On The Issues: Bill Clinton on Budget & Economy

[one...two...tree 2,762]

1995: Bill supported balancing budget in 10 years

In 1995, Bill decided to balance the budget in ten years because "the pain we'd inflict on our elderly, our students, and our economy" in the GOP 7-year plan "just isn't worth it." He promised to cut taxes on the middle class rather than the rich, and he drew sharp distinctions between his way and the GOP way, particularly on Medicare-cost savings. He insisted the GOP wanted to raise health care premiums for the elderly, while he planned to cut Medicare costs by reducing payments to hospitals.

Source: For Love of Politics, by Sally Bedell Smith, p.213 Oct 23, 2007

First modern Pres.to use fiscal discipline to balance budget

The budget deficit inherited from the Bush presidency was staggering. Bill Clinton felt a commitment to the kind of fiscal politics out of which Republican presidents had made rhetorical hay for two generations, while presidents from both parties allowed debt to pile up. Most of the platform that had been the foundation for Clinton's victory, which featured a menu of social programs, was instantly challenged. Ironically, those first 100 days, while the bottom sometimes seemed to be falling out of the new presidency, the course was actually set for a historic economic recovery and boom.

Clinton alone among contemporary presidents grasped the possibilities of the global economy, and what the explosive power of America's technical invention & new industries could do for the domestic economy. He became the first modern president to actually exercise, as opposed to merely talk about, the fiscal discipline necessary to cut and even balance the federal budget.

Borrowing money to pay for the deficit fails our trade laws

With over $400 billion in deficit this year and for years to come, how do they pay for that deficit? First, by taking the Social Security surplus that comes in every month and endorsing the checks of working people over to me to pay for the tax cuts. But it's not enough. So they have to go borrow money. Most of it they borrow from the Chinese and Japanese governments. Sure, these countries are competing with us for good jobs, but how can we enforce our trade laws against our bankers? I mean, come on!

Source: Speech to the Democratic National Convention Jul 29, 2004

Longest Economic Expansion in US History

• In February 2000, the United States entered the 107th consecutive month of economic expansion -- the longest economic expansion in history.
• 22.2 million new jobs have been created since 1993, the most jobs ever created under a single Administration -- and more new jobs than Presidents Reagan and Bush created during their three terms. 91 percent (19.9 million) of the new jobs have been created in the private sector, the highest percentage in 50 years.
• Unemployment is down from 7.5 percent in 1992 to 4.0 percent in June 2000, and in April the unemployment rate was the lowest in over 30 years. The unemployment rate has fallen for seven years in a row, and has remained below 5 percent for 34 months in a row.
• The poverty rate has fallen from 15.1 percent in 1993 to 12.7 percent in 1998. That's the lowest poverty rate since 1979 and the largest five-year drop in poverty in nearly 30 years.

Source: WhiteHouse.gov web site Dec 1, 2000

Pay off National Debt to reduce interest payments for all

In 1992, the Federal budget deficit was $290 billion - the largest dollar deficit in American history. In January 1993, the Congressional Budget Office projected that the deficit would grow to $455 billion by 2000. The Office of Management and Budget is now projecting a $211 billion surplus for 2000 - the third consecutive surplus and the largest surplus ever, even after adjusting for inflation. In 1998 and 1999, the debt held by the public was reduced by $140 billion, and the government is projected to pay down an additional $184 billion in public debt this fiscal year alone. Debt reduction brings real benefits for the American people -- a family with a home mortgage of $100,000 might expect to save roughly $2,000 per year in mortgage payments. Reduced debt also means lower interest rates and reduced payments on car loans and student loans. With the President's plan, we are now on track to eliminate the nation's publicly held debt by 2012.

Source: WhiteHouse.gov web site Dec 1, 2000

Cut the deficit to lower interest rates

[We put] the nation's economic house in order by focusing on cutting the deficit in half, bringing interest rates down, and spurring private investment to fire up the nation's stagnant economy. When I ran for president, job growth had been at the lowest level since the Great Depression, unemployment was at 8%, and the deficit was soaring out of control. After I was elected, we waged a brutal fight in Congress to pass a new economic plan.Well, three and a half years later, we cut the deficit by more than half. In fact, we would have a budget surplus today but for the interest we pay on the debt run up in the twelve years before I took office.

Cutting the deficit further until we balance the budget is vital to our future. The burden of this deficit drags us down today and jeopardizes our children's future tomorrow. Lowering it brings interest rates down so more Americans can buy homes and cars, start businesses, go to college, and build a better future for themselves and their families.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Bill_Clin...t_+_Economy.htm

Edited September 17, 2008 by Jabberwocky

[IAMX 3,055]

No doubt, both with the luck of the economy shifting toward the tech boom, and his economic policies, the nation flourished. Wish we could have those times back, because at the time we also had high values for local technological expansion and the education to support it. Now we're exporting business for top dollar and importing those with degrees for bottom dollar return. Today's economy is just incredibly strange. As the saying is, one man's loss is another's gain. So who's gaining?

[GaryC 7]

The republican congress balanced the budget. The president can't do anything other than suggest and approve/veto budgets.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

[HAL 9000 96]

Pretty hardcore there Steven. Don't blow them away with more facts.

[GaryC 7]

Ah yes, the overly simplistic and deliberately misleading chart. As I have said before, Reagan years: building up the military that Carter let slide. Bush one: Gulf war one. Clinton years: Letting the military slide. Bush two: 9/11, war on terror. Keeping us safe isn't cheap. Your little chart does not mean a thing without taking into account the rest of the world.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

As I have said before, ... Bush one: Gulf war one.

That old hat again. Over $300 billion in annual deficits in 1990 and 1991 while the whole Gulf War I cost a staggering $60 billion start to finish. So, over $600 billion in debt over the relevant years are explained by a $60 billion expense? That's what we call fuzzy match. Try again, Gary. That dog don't hunt.

[HAL 9000 96]

Ah yes, the overly simplistic and deliberately misleading chart. As I have said before, Reagan years: building up the military that Carter let slide. Bush one: Gulf war one. Clinton years: Letting the military slide. Bush two: 9/11, war on terror. Keeping us safe isn't cheap. Your little chart does not mean a thing without taking into account the rest of the world.

All it says (with regards to the military) is that Republican presidents like wars more so than Democratic ones.

Numbers are numbers. And the record can't lie.

Besides... BIG military buildup usually comes along with related defense and civilian economic growth that improves economies... hence economic booms. Which seem to be out the window with the last few wars.

[Mononoke28 135]

Bush two: 9/11, war on terror. Keeping us safe isn't cheap.

Most of our debt is the result of the Iraq War. From what I understand they're not the ones who attacked the US back in 2001. Hussein is long gone and we're still fighting exactly what over there? And we're safre from whom exactly.

It makes no sense to me. Instead of using that money for healthcare for example he's wasting it away for something that has done absolutely nothing to us since 2003. Five plus years gone and wasted.

Diana

[HAL 9000 96]

Bush two: 9/11, war on terror. Keeping us safe isn't cheap.

Most of our debt is the result of the Iraq War. From what I understand they're not the ones who attacked the US back in 2001. Hussein is long gone and we're still fighting exactly what over there? And we're safre from whom exactly.

It makes no sense to me. Instead of using that money for healthcare for example he's wasting it away for something that has done absolutely nothing to us since 2003. Five plus years gone and wasted.

Diana

It still isn't cheap. Even more so when the splurging is done on credit.

[IAMX 3,055]

Bush two: 9/11, war on terror. Keeping us safe isn't cheap.

Most of our debt is the result of the Iraq War. From what I understand they're not the ones who attacked the US back in 2001. Hussein is long gone and we're still fighting exactly what over there? And we're safre from whom exactly.

It makes no sense to me. Instead of using that money for healthcare for example he's wasting it away for something that has done absolutely nothing to us since 2003. Five plus years gone and wasted.

Diana

Indeed. Keeping America safe by wasting money.

The one and only thing about Republicans I could ever agree on adamantly before was their way of cutting such extravagant spending. However, those Republicans are gone, and now it's just high spending neo-conservatives who run the Republican party.

The Congress didn't have much of a say-so as the President still had/has veto power. Not to mention in that 2000+ climb of debt (war didn't even start until the end of 2001), it was mostly a rubber stamp Republican Congress.

Edited September 17, 2008 by SRVT

[Dan J 277]

Ah yes, the overly simplistic and deliberately misleading chart. As I have said before, Reagan years: building up the military that Carter let slide. Bush one: Gulf war one. Clinton years: Letting the military slide. Bush two: 9/11, war on terror. Keeping us safe isn't cheap. Your little chart does not mean a thing without taking into account the rest of the world.

Republicans are lost when there isn't a war to fight with someone.

Every significant conflict that we have gotten ourselves involved since WW2 in has been a political vendetta. Burning billions and accomplishing nothing, other than fattening the pockets of defense contractors.

We are quite capable of keep our country safe from home. It would cost a fraction of what it has cost for the war in Iraq.

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

Republicans are lost when there isn't a war to fight with someone.

generalize much?