Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <The Clinton economy was also very good for the stock market.> Yes, Clinton agreed to cut capital gains tax rates. That was good for the stock market.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<The Clinton economy was also very good for the stock market.>> <Yes, Clinton agreed to cut capital gains tax rates. That was good for the stock market.> His entire economy was good for the stock market. And the rest of us. Would that Bush's were as good.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe post 192-------So Newt and the gang had nothing to do with the economic boom even though Congress controls the purse strings? Clinton didn't go along kicking and screaming all the way?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <So Newt and the gang had nothing to do with the economic boom even though Congress controls the purse strings? Clinton didn't go along kicking and screaming all the way?> Not the way Dabob remembers it.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Why The Economy Is A Lot Stronger Than You Think <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_07/b3971001.htm?campaign_id=nws_insdr_feb4&link_position=link1" target="_blank">http://www.businessweek.com/ma gazine/content/06_07/b3971001.htm?campaign_id=nws_insdr_feb4&link_position=link1</a>
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<So Newt and the gang had nothing to do with the economic boom even though Congress controls the purse strings? Clinton didn't go along kicking and screaming all the way?>> <Not the way Dabob remembers it.> Because that's not the way it was. Plus, it's you who is misremembering how I've characterized this: I've said many times that credit for the 90's budgets can be shared by Clinton and the Congress - Clinton proposed the budgets, of course, and congress sometimes tinkered with them, but never changed them more than a percentage or two. That's a historical fact. So if the budgets (and tax rates) of the 90's were good for the economy, there is credit to be shared. This is in contrast to you, who wanted to give ALL the credit to Congress, and none at all to Clinton. I think any objective person would see which is the more fair way to look at things.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe Deep down inside, after living through the truamatic 90's (early especially), at a time when in 1991 I had a friend in Japan and she and I both thought we'd all speaking Japanese by the year 2000 because of their economic might, Bill Gates and our superior technological advances were the real IMPETUS for our phenomenal comeback. I give Newt second most credit for his great plan for America and I think Bill Clinton moved WAY to the right fiscally to keep out of the way> he deserves that credtit, but American technology was the key. Here we are in 2006, and I feel deep down inside that China and India will overtake us by 2020? The question is, who is going to come to the forefront now to keep the U.S on top? This is why we MUST work together here and stop the blame game and who gets the credit game.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Plus, it's you who is misremembering how I've characterized this: I've said many times that credit for the 90's budgets can be shared by Clinton and the Congress - Clinton proposed the budgets, of course, and congress sometimes tinkered with them, but never changed them more than a percentage or two. That's a historical fact. So if the budgets (and tax rates) of the 90's were good for the economy, there is credit to be shared.> Which is hardly the way you represented it in thread recently, when you said, "Who tinkered with his plans very little." At the time, the Democrats didn't think the Republican plans were minor tinkering. I remember them saying they were going to cause mass starvation. <This is in contrast to you, who wanted to give ALL the credit to Congress, and none at all to Clinton.> False. I've always been willing to give Clinton full credit for eventually going along with most of the Republican agenda.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe Like I said Douglas, Bill moved fiscally far to the right to keep out of the way.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Plus, it's you who is misremembering how I've characterized this: I've said many times that credit for the 90's budgets can be shared by Clinton and the Congress - Clinton proposed the budgets, of course, and congress sometimes tinkered with them, but never changed them more than a percentage or two. That's a historical fact. So if the budgets (and tax rates) of the 90's were good for the economy, there is credit to be shared.>> <Which is hardly the way you represented it in thread recently, when you said, "Who tinkered with his plans very little."> That was accurate. <At the time, the Democrats didn't think the Republican plans were minor tinkering. I remember them saying they were going to cause mass starvation.> As usual, you're remembering things as they suit you, and mischaracterizing things. <<This is in contrast to you, who wanted to give ALL the credit to Congress, and none at all to Clinton.>> <False. I've always been willing to give Clinton full credit for eventually going along with most of the Republican agenda.> Ungracious to the last. Not an admirable trait, even for a partizan.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Let's see, I give some credit to Congress, you only give weasly "credit" to Clinton "for eventually going along with most of the Republican agenda" - and I'M ungracious? I don't think so.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Yet the fact remains - I give some credit to Congress, you give none to Clinton except the snarky kind. I think anyone would see that as both more ungracious and more slanted.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe To Douglas and Dabob----What I wouldn't give to see you two together? Have you ever met? It would be electric and should be televised.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I give some credit to Congress, you give none to Clinton except the snarky kind.> I've given as much credit to President Clinton as you've given to the GOP Congress.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<I give some credit to Congress, you give none to Clinton except the snarky kind.>> <I've given as much credit to President Clinton as you've given to the GOP Congress.> That's simply not true.
