The Clinton miracle of the 1990s

[balanced]

Democrats seem afraid to tell the story of the Clinton miracle during the 1990s. For example, the last four years of Clinton’s administration, the unemployment rate averaged in the 4% range. This is unbelievable–but true. And every year but his last, for seven years in a row, the on-budget (sans social security and medicare contributions) deficit was reduced until it turned into a surplus. This is unbelievable–but true. When Clinton was in office, we were projecting that the national debt would be paid off by about 2012. Now, under Bush it is projected that the on-budget deficit will add 4 trillion dollars by 2009.

I understand that these are boring topics. But remember Ross Perot and his charts. People actually got something from those charts. It’s time to go back to the good old days of the 90s. We don’t even have to mention Clinton’s name if that would be a negative. The good old phrase, “democratic administration” would be good enough.

[I Lean Left]

1. Don't call it a miracle.

Sane, temperate, solid economic and tax policy led to that growth. It can be done again.

[caledesi]

3. ILL, totally agree. Clinton presented ther 1993 budget and NOT ONE

repug voted for it. It was all "doom and gloom" - Rush, Delay etc.

Well, hello? Clinton was a master and someday he will be rewarded.

[balanced]

8. I wouldn't call it a miracle, but

the accomplishments were so extraordinary. When we look back over the time since the end of the Vietnam war, there hasn't been a four-year period where unemployment averaged in the 4% range. If you looked at the record of Reagan, Bush's father, and Bush, you would come to the conclusion that Four-percent unemployment is a thing of the past. But it isn't. It happened in the period, 1997-2000. Working people need to know this.

People also need to know that we don't need to go in the hole trillions of dollars to get a good economy. Reagan started the era of huge on-budget deficits. Reagan's on-budget deficits were almost three time (that's right) Carter's deficits. Bush's father was the on-budget deficit king until now. And now we have the Bush insanity. Clinton presided over 7 straight years of on-budget deficit reductions which turned into surpluses. And we had a good economy. That hasn't happened in umpteen years. People need to know this.

If these aren't miracles, they're damned close.

[prodigal_green]

2. Don't forget the tech explosion

I'm not talking about the negative consequences of the speculative "bubble", I'm talking about an economic and social atmosphere that made the kind of sweeping technological changes come about. The bubble was inevitable because people were testing what was workable in the new technological environment, but the advances in communication technology didn't disappear after it burst.

Al Gore's work on opening up the internet to the American public (in essence "inventing" the internet as we know it today), biotech research (not all of it is bad, there were huge advances in medicine), and "new horizons" type of thinking are only possible under liberal leadership. Liberalism is about forward thinking, intellectual expansion, conservatism is the opposite. I truly believe that if Gore had taken office, we'd be much closer to energy independence today, and there would be a large class of people making money hand over fist out of it.

As Joe Coneson says in his book Big Lies, Republican Administrations are bad for the economy.

[DIKB]

4. Too brainwashed

Repugs will never accept it, they credit it entirely to Reagan. I'm surprised they don't have altars built to Reagan and * that they worship at.

[Hippo_Tron]

9. Well more to Gingrich & Co...

Afterall, everything good that happend while Clinton was in office couldn't have possibly been his doing. Of course, everything bad that happening during Chimp's administration is Clinton's fault.

[Kathleen04]

5. yeah, I get tired of the Republicans saying

that the good economy during Clinton's administration was just the delayed effects of Reaganomics.

Just a cop-out for their irresponsible fiscal policies..

[GOPBasher]

6. You're so right.

Our fiscal outlook over the next 15 years went from incredibly bright to incredibly dark. Bush went from record surpluses to record deficits. With this incredible turnaround, I really can't believe Bush's approval rating is over 20%.

[rock]

7. It's better to have a president that doesn't need excuses

than one that has dozens of them.

[no name no slogan]

10. It was okay-- depending on where you were

Many poor people did not benefit from the "Clinton boom". And when they did, it was only for a year or two near the end.

The gap between the rich and poor continued to grow at an exponential rate. Our "get tough on crime" laws and mandatory minimum sentencing swelled our prison incarceration rate. We're now only second to China for the number of people per capita who are in our prisons.

Clinton's continuation of the "drug war" did little to curb drug use, and did much to put non-violent drug offenders into prisons-- creating a new "prison-industrial complex".

Due to NAFTA, many well-paying manufacturing jobs got an extra push out of the country. His "welfare reform" bill did much to get people off of welfare, but little to get them out of poverty.

I remember a joke from the Clinton era: two businessmen are having lunch in a restaurant, reading the financial pages of the paper. One turn to the other and says, "did you see this? Clinton created three million jobs last quarter". Their waitress, overhearing the conversation, said "yeah, and I've got three of them".

The jobs we created were mostly low-paying service sector jobs, many without medical insurance and benefits. Many of these paid insufficient wages to even support one person, much less a family. Homelessness became a stark new reality to many working poor, who even during the 80s could find a place to live.

Unless you were in the middle or upper class, or were able to get an education, the 90s were not much better than the 80s. You got a lot of speeches, a lot of promises, but at the end of the day not much changed for you.

Clinton was the best Republican president since Eisenhower.

[PATRICK]

11. Of sane conservatism and insane tyranny

There is almost no grounds for comparison or criticism. If the US had been invaded by martians it couldn't be clearer. Clinton's management made many bad things or pragmatic ideologies workable even under adversity of those who wanted more (Enron). It wasn't enough for those who wanted more(Enron) and that more than skewing policy again upward, the masses slaving to make the top workable, is what caused the Coup.

The "give" point where a collapse would for once be borne by the wealthy and the irresponsible(Enron) and real progress could grudgingly be made by the majority and the poor, relentlessly subverted, shifted away and opposed by the GOP Congress, finally was replaced by the Taking of the Government.

Clinton's way, as economical and restrained a use of power as has ever been seen, almost threaded the camel's eye, but the success could not overcome the opposition of the few, the apathy or greed(Bush will cut my taxes!) of the many. So? Should we revel in the new hope Clinton showed the sane compromiser could achieve(almost real corporate governance, real peace, real trickle down on the horizon), the positive vision? Should we start sharpening our pitchforks and staves to treat the deadly oppressors in kind and tar Clinton as too weak?

I will be happy when we can removed the polarized glasses shoved on all our visions. We definitely need a stronger less saccharine view of progressive policy unless we want to continue fatally old evils and humiliating subservience to vice and madness. The people are emboldened by hate, uplifted but complacent in hope. Bush keeps injustice, hate and fear in an equation all the world's people simply want changed.