Question?

[silvercobra03]

When Clinton was president the economy was not bad was that because of him? Some say yes some say it was because of Bush Sr. Now the Economy is not good now is this Bush Jr fault or did he receive this economy from Clinton? Finally Let's say McCain wins if the economy improves greatly will that be because of Bush or because of McCain? Same question if Obama wins? Just curious how you guys see this?

[TexasDevilDog]

Two types of people

[ ] Know economics
[ ] Don't know economics

[silvercobra03]

Two types of people

[ ] Know economics
[ ] Don't know economics

lol thanks TDD

[MadMax404m]

The president has very little to do with the economy, its just easier for people to blame things on one person rather than groups. BTW the economy was in a slight recession in the late 80s/early 90s. Economy is the equivalent to a roller coaster, goes up and down every decade or so and its not one person that causes it or fixes it.

[01WhiteCobra]

Two types of people

[ ] Know economics
[ ] Don't know economics

Actually many in economics thought Clinton knew his shit about economics.

[01WhiteCobra]

The president has very little to do with the economy

Pretty much.

Congress actually has more influence but when you combine a President with a sympathetic Congress they have much influence.

[Mustangman_2000]

The President does have an influence on economy, but not to the extent that some people might think.

To somewhat address your question...

To say the economy was "not bad" under Clinton is an understatement. During his 8 years as President the economy grew about 50%. Millions of jobs were created and unemployment subsequently went down. The poverty level also fell. He left office with a federal surplus for the first time in 30 years.

There were a variety of reasons for the boom, but one of the major factors is his signing into law the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993.

[Skidmark]

I'm blaming everything on Al Gore.

[Denny]

Pretty much.

Congress actually has more influence but when you combine a President with a sympathetic Congress they have much influence.
Correct. The right combination is what can really sway an economy either way.

[Denny]

I'm blaming everything on Al Gore.
You know... that's just a nice, safe answer to everything. It might not always be right, but there's always that "I can see where you think that" logic will always be. Kinda like marking "C" all the way down the scantron in school.

[TexasDevilDog]

He left office with a federal surplus for the first time in 30 years.

First surplus, in which year? Here are the public debt numbers from the Treasury website. Which year did the debt go down? Your accounting class must be different than mine.

09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm

[Vertnut]

The President does have an influence on economy, but not to the extent that some people might think.

To somewhat address your question...

To say the economy was "not bad" under Clinton is an understatement. During his 8 years as President the economy grew about 50%. Millions of jobs were created and unemployment subsequently went down. The poverty level also fell. He left office with a federal surplus for the first time in 30 years.

There were a variety of reasons for the boom, but one of the major factors is his signing into law the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993.


Just think what he could have accomplished had he cut his pussy-hunt short and busted al Qaeda'a ass. I don't/didn't hate Bill, but there's a lot he didn't do in order to sustain his popularity while in office.