the US was living in a situation akin to a man that makes 40K a year with one full time job, taking another full time job that paid another 40K and living the life standard of somebody that made 80K a year and we were paying down the debt taken by previous administrations while living at standards never seen before. Of course no man can have two full time jobs forever, eventually that would have to end and go back to a single job (the equivalent of the bubble deflating) but in the process we enjoyed higher living standards, wealth was generated and debt paid down. With today's model we dig ourselves deeper and deeper in financial hole.

This is not a moderate economy, it is a subsidized economy, subsidized by international debt. The national debt has DOUBLE in five years, it took 225 years to reach 4 trillion dollars, but in only four years this administration borrowed 4.5 trillion more! In who's mind is that a stable economy?

Answer 5

Part of what you write is true. However, I think that a certain percent of the robust economy was realized in spite of Clinton. Programs initiated by the Republican Congress often brought prosperity when initially they were to be vetoed by Clinton.

In summary, the Clinton economy was not totally Clinton's. Some was fabricated and some was developed by Congress under Clinton's watch.

TX Guy

Answer 6

President Clinton was an embarassment to our nations history and always will be viewed as such by the majority of scholars.With that fact set aside its fair to assume that he did very little to actually improve our country financially, This is directly evidenced by our gross national debt. He did not get any of it paid back, but furthered the problem.Unfortunately war has the same effect but lives are more important than money, which was one of Bushes key descisions. Had Clinton protected the country of Iraq during his term instead of being a corporate whore, 911 may not have occured.And we may have gotten back on the road again to debt free sooner.

Answer 7

Oh yes it is. Bush senior did all the work for that, he came in a took over. That is like having it handed to you on a silver platter. Did you also notice that the last two years he was in office the economy got way worse little by little, then of course Bush Jr. had to take over that crap. I have said it many times, and I will say it again. Democrats and Liberals should all be banished to a Island were they will not affect the rest of the sain world.

Answer 8

I think it is unfair to blame any president for the illegal actions of the C.E.O.s of companies such as enron, but I definitely think that giving Clinton credit for the good economy is a mistake. I think the economy under Clinton was more a result of decisions made by Reagan during his presidency.

Answer 9

I agree with you 100%. Anyone that cares to check the record knows that Clinton's administration inflated the numbers to make it look like the economy was doing well. He caused the recession that Bush inherited. He caused 911 by being the pacifist, spineless coward that he is.

The dems screw it all up, the media hypes it all up to promote them, the Rep come in a clean it up, the media then does their best to smear them until the uninformed public votes them out again, and we start all over.

I wonder how many cycles we could find througout history if we checked. Dems screwing it up, Reps cleaning it up and then the Dems riding on their coat tails until they screw it all up again.

How does anyone with a brain in their head follow the Dems of today. The Dems leadership has gone so far left they sound like lunatics. Gore ranting like a raving lunatic, Dean making racist comments, Kerry flip flopping every chance he gets, Kennedy sleeping in a druncken stupor during debates (not to mention drowning women in his car and leaving them till morning while he sleeps it off), Hillary talking down to her constituents and changing her mind every chance she gets, Jessie Jackson keeping a mistress and a wife and living like a king on tax deferred contributions to the Rainbow Coalition, ....I could go on and on. I can't believe dems stay in the party and proudly support such idiots.

Clinton sold nuclear technology to the Chinese and the N Koreans. We are now paying for that one. He appeased the terrorists. Wouldn't take Osama when he was handed to us on a silver platter twice. (there is 911) He destroyed the respect of his office and made the whole world more cynical than it was. He lied under oath and further destroyed the judicial system...why should anyone tell the truth under oath, he stole anything that wasn't nailed down off of Air Force One even the things that didn't have his initials on them that could have been reused, he spent more tax payers money on trips with his family all over the world than any other sitting president, he took a bunch of stuff from the White House for his own personal library (who knows if he ever returned any of it), he picked the most expensive office location he could for the taxpayers to pay for after he left office,...Look up the man's record. If you are depending on the media for your information that's why you are still a democrat and still respect the Biggest Low Life WE Ever Had For A President.

Answer 10

No because if you notice that as soon as Bill left our surplus went to a huge deficit and our economy has gone to s hit...our dollar is worth way less and our nation isn't as safe as it was and we are not well respected anywhere else...it is obvious that Bill Clinton was the best and George W. Retard is the worst President of all time...just look at the country it is not hard to see

Answer 11

Greenspan asserted that self-renovation keeps markets in examine and there changed into no favor to regulate the markets. Greenspan has in view that regarded that he changed into flawed. Human greed, the banks giving out loans devoid of checking the means to pay and a lack of problem-free experience by using persons is what led to the crumple. It now glaring that Karl Marx turned right into a minimum of partly excellent in the probably self-damaging habit of capitalism.