Bill Clinton’s track record on economy is back in the spotlight

[portlander23]

Bill Clinton’s track record on economy is back in the spotlight
Jon Talton
The Seattle Times

If I were a political pundit, I’d say Hillary Clinton added to reasons why she might lose the election by promising an economic role for her husband, former President Bill Clinton, in her administration.

At the same time, Bill Clinton oversaw passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Trade among Mexico, Canada and the United States expanded massively.

However, contrary to its name, NAFTA was a managed-trade agreement and template for future deals. To critics, these agreements give too much power to influential corporate interests. For example, NAFTA prevented Mexico from nationalizing American factories and other interests there.

Clinton and his Treasury secretaries, Robert Rubin and Lawrence Summers, helped push for deregulation of the financial sector, from going easy on derivatives to the rise of the big banks and repeal of Glass-Steagall, the Depression-era banking act. Clinton reappointed Alan Greenspan as chairman of the Federal Reserve. A disciple of Ayn Rand, Greenspan supported financial laissez faire. His Fed regulated lightly and kept credit easy for Wall Street.

For those just getting back from the Mars expedition, those policies prepared the ground for the financial collapse and Great Recession.

Neoliberal economics, championed by British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and President Reagan, had seemingly triumphed. We were at “the end of history.” Clinton embraced this world view, although advocating a “third way” between right and left.

This, more than any other move Mrs. Clinton has made during the primary, fills me with dread of the prospect of a second Clinton administration. She has had ample opportunity to divorce herself from the worst policies of her husband and instead appears to be dead set on embracing them.

[BootinUp]

1. It should fill you with hope, here's why

At a time when Reagonomics was the rage, he built a coalition that stole political power from the pukes. No liberal TODAY will argue for Reagonomics era policies. The skills the Clintons have is building political coalitions that push our liberal agenda. They will do that again, thank god the Reagan era is dead.

[portlander23]

3. Gross misreading of history

http://federal-tax-rates.insidegov.com

Clinton tax rates were a continuation of Reaganomics, not a departure.

[BootinUp]

5. Whatevs, I get tired of trying to explain politics to dreamers.

[portlander23]

7. Just saying

When exactly did Mr. Clinton turn the tide against Reaganomics?

I ask as a known dreamer and unicorn enthusiast. Where on the chart does Mr. Clinton return to the historical average of a top marginal rate in the neighborhood of 60%?

We have yet to undo the damage of the Regan Revolution. Pretending we already won that battle is not helping.

[BootinUp]

9. Don't put words into my mouth please.

I said he stole political power from them. He was able to move his platform which in 1992 was a lot fucking better than GHWB platform. I will also note that Democrats selected his platform in 1992. So yeah, you can blame Democrats for taking down George HW Bush if you want to.

[Hortensis]

19. Right. They had Congress, but Clinton outmaneuvered

them time and again, often managing to block of what they wanted to do, other times limiting it to less destructive than it would have been. He did often claim credit for conservative actions because the public believed it wanted them, thus stealing the credit from the GOP.

He was doing his best to conserve and maximize the remnants of liberal power by sucking up to an American populace that had grown tired of and rejected liberalism and progressivism after a nearly 50-year run of liberal ideology predominance. This was the environment Clinton operated in.

[liberalnarb]

21. He took their ideas from them too.

[BootinUp]

29. He's not ideologue, thats actually a good thing. It means he uses facts

and a philosophy to guide him. The facts today are way different than 1992/1996, the philosophy which is core liberal is the same.

[AgingAmerican]

36. Alan Greenspan

[BootinUp]

37. Believe it or not

Presidents often keep certain hold overs from previous adminstrations. At that time, even though Greenspan was of a different philosophy politically, he was respected as Chair of the Fed which does not do fiscal policy.

Greenspan's reputation really didn't take a hit until after Bill was out of the WH.

[AgingAmerican]

38. Alan Greenspan was an Ayn Rand acolyte

From the early 1960s

[highprincipleswork]

30. Fine. Doesn't mean the SOS same old shit is going to fly today. In fact, it's not, and if

Hillary wants to convince us that her administration would be different and better and more Progressive than Bill Clinton's (particularly his second term!), then this is a hell of a way to do it.

I'm still not convinced they've learned or appreciated how many people are on to their various scams. I mean, the bubble that surround her, even here on DU, is not going to tell her the truth about the absolute, fed-up, raging anger about these former quasi-Reagan policies.

This is not the 90's. We've come a long way from then, and most of it has been down for most of us. We are ready, prime ready for a Progressive Revolution or at the very least a Progressive Solution!!!!

[BootinUp]

33. You will see respected progressive/liberal voices are going to be 100%

behind her. You might also read more about her progessive policy positions.

[highprincipleswork]

39. I know all about her Progressive policy positions. And I'm very ready for her to embrace them

and take them over the goal line, and unite us all and lead us into a new, improved era of Progressivism that we are demonstrably ready for, for her to be more Progressive and more successful than Bill, and even be as successful as the female FDR.

I just would like to be assured of these things, by her words and her actions and those of the DNC and the PTB. They don't seem so secure on this, and slip back into 90's nostalgia mode for some devastatingly bad policies.

The proof will be in the pudding.

[KoKo]

10. Recommend Chart...

[andym]

34. from your graph-- Clinton seems to have raised the marginal tax rate from about 30 to 39%

on the highest income bracket, while the trend during Reagan years was from around 60% to about 27% (difficult to read from the graph).
So you are actually supporting the idea that Clinton turned the tide relative to moving tax rates back in the progressive direction. Turning the tide does not mean reversing completely.

Now there is a lot of other evidence that Clinton furthered the deregulation of the Reagan era, to disastrous consequence years later (repealing Glass-Steagall being perhaps the most egregious example)-- but to be fair Carter was the first to begin deregulating the federal government, Reagan just took deregulation to new heights.

[KPN]

6. You over-think stuff -- like the Clintons.

To say it another way, rationalize all you want. It only justifies things in your mind.

[BootinUp]

8. Its a marathon, not a sprint.

If you paid attention the last 8 years and watched how DC works then you have all the info you need to see where I am coming from. It is built into the constitution. It took decades for the R party to lower tax rates, and it will likely take decades to return them to where they need to be.

Another way to look at it, is what is the pain level for all Americans. The higher it is in an aggregate sense then more change that can be accomplished. We are at a time when movement for change in economic policy is in our favor, but how long will the R party hold onto the House from gerrymandering it. It would take a historic wave to capture the House, not impossible, but unlikely.

[KPN]

13. Your whole premise was that the Clintons wrenched power away from

the Reagan GOP because they are so great at building coalitions. You discount totally what Bill Clinton with Hillary's support, and what Hillary as a Senator and SOS, contributed to the economic environment/structure we now have. They built it! ... Building collaborations is only as valuable as who you build them with and for what purpose.

Elite political discourse is just a bunch of fancy thinking with no foundation.

[BootinUp]

15. I don't think you are accounting for the primary process

Which is where the party selects a platform. If you say there are other considerations, I would say true. But in the D party, the issues, the policy platform has been main factor. So in other words, for whatever reason, (Reaganomics was wildly popular) the D party went with an economically centrist platform. Don't blame Bill. Unless you would have rather had the full monty.

[KPN]

41. Accounting for the primary process? The platform? Lol.

Even the Democratic establishment nods and winks at the "platform". They'll give Bernie whatever he wants in the platform, and then go their merry way once Hillary wins the GE (which she won't by the way -- she's too weak, too vulnerable, with too much baggage that matters to too many voters -- why do you think Trump has won the GOP and Bernie has 46 and will probably end up with 48% of pledged delegates?).

You are letting "winning now" get in the way of seeing that Bernie has already won what he wants. ... Clintonomics is going the way of the dinosaur and the GOP ... perhaps in 2016, but if not maybe in 2020 or certainly by 2024. The D Party is a zombie party right now as is Clinton economics.

[BootinUp]

42. Not the platform I am referring to. Campaign's policy platform nt

[KPN]

43. Ah, neo-liberalism. It's on its deathbed as I said. Whether he wins the nomination is moot,

Bernie has already won the future of the Democratic Party, and Third Way economics is not a part of that future. Frankly, I think there's a very good chance it's over in 2016; right now, whether Bernie wins the nomination or not. Hillary is extremely vulnerable in the face of today's populism on both sides of the aisle. I have strong doubts about her ability to beat Trump.

[BootinUp]

31. I've seen that posted here a few times. This left fringe attempt to "change"

the record might work on kids, but eventually the truth wins.

[asuhornets]

2. Good...Bill Clinton has an excellent record on the economy...23million jobs.nt

[Skwmom]

18. It's called the dot.com boom.

[asuhornets]

35. whatever it was...it was beautiful...23 million jobs...nt

[NWCorona]

4. The fact that Hillary would hand over control of the economy

To someone else is amazing! Regardless if it's Bill or not.

[Baitball Blogger]

11. Bill Clinton's economic development plans resembled

the arc that pyramid groups take. Big rewards for the first line of investors, and the last ones end up holding the bag.

[KPN]

14. Exactly!

[Hortensis]

20. Nope. Simply not true as stated.

[tularetom]

12. A lot of people predicted this from day one and were pooh-poohed into submission

You know, "she's a strong independent woman", "she doesn't need to run on Bill Clinton's record", "she's her own person", blah blah blah.

For many of us, keeping Bill Clinton out of the White House was the main reason we opposed her candidacy in 2008, although in the interim, she has of course provided us with a lot of other valid reasons.

If she wants to ensure a Trump presidency there is no better way for her to do it than by making the election a referendum on the many fuckups of Bill Clinton.

[Skwmom]

16. And he is trying to take credit for the dot.com boom

[eastwestdem]

17. This article is singling out the Sandroid talking points without examining the big picture

the 90s was absolutely a time of prosperity and economic growth. Remember when all the state governments suddenly had surpluses? It is widely known that the longest period of GDP growth in US history occurred in the 1990s.

[Skwmom]

22. Bill Clinton Was Not an Economic Savior

The truth is often painful but nonetheless it is important that we live in the real world. Just as little kids have to come to grips with the fact that there is no Santa Claus, it is necessary for millions of liberals, including many who think of themselves as highly knowledgeable about economic matters, to realize that President Clinton’s policies sent the economy seriously off course.

In Washington it is common to tout the budget surpluses of the Clinton years as some momentous achievement, as though the point of economic policy is to run budget surpluses. Of course the point of economic policy is to produce an economy that improves the lives of the people in a sustainable way. Clinton badly flunked this test.

The Clinton economy was driven by a stock bubble. This is not a debatable point. The ratio of market-wide stock prices to corporate earnings was well over 30 to 1 at the peak of the bubble in 2000. This is more than twice the historic average.

This run-up in stock prices drove the economy in two ways. First, since any good huckster could make millions selling shares in dot.whatever, we had many hucksters starting nutball businesses that never had a prayer of making a profit. This is not much of a long-run economic strategy, but in the short-term it led to an increase in investment.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dean-baker/there-is-no-santa-claus-a_b_2362845.html

And of course there is NAFTA which sucked out the jobs.

[Hortensis]

23. That was after G.H.W. Bush deliberately spent

the U.S. into severe debt in order to leave nothing that his successor, President Clinton, could use to fulfill his liberal campaign promises.

Clinton had no choice but to set aside what he had wanted to accomplish and set himself to rescuing the economy--which he did outstandingly.

Btw, his son W did the same things for the same reasons on handing over to Obama, plus the little cherry on top of having thrown us into a severe global recession/depression. So Obama set himself to preventing national and global economic collapse and returning the economy to a healthy standing--successfully in spite of being fought all the way by the GOP-dominated Congress, which holds the pursestrings.

Note that the GOP cut literally MILLIONS of good-paying government jobs during the "Reaganomics" era, and neither Clinton nor Obama could restore those, for instance by embarking on massive, desperately needed infrastructure projects, because of congressional obstruction.

The Democrats are the economically competent and responsible party.

[ucrdem]

27. Let's see, NAFTA was signed in 1994. What happened to employment after 1994?

Oh yeah, it kept right on rising for the rest of Bill's term:



Welcome back Big Dog!

[Quixote1818]

40. Watch this debate and the numbers cited and see if you still think NAFTA was a good idea

The ONLY way NAFTA would have worked to our benefit and to the benefit of many poor countries is if it had human rights, environmental protection and workers rights principals written into it. Otherwise it's nothing but a cash cow for the 1%.

&index=7&list=PLp8aFLOwSBzjkdPZagV3m7qfd2WkE0X3T

[NewImproved Deal]

28. No thanks. America is still paying for Willie's 1990s Track Record...

[link:|