McCain Adviser Attacks Clintonomics

Milken

The 80's did lay the ground work for the expansion of the 90's. Michael Milken is living proof. Without the junk bonds he invented (and for which he was wrongfully convicted) there would have ben no ATT, no MCI, no FedEx, or any other capital intensive but risky business in technology.

fsdf of AL @ Apr 15, 2008 00:01:35 AM

what about the peace dividend?

Personally, WJC's draw down of our soviet-era military spending is my #1_most_not-Mentioned reason for the boom of the 90's. All those billions going into the general economy (chasing internet stock or housing) - still crashing around today.

Newmarket2 of NJ @ Apr 07, 2008 14:09:59 PM

reflecting

The surpluses in the 90s were due to less spending (no USSR, military cutbacks, etc), which Bill Clinton can take some credit for --- if he also wants to acknowledge these cuts helped terrorism go unchecked, as well.

They were also due to the tech-boom, which has nothing to due with the Clinton's policies. At best, one could say, that they did not get involved in them (via regulations).

However, many economic policies, which they either created or began pushing for (NAFTA, WTO-China) have lead to some of our problems today.

I'm no wiz in economics and Hillary isn't Bill, but I can say this --- Hillary ran on a platform for Senate here in western New York promising us 200,000 jobs. Not only did we not get those jobs, but we lost even more. (This began years ago, when the economy elsewhere was still good.)

To me, this is mediocre leadership by both of them at best.

wolf of NY @ Apr 04, 2008 19:23:29 PM

Re: Savior?

"That might mean enforcing environmental and labor practices on a global scale and implementing heavy tariffs for those that force workers to go 10-12 hours a day, 6 to 7 days a week in unsafe factories. How can the country that is our banker still be "developing"."

Why should other countries be held to our standards? Sounds like a great way of throwing those people out of work. Those jobs, while unappealing to you or me, are the best bet those people have going -- if they had better alternatives they would take them. Their lower wages and longer hours are their competitive advantage, take that away and they have nothing. This is just a stage they are going through, as they get richer the workers will choose to work less and will opt for jobs at places with better conditions. Once upon a time we used to employ children. The reason this isn't done anymore isn't because we suddenly developed a conscience, it's because we became rich enough that we didn't have to anymore -- the parents earned enough to feed the family without employing the kids. Please, get some perspective on this.

As for why China is still developing, it has a per capita GDP that is only a fraction of our own, that's why.

Colin of DC @ Apr 04, 2008 10:42:40 AM

Savior ?

To "Obamamania of NJ" Why don't you join you Muslim brothers in Khartoum or Tehran. We "racist" don't need your help apologizing to the world for us.

If Obama hopes to wind he had better make more space between his own attitude and that of people such as yourself who live off of the society that you would like to see ruined.

The IT bubble was based on greed and innovation. The innovation part would have happened anyhow. Programmers and engineers would innovate for peanuts, given the chance. Software technology is being pulled from the fringes, not the result of well motivated CEOs.

Being conservative has come to be about mortgaging the future for the present. New tax cuts will be spent on new (imported) consumer spending unless the problem of competitiveness is address head on. That might mean enforcing environmental and labor practices on a global scale and implementing heavy tariffs for those that force workers to go 10-12 hours a day, 6 to 7 days a week in unsafe factories. How can the country that is our banker still be "developing".

Jeff TIschler of FL @ Apr 04, 2008 09:46:17 AM

guess ?

it is time to learn one more lesson my dear greek friend but i pray there is still hope for all of us ...

LP @ Apr 04, 2008 04:48:18 AM

Why the dems don't have a chance

The General Election for President of the United States is pretty simple. When you have a failing party in power, in a two party system, the other usually will take power in the next election. However, the Democratic party really doesn't "get it." The two candidates thus far are so unelectable it is getting worse as time goes on and they bicker back and forth. There needs to be that guy that you want to vote for. Hillary R. Clinton and Barack Obama just don't have a thing going for them.

http://riversofremembrance.blogspot.com/2008/04/why-democrats-will-fail-yet-again.html

ACE of UT @ Apr 04, 2008 01:20:35 AM

typical GOP talk

the fact is that Clintonomics did work, as Allen Greenspan himself endorsed William Jefferson Clinton's economic plan http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE0DE113BF933A15751C0A965958260

Jay of NY @ Apr 03, 2008 21:34:25 PM