Clinton + Gingrinch CongressCRGreathouse said:Clinton may have been the last fiscal conservative we've had in the White House.
Oft repeated statement that (in fact, that's a rather mild version of it, compared to others I've read). But as it turns out, Clinton was cutting deficits during his first two years as well, when he had a strong Dem Congress (with bigger majorities in the House and Senate than the Reps ever had during the rest of the Clinton terms). The rate at which the deficit was cut in the first two years (without any help from the dot-com bubble) was nearly the same as the rate at which it was cut in the following six.mheslep said:Clinton + Gingrinch Congress
But then, you can not know how he would have altered other spending plans if the healthcare plan did work out. But if you'd rather go into hypotheticals of what if ... then that's an argument I couldn't participate in since I don't really know enough to be able to speculate. Personally, I don't think Clinton was a devout fiscal conservative at heart. It just turns out that his administration was a lot more fiscally conservative than any other that we've had since Reagan (inclusive).russ_watters said:However, those first two years included the failure to nationalize healthcare. So it isn't like he didn't try to massively increase spending.
That's a canard, Russ. Nationalizing health-care would cut costs, not increase them, and it would put our businesses on a more equal footing with foreign competitors that have the luxury of being free from maintaining private health-care plans for their employees.russ_watters said:However, those first two years included the failure to nationalize healthcare. So it isn't like he didn't try to massively increase spending.
This is directly contradictory to the evidence despite your anecdotes. Medicare, basically government single payer health care +65 was, is, and will be the number one single buster of the US budget. Close behind in cost growth are government run Medicaid, government run Veterans care, ...turbo-1 said:That's a canard, Russ. Nationalizing health-care would cut costs, not increase them, and it would put our businesses on a more equal footing with foreign competitors that have the luxury of being free from maintaining private health-care plans for their employees. ...
Supercritical said:Opening diplomatic relations with Muammar al-Gaddafi.
I recall somewhat vaguely (I think this is from Richard Clarke's book), Gaddafi was ready to play since shortly after the PanAm incident and at the time, Clinton thought it was not worth it. I can't recall the reasoning, nor can I make a good argument for it myself. Perhaps someone else knows better? But if you want to look at timelines, Gaddafi has done a bunch of unexpectedly decent looking things (ceding disputed territory to Chad and Tunisia, compensating families of passengers of a downed Air France flight) for a long time before 9/11...all while being a vicious despot and funding any number of extremist/terrorist groups. It's really difficult to take anything away from such individual actions when dealing with someone as unpredictable as Gaddafi.Supercritical said:Check the timeline of events again. Gaddafi denounced the 9/11 attacks, which was significant given his status (self-proclaimed or otherwise) in the Muslim world.
That's because Medicare is tacked on top of a system that is so bogged down by administrative overhead that they have to pay far more than public-health care systems in other countries. Doctors don't charge exorbitant rates because they want to, but because they have to. There is an Osteopath a couple of towns over who refuses to participate with most HMOs because he has just one assistant and himself and the paperwork and administrative costs would bury him. Office visits with him (for uninsured patients) run about $40-60 depending on the duration of the time-spot scheduled in.mheslep said:This is directly contradictory to the evidence despite your anecdotes. Medicare, basically government single payer health care +65 was, is, and will be the number one single buster of the US budget. Close behind in cost growth are government run Medicaid, government run Veterans care, ...
A budget issue that dwarf's all other cost savings actions taken during the 90's was welfare reform. That is truly something oft forgotten, though it also had exponentially exploding costs like we see in Medicare now, and it was destroying poor America. Though I still given him credit for eventually signing it, Clinton veto'd it twice and we would never have seen it out of a Tom Foley Congress.Gokul43201 said:Oft repeated statement that (in fact, that's a rather mild version of it, compared to others I've read). But as it turns out, Clinton was cutting deficits during his first two years as well, when he had a strong Dem Congress (with bigger majorities in the House and Senate than the Reps ever had during the rest of the Clinton terms). The rate at which the deficit was cut in the first two years (without any help from the dot-com bubble) was nearly the same as the rate at which it was cut in the following six.
The argument that because one rejects single payer this somehow means we have to keep the present system is a classic false dilemma fallacy.turbo-1 said:The argument that the US must keep the present system (that is bankrupting us) and hope for different results is the classic definition of insanity.
That is the argument being used right now by the insurance companies. Scare the public with even higher health care costs so they will shut up and take the status quo. The insurance companies are arguing that the situation can't be resolved, so it's either-or. Of course it can be resolved - by adopting a single-payer system that serves all citizens.mheslep said:The argument that because one rejects single payer this somehow means we have to keep the present system is a classic false dilemma fallacy.
True, but this too is getting a little bit into hypotheticals, isn't it? And what happened after the Foley Congress does not detract from what happened during it. And what happened during it was two successive and big deficit cuts.mheslep said:A budget issue that dwarf's all other cost savings actions taken during the 90's was welfare reform. That is truly something oft forgotten, though it also had exponentially exploding costs like we see in Medicare now, and it was destroying poor America. Though I still given him credit for eventually signing it, Clinton veto'd it twice and we would never have seen it out of a Tom Foley Congress.
My guess is that divided government is the common denominator, with R's in the Congress. With Clinton in particular, I recall there were two camps there - spend a lot and spend thrift, with his treasury secretary Rubin carrying the day.Gokul43201 said:True, but this too is getting a little bit into hypotheticals, isn't it? And what happened after the Foley Congress does not detract from what happened during it. And what happened during it was two successive and big deficit cuts.
The common denominator seems to be Clinton.
Sorry I was needlessly argumentative there - deleted.turbo-1 said:Well, both sides can cite false dichotomies, ...
Appreciated. Be well.mheslep said:Sorry I was needlessly argumentative there - deleted.
I'm only asking you to be reasonable. The proposal included additional spending and did not include a proposed way to cut spending in other areas to compensate. It is not reasonable to assume that had it passed neither deficits or taxes would have gone up.Gokul43201 said:But then, you can not know how he would have altered other spending plans if the healthcare plan did work out. But if you'd rather go into hypotheticals of what if ... then that's an argument I couldn't participate in since I don't really know enough to be able to speculate.
Or perhaps the common deominator was the dot com boom? The GDP growth rate of the 1990s is mostly due to the explosion of the internet and it is something that Clinton had very little to do with.Gokul43201 said:The common denominator seems to be Clinton. He cuts deficits under both Congresses, and neither of those Congresses cut deficits under other Presidents (not the Dem Congress with Bush Sr nor the Rep Congress with Bush Jr). It shouldn't seem completely out of left field to argue that Clinton must have done something right.
Netscape Navigator was launched in 1995. I think the dot-com boom began a year or two after that. We're talking about Clinton cutting deficits in his first two years in office, by over 10% and 20%. And don't forget that Bush Sr grew the deficit by over 10% in his last year in office. I think it's a little hard to attribute this sudden change predominantly to the dot-com boom or any of its precursors. One of the first economic moves by Clinton was the so-called deficit reduction bill that was passed within months of his taking office: it was primarily a bill of tax hikes. I'm not particularly surprised if tax revenues showed a jump since 1993.russ_watters said:Or perhaps the common deominator was the dot com boom? The GDP growth rate of the 1990s is mostly due to the explosion of the internet and it is something that Clinton had very little to do with.
And how does that compare with Bush Sr's increase of nearly 25% in just four years and Jr's increase of about 60% in eight? The claim made about Clinton was relative to other Presidents in recent history.russ_watters said:People who are calling Clinton a "fiscal conservative" are just fooling themselves. The federal budget in 1993 was $1.41 trillion and in 2001 it was $1.86 trillion, an increase of 32% before inflation.
The problem here is you are blurring together the budget actions of the administration at the time and the underlying economic conditions. Bush Sr ended with a recession, so of course he saw falling revenue and a budget impact. That doesn't mean Bush Sr went wild on spending as we're seeing now.Gokul43201 said:Netscape Navigator was launched in 1995. I think the dot-com boom began a year or two after that. We're talking about Clinton cutting deficits in his first two years in office, by over 10% and 20%. And don't forget that Bush Sr grew the deficit by over 10% in his last year in office...
Or a 16% increase in Obama's first year. (using 2010 - $3.6T outlays, 2009 - $3.1T), and a much greater percentage increase than that in the deficit and debt.Gokul43201 said:And how does that compare with Bush Sr's increase of nearly 25% in just four years and Jr's increase of about 60% in eight? The claim made about Clinton was relative to other Presidents in recent history.
The recession ended in early '91. Sr had two years after that before he left office.mheslep said:...Again the problem here is you are blurring together the budget actions of the administration at the time and the underlying economic conditions. Bush Sr ended with a recession, so of course he saw falling revenue and a budget impact.
I didn't say he did. But you're raising a strawman by comparing with spending now, when the argument calls for a comparison with spending during the Clinton years.That doesn't mean Bush Sr went wild on spending as we're seeing now.
I thought you had just said that it was a bad idea to make judgment's about the Obama presidency based on 150 days in office? Anyway, sure, throw that in too. The claim being defended here (in this off-topic digression) is that Clinton was more fiscally conservative than other recent Presidents. Including Obama's big deficit growth projections does nothing to hurt that assertion.mheslep said:Or a 16% increase in Obama's first year. (using 2010 - $3.6T outlays, 2009 - $3.1T), and a much greater percentage increase than that in the deficit and debt.
I have left leaning friends at EPA, and though they griped under Bush none of them would say the EPA was 'gutted'. How do you support that statement? Regards NCLB, do you blame him for not vetoing the version that emerged, or for what the Congress (including the Dem Senate) did to it?loseyourname said:...Aside from the wars, which catch the headlines but I still think deserve a mixed verdict, his worst legacies to me are ending PAYGO, gutting the EPA and other regulatory agencies, and the mutilated version of No Child Left Behind that ended up passing.
I intended to reply on that before when you mentioned it. I meant that it is to early to judge on matters of transparency in the wake of embarrassing moments, transparency caring over from the White House log thread. It is not too early at all to comment on Obama spending policy. To the contrary, the administration and its supporters trumpet how much action they've taken, and that action is not only fair game for evaluation, it demands it. We don't have to wait for some oversight committee to bring all the facts out. We know full well how much was credited for the stimulus bill, we know the details of the submitted 2010 budget and consequent CBO forecasts for a http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy.../21/GR2009032100104.html?sid=ST2009032100105", we know the government now owns GM & Chrysler, and has no plans to recover the $240B eaten by GSEs this year or to unload them. The fact that this was all done so quickly does not get it a pass in my view, but condemnation.Gokul43201 said:I thought you had just said that it was a bad idea to make judgment's about the Obama presidency based on 150 days in office? ...
WaPo said:For two years, Casey's strategy had rested on the premise that he was preparing the Iraqis to take control. In June 2006, he told Bush, "To win, we have to draw down." Rumsfeld was fond of using a bicycle seat analogy to describe the goal: Train the Iraqi forces to assume responsibility for security, and then "take the hand off the Iraqi bicycle seat," to let them get the hang of riding solo.
That was key. Bush took the responsibility for all the other Pentagon concerns and let the field commander do his job. Chalk it up to Bush stubbornness or whatever, it worked.WaPo said:The two men sat alone. Keane took out the piece of paper and read the president's message, verbatim, aloud to Petraeus:
"I respect the chain of command. I know that the Joint Chiefs and the Pentagon have some concerns. One is about the Army and Marine Corps and the impact of the war on them. And the second is about other contingencies and the lack of strategic response to those contingencies.
"I want Dave to know that I want him to win. That's the mission. He will have as much force as he needs for as long as he needs it.
"When he feels he wants to make further reductions, he should only make those reductions based on the conditions in Iraq that he believes justify those reductions. These two concerns that we are discussing back here in Washington -- about contingency operations and the needs of the Army and the Marine Corps -- they are not your concerns. They are my concerns.
"I do not want to change the strategy until the strategy has succeeded. I waited over three years for a successful strategy. And I'm not giving up on it prematurely. I am not reducing further unless you are convinced that we should reduce further."
But surely, it is silly to use it as a statistically significant sample to make comparisons with other Presidential terms.mheslep said:It is not too early at all to comment on Obama spending policy.
I disagree. These are not stochastic processes. The judgment need only rely on how much the current know budget figures are inline with purposeful administration policies; I think its clear they are very inline.Gokul43201 said:But surely, it is silly to use it as a statistically significant sample to make comparisons with other Presidential terms.
mheslep said:I have left leaning friends at EPA, and though they griped under Bush none of them would say the EPA was 'gutted'. How do you support that statement? Regards NCLB, do you blame him for not vetoing the version that emerged, or for what the Congress (including the Dem Senate) did to it?
Well after tossing the hype aside I was hoping to more accurately discover and tally the results. On the con I have anecdotes from insiders: industry lawyers would meet with EPA staffers, discuss politely for awhile until the industry people would finally just blurt "this is what we expect you to do", which is outrageous. On the pro there's some study around showing that everything has continued to get cleaner along the way - air, water, etc., which is really what counts. I do not accept, for instance, that the EPA under Bush was reluctant to count CO2 as an air pollutant under the 70's Clean Air Act is an example of how the EPA was ineffective.loseyourname said:Maybe "gutted" is too strong a word, but you get the point. It was a very ineffective EPA.
How amusing.Ian_Brooks said:wow i was not expecting a 7 page thread, I thought it would end in one post being
"He retired"
Absurd claims repeated often do not equal evidence.LowlyPion said:I'd say we have ample evidence that the Bush-Cheney laissez faire, trickle-down, under-regulated stewardship has pretty much led to the economic perdition the economy now finds itself in. So prosperity certainly seems not in that direction, how ever you may want to characterize Clinton's success, the Bush-Cheney years put it in the rear view mirror for us.