Sam:
I wasn’t particularly clear. I would guess that Clinton had 3 major policy goals in 1992: long-term deficit reduction, health care reform and welfare reform. I’d say he met the first goal, failed on the second and had the last hijacked (for good or ill) by the Republicans. NAFTA/GATT might constitute a fourth (successfully executed) goal. I agree with you that his accomplishments weren’t all that extensive.
My point, in reference to the OP, was that even a somewhat ineffective or impeded (albeit popular) administration has a fairly substantial amount of power, so it’s better if your team is in office. (I agree with your main point.)
Finally, at the risk of veering too far off the topic, Clinton was never a radical or even particularly liberal. On the contrary, he was one the key founders of the Democratic Leadership Council, an organization dedicated to promoting market-aware and populist-friendly ideas within the democratic party. His most ambitious undertaking was his health care plan: it’s worth noting that the lefty “single payer” plan was rejected early on in favor of a relatively business-friendly managed care approach. Furthermore, if he had succeeded in establishing universal health care coverage, US citizens would have merely enjoyed what the rest of the industrialized world has had for over 30 years.
<<Ok, ok, you said “radical reformer”, not “radical”. Point taken. And you’re right, Clinton squandered his honeymoon and I might add failed to reach out to Republican moderates (eg Chaffee, Morella) during his first term in office.>>
I don’t usually get involved in this type of debate, but I will enter to refute the OP.
Any good liberal should hope and pray Gore wins, even if it is for a ineffectual four year term.
If Bush wins, we will have
-A Republican president
-A Republican House
-A tied Senate with the Republicans maintaining the ability to assign commitees and with the tie-breaking vote in Dick Cheney.
-A rightward leaning Supreme Court, with possibility of new appointments to shore this up.
Is this an appropriate reflection of how America voted 11 days ago? Much of the power of government lies with the majority party, even if it is a small majority. This government will have basically all of the power vested in Republicans.
For 2 years until the next Congressional elections, the Republicans will basically have carte blanche to do what they want. Sure, they will probably stick to a moderate path lest they get thrown out in 2002. But there is no incentive besides that for them to do so.
Kind of reminds me of the old SNL Chris Farley-as-Newt Gingrich skit after the big 1994 “throw the bums out” election. Tax cut? Passed! Drilling in Alaska? Passed! Star Wars? Passed! Big military? Passed! Social Security? Gone! Medicaid/Medicare? Gone! Prayer in Schools? Mandatory! English as a National Language? Of course!
I am hyperbolizing to make a point. But any liberal – Green, Democrat, whatever – and any leftward leaning moderate should be afraid. For that matter, anybody who is not socially conservative should also be concerned.
Yes. Be afraid. Be very afraid. In a few months, Bush’s stormtroopers will start kicking in your doors, stealing your property, raping your women, and killing your babies in an effort to destroy the Destined Child that the legends say will end the reign of conservative terror, and bring about a liberal peace of 'shrooms and weed.
You know, I really don’t think that “Roll-eyes” smiley is effective enough. Is there any way we can get a “SUPER Roll-eyes” smiley?
Ok, but that is one of the main reasons I want Gore to win- I really do not think any Party should have control of the House, Senate AND The Oval Office. It is too much. Now, if the dems had got ONE more senator- so it was 51/49 dems- then I would not cringe at a Bush presidency.
It pains me to be on record agreeing with Stoidela, but I’m gonna have to here–if Gore loses, he’s done as a presidential candidate. (So is Bush if he loses, for that matter.) The operative facts for Gore would be that with a healthy economy he could just barely beat Bush in the popular vote, and lost the electoral vote–a piss-poor performance, to say the least. Gore isn’t nearly highly enough regarded to overcome those strikes. Shayna’s info doesn’t surprise me at all.
Danielinthewolvesden said:
I said that same thing some time ago, and all sorts of people showed up to disagree with me. Weak government, and all that…which was exactly my point.
FWIW, people shouldn’t be too worried about a rabidly partisan Congress; the recent election nearly divided the two chamber fairly evenly.
Plus, some politicians, Dems. and Reps. don’t always vote the Party Line.
And the Senate is considerably less partisan, even when one party has a clear majority, than the lower chamber, making blatantly partisan legislation less likely to get through without outright rejection or some amendment.
BTW: Thanks to the Dems. here for revealing your Secret Plans for the next election! Now we know how to counter you!
BWHAHAHAHAHA! [sub]dances madly around Secret Republican HQs For World Domination[/sub]
Or are you hoping that we fall for your ruse, and plan falsely? You don’t know, do ya? Huh? Huh? Huh? HA!
I wouldn’t bet against Gore in 2004 or later. Remember, Nixon was president 8 years after losing such a race. Remember, he said something to the effect of “You won’t have me to kick around anymore.”
I’m a fan of gridlock. It acts as a filter to rid us of all but the most pressing legislation. I take pride in our supremely inefficient government.
The point I tried to make in my post above is exactly what Danielinthewolvesden has said – I’d be perfectly fine with a Republican president (especially one as potentially ineffectual as Bush) if the Democrats controlled even one House of Congress. In our government, there are many levels of control which ensure that a majority party (even one with a slim majority) possesses a lot more control than a minority party. This, if I remember high school correctly, is much more prevalent in the House of Representatives, but it still exists. In the event of a tie, however, the Republicans have the tie breaker. And, if I remember correctly, they retain the ability to assign comittees and the like.
So forget about things like CTBT going through in the next 2 years. And the like.
Ah, but that’s just it – a healthy economy. I would bet that the economy in the next 4 years will not be so healthy (no matter who is president) and Gore will be able to come back with a great big “I Told You So.”
Obviously, we aren’t going to solve this now. But if we’re all here in 4 years, I’ll accept your apology for being wrong at that point.
Guess what happens if everyone believes that the market is heading for a down-turn?
Regardless if it would have on its own accord or not, the power of public perception can drive good money after bad, and fear is contagious.
With computer models, programmed trading (a two-edged sword), and built-in “speedbumps”, the worst I think we might have is another summer of '98. When the market went into freefall, and actually shut down twice when preset loss-limits were met.
And we recovered just fine, with the market actually being up slightly overall for the year.
The smartest thing Pres. Clinton has done is keep his hands off the economy, let Mr. Greenspan do his job, and act appropriately Presidential when things got a little scary.
Alot of people in these threads seem to believe that Bush’s potential tax cuts will boost the economy. This is a fallacy that is probably created by Reagan’s success in the '80’s with his tax cuts. In truth, Reagan cut taxes AND increased government (military) spending and the combination of these created humongous deficits. Instead of taxes funding our government, other countries did. Well, guess what? We have to pay it back. Reagan (and the congress) did the most selfish, irresponsible thing imaginable. He sacrificed the future of the country in order to make himself look better. My feeling is that the '80’s economy would have made a stronger rebound without Reagan’s shenanigans. In fact, although more people had jobs in Reagan’s 80’s, the numbers of “professional” jobs actually decreased. The increase in jobs was due to a higher number of “service sector” employees (McDonald’s, cashier’s, etc.) So it is absolutely ridiculous to bash Bill Clinton for not having accomplished much. He had oversight of the fiscal policy that worked remarkably well in conjunction with Greenspan’s monetary policy. The 2 gentlemen jointly engineered an economy that practically wiped out the mess that Reagan created in 8 years, when economists were thinking it would take a minimum of 50.
So, what happens when Bush becomes president and is able to cut taxes (with a Republican Senate and House who will do all they can to make him look good since his term would need to be legitimized due to him losing the popular vote)?:
First of all, lower taxes will lead to lower tax revenue for the government. This will force higher interest rates(the government will need to fund itself by attracting internal and foreign investors). Greenspan will not be able to defend against this because the government cannot be allowed to go bankrupt. This will begin to increase the national debt (just as it did in the '80’s). Higher interest rates will cause American companies to slow down internal investments. Corporations become much more conservative when interest rates rise. Oh yes, and they lay-off people in masses at the same time. So people will have a few extra bucks in their pockets for a few months, until they lose their jobs. All of this creates a downward spiral very tough to get out of.
So don’t believe the tax-cut supporters who think that they’re economists. Most good economists will tell you that cutting taxes chokes the economy and slows it down.
Of course when this happens, the Republications will blame it on the cyclical nature of the economy. But this will only be a half-truth.
John Maynard Keynes said (paraphrasing): “The true measure of a society is the kind of world that it leaves for its children.” Based on this, Clinton has been most successful while the Reagan/Bush/Bush team has only tries to leave the children with piles and piles of debt.
How could a tax cut choke the economy and slow it down? No how well the economy does is almost entirely based on public perception. If people think the economy is doing good they spend helping the economy, if they think its doing bad they hoard hurting the economy.
While I agree that public perception has alot to do with how individuals invest and spend money, perception is generated by what people see around them. Tax cuts leave the government low on cash, unless the government cuts its own spending by the same amount as the tax cuts. This never happens! (As an aside, if the government does decide to cut spending by the same amount as the tax cuts, there could be all sorts of negative repercussions that would really hurt public perception. So while the government is not the most efficiently run organization, its spending is necessary. Where would we be without a military, police force, etc?).
Back to the subject, the government needs to somehow be funded. This can only be done by raising interest rates. The higher rates attract foreign and domestic investors who are willing to lend to Uncle Sam. But higher interest rates are immediately felt by the biggest consumers: corporations. (I work in Corporate Finance and we monitor interest rates all of the time. Our strategies are definitely affected by interest rate forecasts). With higher rates, it is more expensive for corporations to borrow money to expand. It is more expensive for individuals as well. This leads to lower investment activity, e.g. corporations hold off on new projects and individuals hold off on home or auto sales. This creates a domino effect.
One example: Less people buy cars --> the auto company makes less money --> the auto company decides that it doesn’t have enough cash to invest in the new plant (and interest rates are too high to borrow) --> auto company lays off workers who were going to build new plant --> the company that was going to supply construction material for the new plant goes bankrupt due to no work --> construction company workers are laid off --> the government is earning even less tax revenue since companies and people are not making as much money --> government must raise interest rates again or increase tax rates --> and so on…
So, public perception increase from a tax cut would be very limited. It would quickly turn in the other direction shortly thereafter.
And as far as Gross Domestic Product (overall economic output for the country) is concerned, it is Consumption (by individuals) + Investment (by corporations) + Government Spending + Net Exports (or “C” + “I” + “G” + “X”). So tax cuts may increase “C” temporarily, but lower “I” and “G” would actually slow the economy down, which would lead to lower “C” shortly afterwards.
You see, everything in the economy is linked. And the Clinton administration has done a superb job at recognizing this, unlike his predecessors. Many Republicans entice voters with tax cut proposals without dishing out the real world impact of such decisions.
I’m sorry it took me so long to reply, but I was away for the holidays.
Anyway, to summarize my point(s):
The government spends money, and therefore must be funded by some source. If the source isn’t taxes, then its got to be something else. That something else is generally foreign or domestic investors who purchase government bonds. Now, how does the government attract such investors? By raising interest rates. (At 6% interest, some people/companies/foreign governments don’t buy U.S. bonds, but at 7%, they might).
(And I’ve already pointed out the problem of rising interest rates.)
Who gets to pay back the debt + interest? Our children do, of course.
I should clarify that cutting taxes by the same amount as cutting government spending would NOT increase debt. But it seems that this would be damn near impossible.
So, to repeat, tax cuts could possibly put a few extra bucks in people’s pockets for a while (helping public perception). But the longer-term damage to the economy that they would cause would clearly overshadow the temporary utility (hurting public perception).
Oh yes, Mr. Bush, Sr. was lambasted for raising taxes for 2 possible reasons: 1) Because he broke his “NO NEW TAXES” promise, and 2) Because his raising taxes may imply an intention to expand government, which is against Republican philosophy.
Also, I agree raising taxes WILL NOT help public perception. But higher interest rates due to tax cuts WILL hurt public perception AND force future generations to pay for our fiscal irresponsibilties.
Is it just me or is there some serious hijacking going on?
Anyway. Cutting taxes has a negative effect on the economy, yes. The government spends less money then, sure. The government is the largest consumer. You bet. Therefore, don’t cut taxes.
Nope.
What we have here is what free market capitalists have been trying very hard to beat into everyone’s head: as the government controls the economy, it finds the economy will suffer if it doesn’t control it more. Government control cannot stay the same to have a stable economy.
Now, of course, if the government pulls out we’re all screwed. We’ve done it to ourselves, God Bless us (U.S.?).
Because the government is the largest consumer any cut to taxes will force it to get its money elsewhere. This doesn’t mean cutting taxes is bad. the more money people have, the more they spend. The more they spend, the more someone else makes. Money is created by trade; when money is created, income is increased. Tax cuts work to cut government income down temporarily, increase business venture, which in turn creates more wealth, which then makes up for the fact that there was even a tax cut. This process takes years to happen, so we find mild recessions while the banks catch up to the businessmen and so on, so its never been a suprise to me that things Reagan set in motion made for a strong Clinton (and would have for Bush, too, if he would have been reelected). Arguments against tax cuts are a window into the argument for less government control of the economy.
I would like to think that the government could eventually do its job so well as to minimalize taxes and instead accept donations, though that’s a personal pipe dream. In the mean time, I’ll stick with Bush. (and let’s hope the third time is the charm, Gore)
Is it just me or is there some serious hijacking going on?
Anyway. Cutting taxes has a negative effect on the economy, yes. The government spends less money then, sure. The government is the largest consumer. You bet. Therefore, don’t cut taxes.
Nope.
What we have here is what free market capitalists have been trying very hard to beat into everyone’s head: as the government controls the economy, it finds the economy will suffer if it doesn’t control it more. Government control cannot stay the same to have a stable economy.
Now, of course, if the government pulls out we’re all screwed. We’ve done it to ourselves, God Bless us (U.S.?).
Because the government is the largest consumer any cut to taxes will force it to get its money elsewhere. This doesn’t mean cutting taxes is bad. the more money people have, the more they spend. The more they spend, the more someone else makes. Money is created by trade; when money is created, income is increased. Tax cuts work to cut government income down temporarily, increase business venture, which in turn creates more wealth, which then makes up for the fact that there was even a tax cut. This process takes years to happen, so we find mild recessions while the banks catch up to the businessmen and so on, so its never been a suprise to me that things Reagan set in motion made for a strong Clinton (and would have for Bush, too, if he would have been reelected). Arguments against tax cuts are a window into the argument for less government control of the economy.
I would like to think that the government could eventually do its job so well as to minimalize taxes and instead accept donations, though that’s a personal pipe dream. In the mean time, I’ll stick with Bush. (and let’s hope the third time is the charm, Gore)
[sub]dances madly around Secret Republican HQs For World Domination[/sub]