Need help with freeper-says Clinton responsible for economy

[Strathos]

He claims-

The Crash of our Economy that began in March of 2000, were the result of the CLinton administrations failure to enforce Securities and Exchange Laws, and the signing of the NAFTA and GATT2 treaties...


Is that true? I can't find much information on the internet about it so I can't argue well enough to counter.

Any help would be appreciated.

[meegbear]

1. Have them prove it ...

have them explain how those things did it. Make THEM defend their statements.

[bowens43]

2. Why discuss anything with freepers?

[Armstead]

3. NAFTA and GATt sure didn't help

All of the outsourcing and loss of American jobs and productive capacity is a direct result of policies supported by Clinton. That at least was a contributing factor to the bursting of the bubble in 2000.

The GOP is worse, and they have hastened the process.

But on economic policies Clinton and the Democratic Corporate Centrists have helped to create the mess we're o today.

[Lerkfish]

4. If true, why did Greenspan keep raising the fed rate to slow down the

economy, and then immediately drop it when Bush came to office?

Even with Greenspan's interference, the economy was never better under Clinton.
Before Clinton, under Bush's papa, the economy was worse than stagnant, under Clinton, we had a surplus, and then under Bush II the economy tanked again.
If they want to blame Clinton, then they have to blame Poppy Bush first. Funny point though, who was responsible for the GOOD economy and consumer confidence under Clinton?

[zbdent]

5. Ask him why the Republicans used the CONSERVATIVE estimate

for the surplus as reasoning for their massive tax cuts ... and then used the soft market for the exact same tax cuts ...

And tell them there's a helluva difference between a market that was slowing down, and one thrown into reverse ...

Oh, the official consensus of economists say that it was March 2001, not 2000 ... which, when you think about it, meant that the quarter that started the decline was started sometime in December, say, 12/12/2000?

[proud2BlibKansan]

6. Her job is to provide links, not yours

But you might ask her how the rising deficit is helping the economy.

[TheCowsCameHome]

7. They've blamed everything but the Revolutionary War on Clinton.

Nothing new here. It's just what they do.

[MGD]

8. Ask him who was President when NAFTA was created.

Here's a hint, he shares the same first and last name as our current President.

GATT has been around since 1947 in various guises. It evolved into the WTO in 1994. I guess that would be GATT 2? It doesn't seem all that bad for the US really. Maybe I'm wrong though.

As far as the economy crashing in 2000, that's a major debate that generally follows party lines. My belief is that the economy went to shit after 9-11. prior to that, it may have been slowing down as a result of hitting certain ceilings in the tech industry but it was nowhere near a recession IMO.

[TreasonousBastard]

9. Oh good grief ! The economy is so complex that even...

the experts can't figure out what's really going on. Admittedly, 2000 was too soon for Shrub to have had an effect. He wasn't even in office then. But, did we really have a crash? The economy often takes a momentary dive when the regime changes, simply from the uncertainties.

Although outsourcing increased somewhat under Clinton, it was going full steam all along and one of Clinton's priorities was to increase US exports and reduce the trade deficit. This has almost completely stopped under Shrub, and our trade deficit is now staggering.

I don't know what he means about not enforcing SEC rules, unless it's about pardoning Marc Rich.

The economy is cyclical, and driven by combinations of consumer demand, new technologies for production, regulation, capital availalibility and lots of other stuff, much of which is under the radar. The largest single consumer/spender in the US is the Federal government, and Federal spending has massively increased under these "managers." Even worse, it's not buying normal stuff or transfer payments, which fuel the economy, but too much of it is military and "security" spending, which simply goes into a black Halliburton/Lockheed hole.

[skipos]

10. I don't know if this will help but historically

Dems are better for the economy. Forbes has some ratings of ecomonic properity that verify this.

"Not surprisingly, Bill Clinton tops the magazine's prosperity chart. He is followed by two other Democrats – Johnson and Kennedy. The first Republican to show up is Reagan, who comes in fourth. No Democrat finishes lower than seventh (Truman), and the last three spots are all occupied by Republicans (Nixon, Eisenhower and George H.W. Bush). On a scale of one to eleven (one being Bill Clinton, eleven being the elder Bush), Democrats have an average ranking of 3.8, Republicans of 7.8."

http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/pp.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=131769

That probably explains why democrats are better for the stock market too.

DOW SINCE 1901
Republican years Avg. annual change 6.9%
Democratic years Avg. annual change 13.3%
Source: Stock Trader's Almanac 2005

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/columnist/krantz/2005-12-02-presidents_x.htm

[niyad]

11. ask him to explain how the surplus left by the clinton administration has

turned into the largest deficit in history with REPUBLICANS in the white house, and in control of BOTH houses of congress.

[Cameron27]

12. Facts, logic, and common sense

never work with freepers. Don't bother engaging.

[Strathos]

13. THANKS!! You people are awesome.

I don't make it a habit of arguing with those people, but I just knew I had to make that person eat their words.

Thanks again.