When Clinton and the Democratic congress passed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (which raised taxes for those making over 200K and increased social spending on education, job training, and police) Republicans were predicting doom and gloom.
Why were they so wrong?
------
"The tax increase will kill jobs and lead to a recession, and the recession will force people off of work and onto unemployment and will actually increase the deficit."
- Newt Gingrish
"I believe this will lead to a recession next year... Stay tuned for the next 60 days... I think we're frankly now living on borrowed time."
- Newt Gingrish
"A recipe for economic disaster..."
- Phil Crane of Illinois
"It is going to lead to a Clintastrophy, an economic Clintastrophy..."
- Indiana's Dan Burton.
"April Fool, America. This Clinton budget plan will not create jobs, will not grow the economy, and will not reduce the deficit."
- Sen. Pete Domenici of New Mexico
"We are buying a one-way ticket to a recession... I want to predict here tonight, that if we adopt this bill the American economy is going to get weaker and not stronger, the deficit four years from today will be higher than it is today and not lower ... When all is said and done, people will pay more taxes, the economy will create fewer jobs, the government will spend more money, and the American people will be worse off."
- Gramm of Texas
"This plan will not work... If it was to work, then I'd have to become a Democrat and believe that more taxes and bigger government is the answer."
- Kasich of Ohio
2007-04-10 01:50:22 · 17 answers · asked by trovalta_stinks_2 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
While you're at this, please answer my other question:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AtTpbvmBUccK0mO03Ul7Dpnsy6IX?qid=20070410053222AACfp3G
2007-04-10 01:50:35 · update #1
Namsaev,
I'm saying if you help people work their way up through education, job training, GI Bills, labor laws, etc, and shift taxes to those who can most afford them (wealthier people), the middle class grows and so does the economy.
By the way, check out my question link I included above.
2007-04-10 02:01:53 · update #2
The Clinton economic plan of riding the coattails of Reagan and the internet boom?
2007-04-10 02:08:03 · answer #1 · answered by taxidriver 4 · 5⤊ 4⤋
The Fed came off the brakes early - that helped a lot. Overall the gloom and doom predictions were overblown though because the actual changes were pretty minimal. Keep in mind also that the predictions related to the initial legislative package - ultimately the two sides met each other halfway.
But I'll admit the gloom and doom prognosticators were wrong if you admit that the Libs were wrong about the Bush tax cuts, which have produced even LOWER unemployment and increased tax revenue even though this time the Fed overshot.
2007-04-10 02:24:57 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
WHat you, like most people don't understand, such an act as the one you cited, doesn't have an immediate effect on the economy. It takes some years to go by before we see an effect.
Blaming a president two years into his first term for a bad economy, no matter what his politics are, is usually a mistake because there is no way he could have had an effect, bad or good, in that amount of time.
2007-04-10 02:11:42 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Clinton wasn't an angel - while he brought our deficit down in the short run, he co-signed NAFTA which led to the decimation of manufacturing in America (and eventual trend towards outsourcing of IT too) in the long haul. The result is that our middle class has steadily decreased, while the gap between wealthy and poor increased. Bush also believed in Clinton's "Free Trade" economic policies (which benefit the super wealthy and corporations).
That said - Republicans may have said these things (please include sources for these quotes!!!) because they feared losing power and influence. They also knew that it would mean a slight reduction in accumulation of wealth for the super-rich.
This question is timely (again, if the quotes are true and accurate - please cite!) because we may once again see a jump in income taxes on the wealthy - sooner than later.
2007-04-10 01:59:52 · answer #4 · answered by somebody 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Clinton also signed NAFTA and CAFTA which has led to too many manufacturers closing shop in the United States and going to Mexico.
2016-05-21 05:23:56 · answer #5 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Act almost brought the ongoing economic expansion started by the Bush administration to a screeching halt. Luckily, the voters came to their senses and turned Congress over to Republican control, ensuring that such stupidity would cease.
It worked for a while, anyway.
2007-04-10 01:58:52 · answer #6 · answered by thegubmint 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Almost every statement you just made came true. The clinton budget really did nothing but ruin the good economics that reagan and bush set up.
2007-04-10 02:08:22 · answer #7 · answered by bildymooner 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Because conservatives refuse to admit the world is changing. Global economics is the reality no matter how much they wish otherwise. It will never be 1956 again (economically nor socially), Clinton's economic plan was our first step forward to the new world economy.
2007-04-10 01:58:47 · answer #8 · answered by CHARITY G 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋
It only took Clinton and the Dem's a few years to bring down Reaganomics. Clinton ended his term in a recession.
2007-04-10 01:57:39 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 2⤋
It's called politics. You hear the same type rhetoric right now in D.C. from the Dems.
2007-04-10 02:03:25 · answer #10 · answered by aiminhigh24u2 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Hey Jake (answerer above) -
Clinton was elected in 1992. No, I don't think his policies had anything to do with the crash of 1990.
Learn some history yourself.
2007-04-10 02:01:04 · answer #11 · answered by Steve 6 · 3⤊ 3⤋