Thread: Why should we believe the right-wingers economic predictions?

In 1993, President Bill Clinton signed a budget that passed without a single Republican in either the House or the Senate voting for it. Right-wingers all over the country in various forms of the media -- which, contrary to their lies, is NOT controlled by liberals and never was -- said that his plan would fail, because it was "socialism," full of "pork," and doomed to "failure." Yet the plan succeeded, and we got out of the 1990-93 recession and, by the time Clinton was re-elected in 1996 and all through his second term, we had the greatest economy in our history. Now, having to clean up from an even worse economic disaster left us by another President named George Bush, many of the same right-wingers, and many new ones who believe as they did, are saying President Barack Obama's stimulus bill is "socialism," full of "pork," and doomed to "failure." They were completely wrong last time (or lying), so why should we believe them this time?

Sway: I believe Paul Krugman, who says this stimulus bill is far from enough, and he's the reigning Nobel Prize winner in economics.

Missouri "Patriot": Clinton did NOT inherit a good economy. I know: I was unemployed when he was elected. There were no jobs to be had.

LAK: I did believe there would be a housing crisis. You know why? Because there was a moron in the White House. He doesn't have to worry about housing!

Levelight: Bush didn't inherit a recession. He caused one with his crazy harebrained tax scheme in 2001.

Chuck G: I'm referring to his budget bill, which passed on August 7, 1993.

Sham: Appropriate name you got there. In two years, with no Republican votes, Clinton cut the deficit in half. With Newt and his fascist freaks in charge, it took four years to eliminate the other half. And speaking of "horny hicks," look up Newt's marital history.

Funny, I don't remember Clinton signing an $800 billion stimulus package.

I'm a conservative and I hope someone knows what they are doing but never before in the history of this country has so much money been added to our monetary system and it is going to greatly devalue the dollar. I don't know the remedy for that but with some of the downright goofy provisions in this bill, I can't imagine it is going to do anything good. Afterall, if the Dems thought this was a substantive bill they could really get momentum for they certainly wouldn't have made it available less than a day before Congress was going to vote. So much for promoting bipartisanship!
This is a complete democratic remedy and if they did the right thing they will stay in control. If not.....2010 will be a year of change

A big reason that Clinton was able to balance the budget is because he annialiated our military basically to half of what it was when Reagan left office. That's a big chunk of money. Now his wife is going to have to undo it!
Also, Clinton was in the office at right time right place. When the internet boom happened that was a big boost to the economy. Not much to do with him though.

I don't believe the boom in the 90's had anything to do with the government or Clinton and was more likely a direct result of the internet.

Outside of Fox News, most of the media is leftist bias. I've never seen the kind of blind support Obama is getting. They were roasting Bush in just a matter of days.

We shouldn't. However, that doesn't negate the importance of their perspective or opinions.

Edit: lol, Clinton inherited a good economy? When Clinton took office, the DJIA was in the low 3,000s. When GW took office, it was mid-10,000. When Obama took office, it was in the low 8,000s. Does that say anything to you? Or does your Missouri Patriotism not allow you to answer correctly?

Read the link below... the GDP increase during the first year of the Clinton presidency was comperable to 2001. I.e., the economy that Clinton inherited was comperable to the 9/11 economy.

Spending actually works better than tax cuts. I'm not saying tax cuts don't work, but they don't work as well.

http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/Economic_Stimulus_House_Plan_012109.pdf

If you look at page 9 you will see a chart showing the dollars paid back from every dollar put in for tax cuts and spending. It shows how much the economy gets in return for every dollar spend toward each program. So for the first one, Non-refundable Lump-Fum Tax Rebates, you get $1.01 for every $1.00 you spend to implement them. If you see the tax cuts, many work, but if you look at the spending on the bottom, spending works better.

We shouldnt... most people dont and no one with any legit, neutral professional credentials does either

What dope are you smoking?

Clinton's "balanced budget" and "welfare reform" were CREATED by Newt Gingrich and the Republican Congress.

They fixed everything that the "horny hick" screwed up.