Clinton and Obama both want to be credible, yet when you look at the details of what they are trying to present, it is clearly evident they don't have a grasp of the Economic Policy cause and effect.
Obama cries for details from Romney's, but don't understand the ones behind what he is talking about. He couldn't even manage the details of cutting the expenses he promised when he said he would cut the deficit in half, yet thinks he can and has managed the economy for the better...
Even if everyone's goal is to be in the Middle Class, and the Middle Class standard is lowered, it doesn't work, just ask the East Germans how that turned out.
Thank you for posting this... LONG OVERDUE STORY to refute the crapola being put out by Bubba, the Dem Media, and the Obama liars. Thanks to Clinton’s tax hike (retroactive to Jan. 1, 1993, before he was sworn in), the economic recovery (which began around a year before the election despite “it’s the economy stupid” media meme) was quite muted by the standards of the previous decade. It wasn’t until the GOP took over Congress in 1995 and the passage of the reduction in the cap gains tax rate (which poured in over $100 billion in tax revenues each year in the late 1990’s) that growth took off and the budget was balanced. At the beginning of his term, Bubba’s budget deficits were always over $200 billion “as far as the eye can see.”
The other key to the Clinton era prosperity was the earlier (1980’s and early 1990’s) investment in technology (networking, the internet, computers, cellphones) and biotech that came to fruition and maturity in the 1990’s. Clinton was a lucky recipient of all of that capitalist productivity.
Our side needs to do a hell of a lot more killing the media narrative and continuing to fight old battles over the Reagan years, the Clinton years, and the Bush 43 years.
We let these opinions form and then fight the battles on the other team’s terms. The fact that Bill Clinton is ‘international super hero’ and GWB is in hiding is a terrible disservice to the ideas of conservationism.
There is a video (sorry I don’t have the link, Hillary debate, I think) of 0bama answering a question on the topic of taxed. Someone points out to him that revenues increased when taxes were lowered and gives specific examples.
0bama’s response was that he didn’t want to cut taxes to increase revenues because that wouldn’t be “fair.”
I think this should be played over and over and over as a campaign ad. To me, this is classic 0bama. Damage the country because it fits with your idea of what is “fair” (soaking the rich and destroying America).
But Clintoon had to do it as soon as possible so the "news" media could cover it up (not mention it) and the sheeple would forget about it by the next election.
Bump
The Clinton era that everyone seems so nostalgic for is really two eras: pre-Newt and post-Newt. Pre-Newt we had increased taxes, an attempt to pass Hillarycare, the planting of the seeds of the subprime crash through the strengthening of the Community Reinvestment Act, and slow growth. Post-Newt, i.e. after the 94 midterm elections, Clinton was compelled finally to accept welfare reform and tax reductions and we had fast growth and a budget that was "balanced" if you ignore federal borrowing from the Social Security System. Newt saved Clinton's Presidency.
bm
“Lies, damn lies, and statistics.” Never been said better.
Clinton effectively conceded Heritages' claim.
I would add this- not only did Clinton's tax hikes slow growth, but they did next to nothing for helping unemployment rates. Under the BLS numbers, official unemployment was 6.4% when he signed the tax hikes in September, 1993. By January, 1994 unemployment jumped to 7.3%. We didn't see numerous months of 4% unemployment until... yep, you guessed it 1997, the year of the tax cuts.