whenever they are trying to prove his greatness as a President. What is the point they are trying to make? Are they trying to claim that Clinton was the actual CAUSE of that economic boom??? This is completely ludicrous!
Actually, if it weren't for the dotcom boom, "Clinton's" economy would have been in the dumps! This was proven during the last year of his Presidency. So, liberals...what is your point, exactly?
2007-10-22 15:20:28 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Wait...sorry...I forgot that his Vice President invented the internet. My bad. Carry on.
2007-10-22 15:21:33 · update #1
xialou1 - Read the question again. What exactly is your point?
2007-10-22 15:27:19 · update #2
wyldfyr - So, you're trying to tell me that he DID, in fact cause the economic boom by "supporting" the dotcom boom? Interesting. False, but interesting.
2007-10-22 15:31:31 · update #3
KERMIT M- Well, Hillary certainly isn't going to bring back the "good old days".
2007-10-22 15:34:59 · update #4
worldinspector and God- Did I say anyting about Bush? No. The question was only about Clinton's supposed influence on the economy of the 90's. Why do you libs have to turn every question into an "I hate Bush" rant?
2007-10-22 15:38:04 · update #5
$so fresh so clean$- The surplus was the result of Clinton stealing money from social security and decimating our military strength. Sorry...doesn't fly.
2007-10-22 15:40:40 · update #6
Of coarse it had nothing to do with the technology boom. Dont you know that Clinton and all presidents have good economy and bad economy buttons in their office? Its right next to the HIGH/LOW gas prices lever. THEY are the economic czars. You are mistaken in this free market concept and are a conservative puppet. Notice how that once he leaves we have HURRICANE AND PLANES do tons of damage and destroy cities and our economy?
2007-10-22 15:58:28 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 5⤋
There was a great deal more to the Clinton economy than the dot.coms. Dot coms cannot account for the more than 20 million private sector jobs created in this era - nor for the 116 months consecutive growth.
Sure the dot.com boom did contribute to the Clinton figures, but no more so than the combination of the housing bubble and the capital exports boom due to India and China growth that Bush has exploited and will happily take credit for.
Most importantly Clinton can take credit for putting that growth to good use. Conservatives often forget that economic growth is not an end in itself. Clinton created a better America with lower poverty and a stronger middle class.
Would you want a president to not make the most of the prevailing economic trends?
2007-10-22 15:59:54 · answer #2 · answered by Sageandscholar 7 · 5⤊ 1⤋
It was great during the Clinton years, that cannot be argued with. It was great without tax cuts and wars that have ballooned our debt by 50% in just 6 years of Bush. Of course the economy of the time was not all due to government policy, but there were very important things that were done that helped to sustain it - things Bush has failed to do. 1. Fiscal restraint. Clinton did not have a line-item veto but used his veto to kill unacceptable spending bills. (Sometimes shutting down the government) Bush never vetoed a spending measure until this year with SCHIP. 2. Professionals in high office. Clinton sought the best for his cabinet, including some Republicans. Their mandate was to run their depratments effieicently and solve problems. Bush put cronies in high office and their mandate was politicize thier departments and align to an ideology of proving government was bad, rather than serve the people.
2016-05-24 22:15:10 · answer #3 · answered by amada 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, I didn't get to answer this question the last time it was asked just a day ago............. but 22 million jobs, better health care, stock market boom, gas at $1.40 a gallon, cost of living was lower, prescription premiums were lower, wages were higher, jobs weren't shipped overseas, I could go on and on, but my fingers are tired. (It was a lot better than it is now, most would agree.) Did I forget a surplus? What ever happened to it?
Edit: Well, we didn't need the military during the Clinton years, now did we? We weren't in any preemptive war either. Tax cuts by Republicans don't even help the lower class or those making between $40,000-$80,000 a year. Republican tax preparers will even tell you that. It only helps those over $80,000. We can debate this behind a computer all night, the fact is, Hillary Clinton is beating all Republicans in most polls, even, get this, the right winged bias FOX News Poll. Seen it lately? No Republican is strong enough to beat her. Hate her or not, she will win, and big. No one liked Bush, but he beat Kerry because the country bought into the fear-mongering from the Republicans about Iraq, someone who did nothing to us. People may not like Clinton, but they will vote for her because they are tired of stupid wars that Republicans love to start, and she will promise a pull out during her administration. You sir are in the minority of people who support Bush and this war. Even Bush's own party has turned against him. That's why she will win, same reason Bush won in 2004. And remember, the GOP candidates all refer to Reagan, but never Bush. Which one will have him on the campaign trail? They are distancing themselves from him every day, even MCCAIN!!! I wonder why.........
2007-10-22 15:36:59 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 8⤊ 1⤋
The point is this:
If Bushies want to say that the current economy -- in which the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer and the whole thing is being propped up by putting us hundreds of billions of dollars in debt to China, Japan, Korea and other countries - - if the Bushies want to say that such an economy is good for America and our future . . . then what's wrong with pointing out that the economy under Clinton actually WAS good -- whether or not he personally had a whole lot to do with it!
That's the point!
2007-10-22 15:34:21 · answer #5 · answered by worldinspector 5 · 5⤊ 1⤋
I can't stand clinton, but, people hate him for all the wrong reasons, and other than nafta, and what he did to welfare, he did great economically, he had a huge surplus unemployment was incredibly low, and the vast majority of people could actually live on what they were making. Heck I was making way more then and my jobs at the time were much less skill intensive then they are now.
2007-10-22 15:33:50 · answer #6 · answered by vegan_geek 5 · 8⤊ 0⤋
Bad mouth the Clinton years all you want. The record low unemployment was during his terms. I was a lot better off then than now. You can say none of it was due to his politics but it was attached to his administration so he will get the credit for it. You can't blame him for the bad and say he didn't contribute to the good. Oh, sorry, you are a Rush cult member, so of course you can.
2007-10-22 15:48:56 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 8⤊ 1⤋
Yes, during the dark times when gas was $1.43, I lived better on 1/2 what I make now. So if Bush is so much better, why isn't the economy fixed yet?
2007-10-22 15:34:29 · answer #8 · answered by God 6 · 7⤊ 1⤋
Well those of us who worked during the Clinton years know that they were pretty darn good. There was plenty of opportunity and not just at your local Burger King or Wal-Mart.
Whether or not Clinton had anything to do with it, they were good years and I would gladly have them back.
2007-10-22 15:33:06 · answer #9 · answered by KERMIT M 6 · 7⤊ 1⤋
Slick Willy to manufacture a lower unemployment rate removed all of the big cities with ghettos from the monthly household survey.
2007-10-22 18:40:06 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋