It's the economy stupid!

[Samwise]

You may be right about the whole radio thing, but if you don't have cable and you are stuck with ABC, NBC, and CBS, it just makes you want to puke how liberally slanted they are. I wish I had cable and could watch Fox news. I love it when the Factor makes liberals look stupid.

 

[BOBDN]

Just curious, but if Bush is responsible for this (or at the very least, responsible for NOT fixing things) then in your opinion what could ANY president (or government figure for that matter) do that would have been able to avert this downturn? Obviously I disagree with a lot of your perspective, but I'm willing to listen - especially since i have to get back to work and won't have time to reply.

1992 - William Jefferson Clinton elected president. Enters the White House facing a nagging recession, the effect of 12 years of "voodoo economics."

2000 - William Jefferson Clinton leaves office after leading the longest economic expansion in the history of our nation.

2003 - George W. Bush, after the return of "voodoo economics" has stalled the economy and brought the return of recession.

What could any president do to avert the downturn? Maybe nothing. But a sitting president with his party controlling congress can do some things to end a downturn. Witness President Cllinton.

Why doesn't Bush call Clinton for some advice?

After all, Clinton was our last elected president.

 

[Samwise]

BOBDN, you should go on The Factor. That would be funny.

 

[BOBDN]

BOBDN, you should go on The Factor. That would be funny.

Samwise, what is "The Factor"?

Today's rich, the top one percent, own roughly 25 percent of all personal and financial assets, according to James D. Smith of Pennsylvania State University, more than eight times the wealth owned by the bottom 50 percent. Again, except during the Depression and World War II, the relative concentration has stayed about the same or worsened.

You can read more here.

If the top 1% controls 25% of the wealth in the country. More than 8 times the bottom 50%! How much do you think the top 10% controls? I'll let you know as soon as I find the info. I would venture a guess of about 50%. Let's see how close I am.

And why don't these people want to pay any taxes? I'd gladly trade places with them on the condition I pay the current tax rate.

 

[dfi]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Just curious, but if Bush is responsible for this (or at the very least, responsible for NOT fixing things) then in your opinion what could ANY president (or government figure for that matter) do that would have been able to avert this downturn? Obviously I disagree with a lot of your perspective, but I'm willing to listen - especially since i have to get back to work and won't have time to reply.

1992 - William Jefferson Clinton elected president. Enters the White House facing a nagging recession, the effect of 12 years of "voodoo economics."

2000 - William Jefferson Clinton leaves office after leading the longest economic expansion in the history of our nation.

2003 - George W. Bush, after the return of "voodoo economics" has stalled the economy and brought the return of recession.

What could any president do to avert the downturn? Maybe nothing. But a sitting president with his party controlling congress can do some things to end a downturn. Witness President Cllinton.

Why doesn't Bush call Clinton for some advice?

After all, Clinton was our last elected president.

Here's what I don't understand. Doesn't the president go to the Fed for advice on what to do? And the chairman of the Fed was Greenspan during the Clinton administration, and still is Greenspan now. So I don't understand what the problem is with Bush. Couldn't you just as easily blame Greenspan (or Clinton even) for letting the economy grow at an unsustainable rate, and thus leading to the current recession?

dfi

 

[dfi]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

BOBDN, you should go on The Factor. That would be funny.

Samwise, what is "The Factor"?

Today's rich, the top one percent, own roughly 25 percent of all personal and financial assets, according to James D. Smith of Pennsylvania State University, more than eight times the wealth owned by the bottom 50 percent. Again, except during the Depression and World War II, the relative concentration has stayed about the same or worsened.

You can read more here.

If the top 1% controls 25% of the wealth in the country. More than 8 times the bottom 50%! How much do you think the top 10% controls? I'll let you know as soon as I find the info. I would venture a guess of about 50%. Let's see how close I am.

And why don't these people want to pay any taxes? I'd gladly trade places with them on the condition I pay the current tax rate.

I'm curious what you think of my earlier post that seems to address this somewhat.

dfi

 

[calpha]

Originally posted by: Samwise
BOBDN, you should go on The Factor. That would be funny.

I actually like Oreilly a lot. Anyone that thinks he's a conservative only should watch or read the transcript form teh show he had with Rosie Odonnel.

I do have a couple of questions for you though BOBDN. Regarding Clinton.....can you point to or name or reference any legislation that he created/supported which you hold directly attributable to the growth of the economy? IMO, a schlackster in office, that kept his hands off the technology market could have enjoyed the same great growth we had for those years. You may not have understood what I was implying in my original response......but a LARGE, although not ONLY reason for the massive growth we had during those years was the tech sector and biotechs. And I'm not just talking about phantom IPOs either.....but companies like Microsoft at one time (circa 1998) having over $450Billion in market capitlization. At one point, M$FT had a larger market cap then GM did. The economy downturn occurred because of the extremely large numbers of stocks that were simply over-valued. Yahoo, Apple, Microsoft, Intel, Cisco....the list goes on and on. The Telecommunications market bit the dust. The airline industry (pre-9/11) was already in trouble. Yah, the dow's gone down a lot too (and only 28 of the 30 are blue-chips).....but the market adjustment permeated all levels of the economy.

Arguing over when a recession occurred is semantics, and mostly a partisan only argument. I can tell you this.....of my grand then portfolio in 1998, most all of my stocks had begun sliding downward in 2000, not 2001. Granted, I was heavily tech based in my investments....but nonetheless, that's when they started. I even remember watching CNN in 1999 with more then one economist constantly warning people not to get complacent because the type of growth we were having could not last forever, and that investors were going to get burned. Too bad I didn't listen.

The number of jobs lost (whether it's 1.5 million or 2.5 million) is directly related to the correction in the economy as we moved from phantom stocks and VC Firms (selling ideas and empty promises) with PE ratios in teh stratosphere....to a trend towards more stable economics.....ie, running your company correctly. Not to mention certain sector wide struggles (tech industy, telecommunications, airlines)

Beginning in 2001, the market was moving towards that necessary correction, and at least my stockbroker (pre-9/11) was strongly encouraging me to buy based on the economic factors. Even then most economic/stock market shows were leaning towards a buy/hold strategey as well. Then our market hit another chasm with 9/11, and we had that huge drop-off.

Aside from a political argument over the war, and it's associated cost (I think it will be higher then $120 Billion myself w/ reconstruction), I agree that a tax cut + deficit spending doesn't seem like a good idea. I would argue the point that the tax cut only affects the top 10% though.......as a key piece of the tax cut was to help the "marriage penalty" as well as the "double taxation of dividends".

But regardless: I think a tax cut is necessary, and I agree with the logic, even if it can be PROVEN that it only affects the top 10%. Here's why. Simple Logic. Tax Cut = More money in your (or the top 10%) pocket = more money to spend = more money in the actual economy and not the governments pockets. We are a consumer driven economy, and the only way for market to grow, is for the consumers to spend more, and the only way to spend more is to have more, even if it's the top 10%. I could care less if I get one penny more each year from taxes as long as my job outlook looks better. (I'm about as far from the top 10% as black is from white)

Regarding Social Security----my grandfather has put in way more than you have (he's 80), and even he is willing to accept his benefits till he dies, and let the social security departmenet have the rest of his contribution. I don't think ending social security is the way at all, but at a certain point, I do think that social security will have an opt-out. You've contributed X amount.......you can recieve X /per month now if you quit contributing.

But my key point is mainly this: The sitting president doesn't control the economy. If it weren't for the TECH/Internet/Biotech BOOM of the 90's, we'd have never had that massive expansion as everyone and their uncle was vying to move to the NEW business model. As it was proven that advertising alone isn't enough, and selling direct alone isn't enough........billions were lost, and we're back to the same old economic model with "intricicies". I dispute that GW caused the recession, and the fact that the recession started in Q1 2001 (solely based on my experience there).....but I don't deny that after this business with Iraq, that the current administration has a ton of work to do with the economy.

 

[BOBDN]

INCOME AND WEALTH INEQUALITY IN THE UNITED STATES No. 304

Income inequality is worse in the United States than in other major industrial countries. Austria, Canada, and 10 European countries have much more equal distribution of income;

An incredible 98% of the 1979-92 gain in total household income went to the top 20% of the wealthiest households. The remaining 2% gain in total household income was shared by the remaining 80% of households.

in 1995 the richest 10% of the population owned 70% of all the wealth -- up from 50% in 1976 and the richest 1% owned 35.1% of all wealth, while the bottom 80% owned 31.5%.

These are the most recent figures I have found so far. You can, of course, read all the info at the link above. Needless to say the margins have been increasing since these figures were compiled. In 1995 the top 10% owned 70% of the wealth in our nation.

Man, that's greed. But the top 1% really takes the cake. Forgive the reference. They say you can't have your cake and eat it too. I suppose that 1% disproves that old saw. Well, at least where they are concerned.

 

[Dudd]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Just curious, but if Bush is responsible for this (or at the very least, responsible for NOT fixing things) then in your opinion what could ANY president (or government figure for that matter) do that would have been able to avert this downturn? Obviously I disagree with a lot of your perspective, but I'm willing to listen - especially since i have to get back to work and won't have time to reply.

1992 - William Jefferson Clinton elected president. Enters the White House facing a nagging recession, the effect of 12 years of "voodoo economics."

2000 - William Jefferson Clinton leaves office after leading the longest economic expansion in the history of our nation.

2003 - George W. Bush, after the return of "voodoo economics" has stalled the economy and brought the return of recession.

What could any president do to avert the downturn? Maybe nothing. But a sitting president with his party controlling congress can do some things to end a downturn. Witness President Cllinton.

Why doesn't Bush call Clinton for some advice?

After all, Clinton was our last elected president.

Sure, Clinton should have all the answers. After all, he was the catalyst behind the rapid growth during his term. I mean, he did start the internet boom, and he was the driving force behind the ever growing telecommunications industry, and... wait, he didn't do any of that. The economy runs in spurts, and the government really has little control over it. During the 90's, there was an incredible technology boom, and everyone was willing to spend all sorts of money to get in on this. Now that it appears that we overexerted ourselves and spent more than the market demanded, we are paying for it. If Clinton were in office, we'd still be in a similar mess.

 

[LunarRay]

Quote
And here I thought the highest marginal tax rate was 39%
Assuming it was then the top 10% made an awfull lot of money... wish I was there too.
But, what could I do with a gazillion $? If the Corporations paid their CEO etc less they could afford pay the worker more and he'd pay more tax and we could reduce his tax... and break even on the deal.[/quote]

If the CEO was paid half normal CEO salary, this would result in only a few dollars difference in each paycheck, and then after taxes would just be cents. The only way for this to even out is to take all of the income in the corporation, combine it and then divide it equally amongst every worker. But then we'd have a socialist corproation, nobody would want to be CEO because it would be more work for the same money, in fact very few people would want to be anything in upper management. Or perhaps everyone would want to be upper management, since they can make the decisions and delegate more work to everyone. Does sound like that kind of corporation would last long. The aspirations of people to push themselves harder to get to higher levels to get paid more to become managers and become CEO's, is what drives a corporation, drives the work force, drives the economy.

Something I learned in my firm when taking a Effective Personal Productivity class. Research shows that if you take all of the money in the United States, combine it and divide equally amongst everyone, in 7 years the statistics of who has what would return - maybe the people will be different but in 7 years everything would be the same again. And the only way to counter act that is to destroy capitalism in favor of a communism.[/quote]
**************

Sorry... I have my grandkids living with me... one is 18 and from time to time he finds humor in posting in my name if I get up and neglect to finish a post and log off... such is the case this time. I'll be more carefull.
I was going to simply comment that these, the percentages of tax paid, on the surface, indicate a tax reduction is appropriate. What it does not, in my view, accomplish is what ought be the objective... Job creation. With the rich the perpensity is to reintermediate the excess disposable income to investments. It does trickle down eventually as the companies use the funds or the equity sellers that don't repurchase spend but, I'd like to use the funds to jump start the economy by incentivising the job market and the consumer with credits.

By the way, I don't agree with my grandson's comment... he is in freshman economics (macro) and well...

 

[BOBDN]

Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis Understanding the U.S. Distribution of Wealth

Check out the PDF version.

"When US households are ranked according to how much wealth they hold, they form a lopsised picture.

The bottom 40% of all households have only about 1% of all wealth in the nation.

The top 1% of all households have nearly 30% of all wealth; the top 5%, 55% of all wealth; and the top 20%, 80% of all wealth."

Why wont these people pay their fair share of taxes? Who will pay the difference when the politicians they contribute millions to elect give them the tax cuts they want? Why do some people support the economic policy that supports this type of lopsided wealth?
Why do those same supporters complain of socialism when benefits are for the majorty of workers when the top 20% of wage earners in this nation are benefitting from socialism for the rich via tax cuts from the politician they bought and the distribution of wealth government policies perpetuate?

 

[BOBDN]

Sure, Clinton should have all the answers. After all, he was the catalyst behind the rapid growth during his term. I mean, he did start the internet boom, and he was the driving force behind the ever growing telecommunications industry, and... wait, he didn't do any of that. The economy runs in spurts, and the government really has little control over it. During the 90's, there was an incredible technology boom, and everyone was willing to spend all sorts of money to get in on this. Now that it appears that we overexerted ourselves and spent more than the market demanded, we are paying for it. If Clinton were in office, we'd still be in a similar mess.

So Bush's excuse is he just happened to steal an election during the wrong end of an economic spurt?

Bush's policies have not improved the situation. Bush's voodoo economics have hurt the economy.

And yes, if Clinton was still in office he would have found some way (not Bush's policy of trickle down economics making the rich richer) that would have at the very least improved conditions for people suffering through bad times. Just as he did in 1992 when he inherited the last Bush recession.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Just curious, but if Bush is responsible for this (or at the very least, responsible for NOT fixing things) then in your opinion what could ANY president (or government figure for that matter) do that would have been able to avert this downturn? Obviously I disagree with a lot of your perspective, but I'm willing to listen - especially since i have to get back to work and won't have time to reply.

1992 - William Jefferson Clinton elected president. Enters the White House facing a nagging recession, the effect of 12 years of "voodoo economics."

2000 - William Jefferson Clinton leaves office after leading the longest economic expansion in the history of our nation.

2003 - George W. Bush, after the return of "voodoo economics" has stalled the economy and brought the return of recession.

What could any president do to avert the downturn? Maybe nothing. But a sitting president with his party controlling congress can do some things to end a downturn. Witness President Cllinton.

Why doesn't Bush call Clinton for some advice?

After all, Clinton was our last elected president.

wow, your timeline is all fscked up, lemme fix it
1992 - william jefferson clinton is elected AFTER the recession is over, but the first bush (who didn't like trickle-down and was the man who coined "voodoo economics" to describe what was attempted under reagan's first term) refused to press that the economy was no longer in recession and correct clinton's LIE.

2000 - the economy is already going flat when bush is elected president (look up the definition of election). it certainly didn't help that greenspan was raising interest rates at the same time oil prices were increasing

2001 - economy keeps slowing down as the internet bubble continues to burst. money evaporates (this is what happens when you invest in a company with no profit strategy.) the dow doesn't show this because the dow is 1) not an index 2) a bunch of companies with longer term plans. the nasdaq index is where you should be looking, though there were plenty of internet bubble companies that never went public, so the stock market doesn't indicate them either

late 2001 - terrorists fly planes into buildings, people stop flying on airplanes. you have a major industry in deep sh!t because suddenly theres no demand for their product. theres tons of uncertainty due to the terrorist strikes, which is bad for the economy. why? economic performance is 85% future expectation, if you expect things to go bad, they will. and then confidence is struck yet again as enron and worldcom announce that they'd been cooking their books and were both bankrupt. more money evaporates. confidence is pretty damn low at this point.

early 2003 - the economy was looking up but expectations of war have dropped it a bit.

 

[BOBDN]

Elfenix. You're a Texan, so is Bush (NOT). No one believes you.

One Texan F***ING up the country is already one too many. Even if Bush is just a patrician yankee dressed up like a Texan.
A real Texan would throw Bush out the White House window. Second story.

Your view of history is obviousy a result of your admitted drinking problem ie: I'm a Texan, drink up.

 

[dfi]

Originally posted by: BOBDN
Elfenix. You're a Texan, so is Bush (NOT). No one believes you.

One Texan F***ING up the country is already one too many. Even if Bush is just a patrician yankee dressed up like a Texan.
A real Texan would throw Bush out the White House window. Second story.

Your view of history is obviousy a result of your admitted drinking problem ie: I'm a Texan, drink up.

Announcer: Let's get ready to ruuuuuuuuuuuuuuummmmmmmmmmmmmbbbbbbbbbble!

dfi

 

[BOBDN]

P.S.

I've gone through the time and trouble to provide links and info on my posts. You can't refute the info I provided so you come up with some fairy tale about Bush and Clinton in 1992 and another one about Clinton and Bush in 2000.

I lived through the terms of 10 presidents so far. I know when one is full of S**T. Bush is full of S**T.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: BOBDN
Elfenix. You're a Texan, so is Bush (NOT). No one believes you.

One Texan F***ING up the country is already one too many. Even if Bush is just a patrician yankee dressed up like a Texan.
A real Texan would throw Bush out the White House window. Second story.

Your view of history is obviousy a result of your admitted drinking problem ie: I'm a Texan, drink up.

so you resort to ad hominem attacks when you can't come up with a real response?

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: BOBDN

You're not being totally fair. Bush had little or nothing to do with creating or bursting the technology/start-up bubble. Yet he has to deal with the consequences of the bubble bursting. Most of the lost jobs can be attributed to the layoffs and business closures directly related to the burst technology bubble.

I'm not interested in who to blame. I'm interested in the current administration touting tax cuts targeted for the rich as being their solution for the ailing economy.

This is just liberal propoganda of class warfare. What is actually wrong with giving tax cuts to who you claim as being rich?

It depends on the purpose of the cut. If you're talking about an immediate boost in consumer spending for the economy, some sort of incentive or cut for the lower tax brackets is going to be a better stimulus than a cut for the upper tax brackets - for the basic reason that wealthier people tend not to need the extra money - they won't spend it if they get it!

If you're talking about a long-term stimulus, then the cuts make more sense.

 

[Viper GTS]

Originally posted by: BOBDN
INCOME AND WEALTH INEQUALITY IN THE UNITED STATES No. 304

Income inequality is worse in the United States than in other major industrial countries. Austria, Canada, and 10 European countries have much more equal distribution of income;

An incredible 98% of the 1979-92 gain in total household income went to the top 20% of the wealthiest households. The remaining 2% gain in total household income was shared by the remaining 80% of households.

in 1995 the richest 10% of the population owned 70% of all the wealth -- up from 50% in 1976 and the richest 1% owned 35.1% of all wealth, while the bottom 80% owned 31.5%.

These are the most recent figures I have found so far. You can, of course, read all the info at the link above. Needless to say the margins have been increasing since these figures were compiled. In 1995 the top 10% owned 70% of the wealth in our nation.

Man, that's greed. But the top 1% really takes the cake. Forgive the reference. They say you can't have your cake and eat it too. I suppose that 1% disproves that old saw. Well, at least where they are concerned.

Ahem

BTW, if you don't like my source I can find you another. That's the first link I found with the data I needed.

Viper GTS

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: Zakath15
What needs to be done for any long term prosperity is for Medicare and Social Security to be reformed - and by that, I mean scrapped.

In terms of a short term boost, tax cuts or other boosts to the lower classes would suffice, but in all honesty, something needs to be done in the long term to completely reform the US tax code, for all income levels.

It's very easy for people who haven't been contributing to Social Security all their lives to now call for the "scrapping" of Social Security and Medicare. For the people who have worked all their lives and been forced to pay the SS and Medicare tax it's another story.

I get a statement from SS every year. I would advise everyone to do the same. My most recent statement shows I have contributed almost $64000 to SS. My employers have contributed almost $63000. This is toward my retirement. $127000. Had I been free of the burden of SS tax and invested that money over the years I would have approximately $508000 for my retirement if you follow the rule of seven. My employers and I have paid almost $35000 in Medicare tax over the years as well. Rule of seven = $140000. Retirement contributions to SS and Medicare for me alone = $648000 at the average rate of interest over the past 30 years.
My point is if I hadn't been obliged to pay a substantial part of every pay check to SS and Medicare I could have invested in another retirement plan. Now I've lost 30 years of investment income.

First, $648000 is more than I'll ever collect in my lifetime. Unless I need medical treatment, then that sum could disappear virtually overnight.

Second, this doesn't take into account the lifelong contributions my wife has made to Social Security and Medicare. These are just my figures.

Now you people say just scrap Social Security and Medicare!

Do you think it's fair to have me and my employers pay $162000 toward my retirement and get NOTHING in return?
How do you justify this robbery? How would you susggest we compensate people who paid into the system all their lives?

As far as tax reform, let's get that flat tax in place. But, NO LOOPHOLES, NO "HELP" FOR THOSE CONTRIBUTORS WHO ASK FOR SPECIAL TREATMENT, NO CORPORATIONS SETTING UP OFF SHORE TO AVOID TAXES, NO CORPORATIONS EARNING BILLIONS EVERY YEAR AND PAYING NOT ONE CENT IN TAXES. Think that'll ever happen with the lobbyists and politicians we have in Washington?

It's easy for me to say that, because in forty years I will be supporting myself. If you look at the figures from the federal government and the projections, the system cannot continue as it is now.

If you want to get back all of your $162,000, then by all means, let them do that. I would be more than willing to let the $2 or $3,000 I've paid into it go as a loss. I refuse to support a system that is in effect a pyramid scheme that has no accountability with regards to congressional spending.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: BOBDN
Elfenix. You're a Texan, so is Bush (NOT). No one believes you.

One Texan F***ING up the country is already one too many. Even if Bush is just a patrician yankee dressed up like a Texan.
A real Texan would throw Bush out the White House window. Second story.

Your view of history is obviousy a result of your admitted drinking problem ie: I'm a Texan, drink up.

so you resort to ad hominem attacks when you can't come up with a real response?

I assume that most everyone on this thread agrees, within reason, that the economy is less strong today than two years ago. I further assume that the figures provided by BOBDN and others are figures published by the entity listed and do, therefore, depict the result of the data assembled, modeled and tweeked. What befuddles me is not so much who is responsible but who is going to remedy it and when. If Mr. Bush fails to turn it around by '04 the baton should pass to someone else.
Perhaps Presidents should be offered Stock Options like the typical CEO, off income statement expense. That would fit the congressional method. If the President grows the economy we, the greatfull nation, issue him shares in some predetermined S&P 500 companies.

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Sure, Clinton should have all the answers. After all, he was the catalyst behind the rapid growth during his term. I mean, he did start the internet boom, and he was the driving force behind the ever growing telecommunications industry, and... wait, he didn't do any of that. The economy runs in spurts, and the government really has little control over it. During the 90's, there was an incredible technology boom, and everyone was willing to spend all sorts of money to get in on this. Now that it appears that we overexerted ourselves and spent more than the market demanded, we are paying for it. If Clinton were in office, we'd still be in a similar mess.

So Bush's excuse is he just happened to steal an election during the wrong end of an economic spurt?

Bush's policies have not improved the situation. Bush's voodoo economics have hurt the economy.

And yes, if Clinton was still in office he would have found some way (not Bush's policy of trickle down economics making the rich richer) that would have at the very least improved conditions for people suffering through bad times. Just as he did in 1992 when he inherited the last Bush recession.

ding ding ding we have a winner! Liberal tool strikes again!

 

[MrWizzard]

The economy is like a rollercoster no matter who is in office people just like to blame the president!
I mean common you think clinton made the economy prosper? Like he was directly responsible?
And the rich do deserve more tax cuts than the poor. They pay most of the taxes anyway.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: MrWizzard
The economy is like a rollercoster no matter who is in office people just like to blame the president!
I mean common you think clinton made the economy prosper? Like he was directly responsible?
And the rich do deserve more tax cuts than the poor. They pay most of the taxes anyway.

He wasn't directly responsible, but many of his fiscal policies helped foster the stable growth we enjoyed throughout the mid to late 1990's.

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: Zakath15

Originally posted by: MrWizzard
The economy is like a rollercoster no matter who is in office people just like to blame the president!
I mean common you think clinton made the economy prosper? Like he was directly responsible?
And the rich do deserve more tax cuts than the poor. They pay most of the taxes anyway.

He wasn't directly responsible, but many of his fiscal policies helped foster the stable growth we enjoyed throughout the mid to late 1990's.

Yea, like his fiscal policy to have Al Gore as his Vice President. Because Al Gore invented the internet, and the internet made the economic boom. It all makes sense now...