Clinton economic stimulus plan 1991???

[gmboy95]

Correct me if I am wrong, as i am doing this off the top of my head. But I seem to remember that there was a recession in 1991, and one of clintons first acts was to present a stimulus plan which was voted in on a party line vote. Which means no republicans voted for it.

I believe at the time it was said that it was a giveaway. More liberal spending, and not enough tax cuts.

I believe history now tells us that once again the republicans where wrong, and we saw 7 of the best years this country has ever seen economically.

And for those who point to Reagan, did the federal deficit not multiply 100 fold during the supposed fiscal conservatives term????

 

[JDinCO]

Who really cares. Even President Obama is calling for the coumtry to unite together. Does trashing each other's party solve anything?

 

[gmboy95]

Who really cares. Even President Obama is calling for the coumtry to unite together. Does trashing each other's party solve anything?

You are exactly correct, but if you watch the news today, the republicans once again are playing their role as obstructionist, instead of getting what they can and moving forward

 

[JDinCO]

It's called politics. It happens no matter who is in the majority. Plus you can't trust any media outlets to give you the full story on anything since it's all about ratings.

 

[jimmiej]

And for those who point to Reagan, did the federal deficit not multiply 100 fold during the supposed fiscal conservatives term????

I know this. Receipts to the govt. increased after the Reagan tax cuts.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1120&full=1

Income Tax Receipts. Even income tax revenues grew substantially in the 1980s. In 1981 income tax receipts totaled $347 billion; in 1989 they totaled $549 billion, a 58 percent increase. In fact, income tax collections grew only slightly slower in the 1980s than in the 1990s despite income tax rate reductions in the Reagan years and increases in the Bush-Clinton years. Real income tax revenues rose by 16.3 percent from 1982 to 1989 after the top income tax rate had been reduced from 70 percent to 50 percent in 1983, and then to 28 percent in 1986. According to the latest (August 1996) Congressional Budget Office (CBO) forecast, real income tax revenues will have grown by 17.9 percent from 1990 to 1997, following the raising of the top income tax rate from 28 percent to 31 percent in 1990 and then to 39.6 percent in 1993. [19] On a purely static basis, the 1990 tax increase raised $380 billion less in income tax revenues from 1991 to 1995 than had been predicted. [20]

 

[gmboy95]

I know this. Receipts to the govt. increased after the Reagan tax cuts.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1120&full=1

Income Tax Receipts. Even income tax revenues grew substantially in the 1980s. In 1981 income tax receipts totaled $347 billion; in 1989 they totaled $549 billion, a 58 percent increase. In fact, income tax collections grew only slightly slower in the 1980s than in the 1990s despite income tax rate reductions in the Reagan years and increases in the Bush-Clinton years. Real income tax revenues rose by 16.3 percent from 1982 to 1989 after the top income tax rate had been reduced from 70 percent to 50 percent in 1983, and then to 28 percent in 1986. According to the latest (August 1996) Congressional Budget Office (CBO) forecast, real income tax revenues will have grown by 17.9 percent from 1990 to 1997, following the raising of the top income tax rate from 28 percent to 31 percent in 1990 and then to 39.6 percent in 1993. [19] On a purely static basis, the 1990 tax increase raised $380 billion less in income tax revenues from 1991 to 1995 than had been predicted. [20]

cato huh????......interesting source....i stand on the results

 

[JDinCO]

It's not like it matters anyway. The government cannot control the economy. It will never happen.

 

[AndyLL]

I know this. Receipts to the govt. increased after the Reagan tax cuts.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1120&full=1

Income Tax Receipts. Even income tax revenues grew substantially in the 1980s. In 1981 income tax receipts totaled $347 billion; in 1989 they totaled $549 billion, a 58 percent increase. In fact, income tax collections grew only slightly slower in the 1980s than in the 1990s despite income tax rate reductions in the Reagan years and increases in the Bush-Clinton years. Real income tax revenues rose by 16.3 percent from 1982 to 1989 after the top income tax rate had been reduced from 70 percent to 50 percent in 1983, and then to 28 percent in 1986. According to the latest (August 1996) Congressional Budget Office (CBO) forecast, real income tax revenues will have grown by 17.9 percent from 1990 to 1997, following the raising of the top income tax rate from 28 percent to 31 percent in 1990 and then to 39.6 percent in 1993. [19] On a purely static basis, the 1990 tax increase raised $380 billion less in income tax revenues from 1991 to 1995 than had been predicted. [20]

From the same website:

The national debt (public debt) in real 1987 dollars doubled from $1,004 billion in 1981 to $2,028 billion in 1989. As a share of GDP, the debt increased from 27 percent to 42 percent, as shown in Figure 7.

The federal budget was not cut under Reagan. In fact, it was 69 percent larger when Reagan left office than when he entered it--22 percent larger in real terms. As a share of GDP, federal outlays declined by less than 1 percentage point.

Grow the economy by cutting taxes and spend a lot of government money.

It worked for Reagan so it should work now. Makes you wonder why Republicans are against it.

After all... no matter what they say; they are the party of big government.

 

[TCPluto]

You are exactly correct, but if you watch the news today, the republicans once again are playing their role as obstructionist, instead of getting what they can and moving forward

No, not exactly. Clinton didn't take office until January '93.

 

[Charade]

Color me confused. I can't tell if the Democrats are for or against increased spending/taxes.

 

[bicker]

I think that's perhaps you're trying to fit their position into narrowly-defined Booleans of your own choosing (i.e., Spending: for or against? Taxes: for or against?) I suspect that that, if economic vitality could be restored without them, most registered Democrats would love for there to be no spending, whatsoever, and no taxes, whatsoever. So trying to characterize their economic stimulus plan as you have is a bit like trying to characterize the pro-choice perspective as "Abortion: for or against?"

 

[Hoodie]

Clinton wasn't elected until 1992. Would have been hard for him to have a stimulus plan in 1991.

Also, since the extended period of growth didn't occur until the mid to late '90's, there is a lot of debate as to whether it was Clinton's initiatives or the result of changes fom the Contract with America that made the difference.

This also has very little to do with Obama's plan which is much more similar to the economic plan created in the 90's in Japan rather than the economic policy of the US during that time. The Japanese plan led to a 10 year recession.

 

[jimmiej]

From the same website:

Quote:

The national debt (public debt) in real 1987 dollars doubled from $1,004 billion in 1981 to $2,028 billion in 1989. As a share of GDP, the debt increased from 27 percent to 42 percent, as shown in Figure 7.

Quote:
The federal budget was not cut under Reagan. In fact, it was 69 percent larger when Reagan left office than when he entered it--22 percent larger in real terms. As a share of GDP, federal outlays declined by less than 1 percentage point.

Receipts increased. More money was spent. Who controlled congress for most of Reagan's eight years? Dems.

 

[Master Mason]

You are exactly correct, but if you watch the news today, the republicans once again are playing their role as obstructionist, instead of getting what they can and moving forward

"Getting what they can"????? What's that about, isn't getting what they can a major reason we are in this mess in the first place?

And their job as the minority party is to do whatever they can to keep the majority party from doing things they disagree with, that's not obstructionist, it's how our goverenment has worked pretty much since it's inception.

What do you want them to do roll over and play dead?

 

[redrosesix]

I would be careful about attributing so much benefit to any economic stimulus plan during the Reagan years. It was a very different interest rate environment.

Having said that, the most important part of the economic stimulus packages of the New Deal, the Clinton era, and the one proposed by Obama is that they encourage confidence in the economy going forward eg. spending on infrastructure doesn't help stimulate the economy right away but it does encourage people to feel more confident about having a job in the future (so that they continue spending money to keep the economy going)

 

[JMD]

From the same website:




Grow the economy by cutting taxes and spend a lot of government money.

It worked for Reagan so it should work now. Makes you wonder why Republicans are against it.

After all... no matter what they say; they are the party of big government.

Government spending increased under Reagan, but government spending as a percent of GDP decreased.

The bottom line is you can not spend your way out of recession.

 

[CapeCodTenor]

I'm no economist, but I'm not sure that Clinton did a whole lot with the economy. To me, Clinton just happen to come into office at the beginning of the whole internet and tech boom. I was in the Navy when the when a lot of this tech stuff really started taking off, so I don't know when it actually started to take of, but to me it was inevitable that the economy would take off as a result. Could I be wrong? Sure. Am I saying that Clinton had nothing to do with the economy? No. Just not as much as some people would like to think. And this is just my humble opinion.

I have one question regarding Reagan and the debt he left; couldn't the Dems, who were in control of congress at the time, put a kibosh on the spending?

 

[Charade]

I'm no economist, but I'm not sure that Clinton did a whole lot with the economy. To me, Clinton just happen to come into office at the beginning of the whole internet and tech boom. I was in the Navy when the when a lot of this tech stuff really started taking off, so I don't know when it actually started to take of, but to me it was inevitable that the economy would take off as a result. Could I be wrong? Sure. Am I saying that Clinton had nothing to do with the economy? No. Just not as much as some people would like to think. And this is just my humble opinion.

I have one question regarding Reagan and the debt he left; couldn't the Dems, who were in control of congress at the time, put a kibosh on the spending?

Yes, they probably could have.

There's always a conundrum when talking about Dems and Reps spending. Reps always lose.

Goes something like this...

Dems propose a 10 percent increase in spending.

Reps propose only an 8 percent increase in spending.

Dems: "Republicans want to CUT spending!!!".

 

[Mikelly1221]

Correct me if I am wrong, as i am doing this off the top of my head. But I seem to remember that there was a recession in 1991, and one of clintons first acts was to present a stimulus plan which was voted in on a party line vote. Which means no republicans voted for it.

I believe at the time it was said that it was a giveaway. More liberal spending, and not enough tax cuts.

I believe history now tells us that once again the republicans where wrong, and we saw 7 of the best years this country has ever seen economically.

And for those who point to Reagan, did the federal deficit not multiply 100 fold during the supposed fiscal conservatives term????

Clinton inherited a recovering economy. The turnaround was reported the week before the 1992 election but it was too late for Bush 41 to get any help from it. After his election, Clinton continued to preach the "doom & gloom" economy and tried to pass an emergency stimulus package, but a Republican filibuster blocked it and it was never passed.

Narrator: A week before the election, Bush finally had good news on the economy. Bush was right. This was the beginning of the economic boom of the 1990s -- of the Clinton years. The good news came too late to save Bush's presidency.
Richard Darman: Objective analysts have looked at the Clinton surpluses. The Congressional Budget Office, the Senate Budget Committee, some people at the Brookings Institution and others have said that they think that of the policy changes that accounted for the Clinton surplus, roughly 60% came in the 1990 budget agreement, thanks to President Bush.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/bush41/program/pt.html#part2

I'm not informed enough to talk about Reagan (not that it stops me on other topics! )

 

[jimmiej]

I have one question regarding Reagan and the debt he left; couldn't the Dems, who were in control of congress at the time, put a kibosh on the spending?