If Clinton didn't have the tech-economy boom

[Snoggera]

would he still be thought of as a great president?

Don't get me wrong. I was reasonably happy during his years of presiding over the executive branch, but wonder.........

Without the tech boom and resultant increase in employment and most other sectors, what was accomplished?

Welfare reform? I think it has been a hurtful program for many families.

The transfer of wealth to those already wealthy was not as pronounced as it is now, but was definitely occurring even then.

He had to spend so much time fighting off the republican attacks that it had to limit his effectiveness.

Why didn't he fight for an increase in the minimum wage? I don't know how people make it.

Not to be negative about his Presidency, because I would give my right pinky toenail to have those days back.

So, without a healthy economy based on the tech-bubble, how would he have fared among the more liberal/progressive of us?

I have to mention that I am increasingly pissed about the fact that he seems unable to speak about issues anymore.

No flames please.

[cjbuchanan]

1. That's hard to argue

Because if you take out a good economy, his overall priorities would have been very different. I could easy see a situation where welfare reform would not have happened if the economy was so-so or worse. I say this because if the economy was bad, more people could see that this was needed, thus it could not get through.

Also, if the economy wasn't what it was, there probably would have been a greater ability to increase federal work projects.

I do not think Clinton would have taken the exact same course if he had a bad economy (unlike Bush & Co. who think that no matter what the problem is, the answer is tax cuts).

As far as speaking out on the issues, Clinton is sort of bound by the "code of ex-presidents." Most ex's do not speak out on issues and do not issue direct challenges to other presidents. This is just the way it has been.

[The Blue Knight]

2. Why didn't he fight for an increase in the minimum wage?

He did....twice.

[Snoggera]

5. That's good to know. I wasn't aware.

Maybe he should have tried early on in his presidency when he still had the backing of a semi-friendly congress. Instead, he introduced "Don't ask, don't tell" and a massively confusing and easily propagandized against health bill.

I know, hindsight and all. I only criticize because I want true change. Not just a return to the status quo prior to the current insane situation, but a return to times when leaders fought for the rights of all.

Yes, I'm feeling idealistic today. That too shall pass?

[robbedvoter]

3. What? No more Greenspan's genius?

It used to be that it was Poppy's boom& Greenspan's genius.
Ouch, Greenspan is part of W's disaster...so now it's "tech-economy boom".
And precluding the Millenium attacks was a stroke of luck. And winning in Kosovo without the loss of one US life was : "who cares?" And the surplus was "our money - cuz we were overtaxed" and the jobs were....
Sort answer: YES.

[papau]

4. The tech bubble was 30% of the game - remove it and he still beats

All other Presidents, including Reagan, except for JFK.

Granted the 30% is number is from economic modeling - but puting the tech stocks at 94 levels and the Dow is only dropped to 7000 from 10,000.

The key is to give the impression of being in control of the budget - it allows a marginal reduction in long term rates - which in turn does a small reduction to the hurddle rate a new corporate investment must pass to get approve - which means a small increase in investment - and it appears - based on 3 real life experiments (Reagan/Bush41 ignore deficit huge tax cut for rich in Aug 81 followed by 14 month deep recession, Bush 43 tax cut for the rich mild recession ending 11/01 but with no jobs during the current "boom", and Clinton's tax increase on the rich followed by economic heaven and 23 million new jobs) - that it indeed is a true concept.

But our smart business folks want those personal tax cuts and therefore feed money to the GOP.

Low interest rates mean a lousy economy - and as long as Bush can sell up is down, one month of 300,000 temp jobs increase as employment coming back when we know the next few months will be back at 200,000 new jobs level - as long as our media says nothing - I do not expect the 10 year rate to get much above 5% by the end of the first quarter of 05.

[sandnsea]

6. His programs helped the tech boom

He targeted money to schools and various government agencies for internet connectivity, tax changes for investment in computers and IT, etc. And as much as people hate the Telecom bill, some of the changes in that bill helped local ISP's to be able to access phone lines and bring dial-up to rural areas. So when Kerry proposes some of the same kinds of things for wireless or energy, it'll help produce the same results.

And we also got a minimum wage increase, somewhere along the line in there. And don't forget SCHIP, domestic violence legislation, roadless areas, rivers & fisheries legislation, and that budget surplus.

[Davis_X_Machina]

7. Absent [i]any[/i] boom...

...and even given the continuation of the Bush-era recession, Clinton would still receive high marks for his work overseas, and would surely have managed the consequences of an ecomomic downturn better than Junta Boy and his posse.

Carter looks better every year, and that's what Clinton without the boom is, basically.

[RummyTheDummy]

8. It was the Deficit Reduction Act of 1993 that triggered

Clinton's economy. The tech boom came well after that.