Hillary bringing up HillaryCare from 1993 during debate.

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by 1458279, Feb 6, 2016.

  1. 1458279 Suspended

    1458279

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Location:
    California
    #1
    The last Dem debate was between Bernie and Hillary. There was a point where Hillary proudly brought up HillaryCare:
    http://time.com/4208869/democratic-debate-transcript-full-text-new-hampshire-fifth/

    What's interesting about this is:
    1. HillaryCare didn't pass.
    2. The House and Senate changed hands.
    3. Bill Clinton moved to the right after Newt became speaker.
    4. The economic policies went to "the era of big government is over"
    5. The economy grew better than it has since.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Revolution
    The era of big government is over:


    Growth ave over 4%
    http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG?page=3

    [​IMG]


    Seems pretty clear.
     
  2. thermodynamic, Feb 6, 2016
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2016

    thermodynamic Suspended

    thermodynamic

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #2
    So you're saying Romney took his reform from Hillary?!!

    http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs...ly-admits-that-obamacare-came-from-romneycare
    --- Post Merged, Feb 6, 2016 ---
    And yes, the economy grew - adjusted for inflation, workers' wages still hadn't. But that's only the democrats' fault, never the market's and what it will bear - even if it drives down wages so much it enslaves your mother and daughter, or leads to continuous unpaid internship cycles or - up next - paying to get in the door... anything to keep the supply side going like the good little vulture that Reagan's "voodoo economics" turned it into. Oh, that's not a partisan term, his VP - George H W Bush - called "trickle down supply side economics" just that in 1981.
     
  3. 1458279 thread starter Suspended

    1458279

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Location:
    California
    #3
    I'm not sure where or why Romney did what he did, wasn't he Gov of a lib state? He probably made a deal that he wouldn't have otherwise. Romney wasn't the 1st choice, in fact, I don't know when we've last had a 1st choice :D

    As far as worker's wages in the 90's go. A fast food job was offering a sign on bonus to new workers. I've never heard of that before. I was in the tech industry during DotCom and we saw restaurants closed because they couldn't find workers.

    It was considered full employment at or near 4%. IDK if that was before or after the changes in how it was calculated.

    Either way, that was about the closest we were going to get to real full employment. Most agree that the 80's and 90's were the best of economic times overall.

    UI.gif
     
  4. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #4
    By the economy growing did you mean we went into a bubble that has since burst?
     
  5. 1458279 thread starter Suspended

    1458279

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Location:
    California
    #5
    The DotCom did happen one Bill's watch, but there was still great growth during that time. Notice how the DotCom burst didn't have the same impact as the Housing burst did. Not only because they hit different sectors of the income range, but also because some real companies came out of DotCom and a lot of great tech like the Internet, Amazon, eBay, Google, etc...

    But, yes there was a massive bubble, but it was smaller government, welfare reform, closer to a balanced budget that helped with growth and lesser harm when the bubble burst.

    The main point was Bill Clinton was clearly a smaller government president. He supported the welfare to work reform and reducing the size of government.
     
  6. Robisan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2014
    #6
    Since you're endorsing and looking back fondly on the glories of Clinton era governance I'll take this as your endorsement of his heir apparent, Hillary for president. :D:eek:
     
  7. Dmunjal macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #7
    The dot com bubble had nothing to with Clinton and the housing bubble had nothing to do with Bush. They were just bystanders in the Fed's monetary policy.

    We are now in the third bubble this century. It seems to be crashing as we speak and it will be bigger than the last just like housing was bigger than one before. Will it happen on Obama's watch? Will citizens finally figure out that the Fed and not one particular party is responsible for our economic issues?

    Maybe we'll realize that Sanders and Rand Paul are the only ones trying to change this institution from the outside? And the establishment is scared to death of it.
     
  8. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #8
    BS & RP are lunatics,,, lunatics I tell you, how DARE they go against the establishment? change? pfffffft . RP is out, only BS is left.
     
  9. 1458279 thread starter Suspended

    1458279

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Location:
    California
    #9
    I was pointing out the striking difference between Bill and Hillary. One is small government and the other is big government.

    At this point (if it could happen) I'd vote for Newt and Bill. Bill I guess would be Speaker and Newt pres. That way, we could have 94-98 all over again.
    --- Post Merged, Feb 6, 2016 ---
    Yes and No. Under Bill the Fed dropped margin rates, so yes you're right. However, Bill and GeorgeW (and I think Carter) added to what ended up as the housing bubble.

    +1 on the 3rd bubble! As far as how bad it is, if we can hold on to most of the jobs (even low paying jobs) we'll have far less damage. If it's just the rich VCs that take a dive, it'll be close to what happened in the DotCom where mainly the rich got smacked.
     
  10. Dmunjal macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #10
    Don't forget that Greenspan lowered rates under Clinton (for Asian Contagion and Y2K) and under Bush (after dotcom collapse). Bernanke lowered rates after the housing collapse. In all cases, they leave rates too low for too long causing a bubble which eventually bursts.

    This one will be bigger than the other two combined. The numbers are just bigger. $4T in QE has to be unwound. It doesn't matter if the money went to VCs, dotcom, oil, housing, China, etc. All the job gains will also have to be reversed.
     
  11. thekev macrumors 604

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #11
    I don't recall you referring to Sanders as a lunatic, and I can't recall your opinion on Paul. Did I miss something? I'm not entirely sure whether it's sarcasm.
     
  12. Dmunjal macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #12
    I think you missed the sarcasm?
     
  13. thekev macrumors 604

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #13
    I guess that confirms my edit. I'm terrible at detecting it, even with the pfft. I thought jkcerda said something about Sanders not having a chance in a previous thread, but I am unsure if it was him. I mix up handles sometimes.
     
  14. 1458279 thread starter Suspended

    1458279

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Location:
    California
    #14
    I understand the $4T in QE, but can you explain where that came from and why it has to be unwound?
    My guess is that the QE was nothing more than the Fed printing money that went to a specific purpose. The unwound part, you mean that the effect is gone and it was a fake inflation of the economy and it's growth effect is now gone?

    As far as unwinding the job gains goes, I'm not following why they must happen. I can see that it could happen in part because of a down turn in the market. However, I don't see that we need massive job loses because of a down turn in the market.

    Consider: most of the gains in the S&P 500 have been from very few companies. In 1 year 6 companies accounted for ALL the gains. Most of these gains did NOT support the job growth as most of the gains from the recovery overall went the the top 1 or 5 percent.

    This means that the job gains have mostly come regular business activity and not from the Obama recovery efforts. That recovery really just created a bridge for people to use, while the great gains went to the top 5% in the form in unearned income (investments).

    Independent of what the Fed, VC and wall street does, the people have the ability to have their own recovery. This would be noticed by the type of jobs created.

    Basically, the labor economy has created it's own recovery and the investment economy was faked with QE and the Fed. Remember, the Fed changed it's standards for banks and banks weren't lending for quite a while.

    I see a large disconnect between the investment and labor economies.
     
  15. Huntn Suspended

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #15
    Yes it does. Seems pretty clear someone is obsessed and on a mission.
     
  16. Dmunjal macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #16
    Here's the way I look at it. The Fed started QE in 2009 and printed $4T that mostly was used to support the big banks and the Federal government by buying mortgage-backed securities and Treasuries, respectively. That money allowed the Federal government to continue deficit spending which went to the usual government expenses like healthcare, military, and entitlements. This led to increased economic activity and more jobs. In addition, ZIRP allowed companies to grow and take on more debt than they otherwise would which allowed them to grow. It also allowed hedge funds to borrow money practically free and invest it into stocks and bonds which made shareholders feel richer. Homebuyers also benefited by being able to buy more house than they could otherwise with higher rates which drove up home prices.

    This all created a wealth effect that allowed consumers to spend more and hopefully grow the economy. The problem is that this is not sustainable growth. Just like the last two bubbles, this is artificial growth and eventually needs to come to an end. It can end with the Fed ending QE and raising rates like they did last year or it can end when the bubble just grows too big and there are no more suckers, I mean buyers left.

    Whatever the cause, it doesn't matter. The bubble has to deflate. All the investments that were made when it was growing were just bets and they have to be unwound. Oil exploration is an example. Now that has to be unwound and oil jobs will be lost. Housing will go down and construction jobs will be lost. And other sectors will be affected.

    Normally, this is just called the business cycle and it ebbs and flows over time. The problem is that the Fed has exaggerated the cycle and now we have bigger booms and busts than before.

    Here's a good video that shows what the Fed was trying to do and why they are stuck now.

     
  17. 1458279 thread starter Suspended

    1458279

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Location:
    California
    #17
    Ok, I agree with what you say, but I think there is something more to add.
    Consider: The jobs created, even the part time, low pay jobs, added to the economy. What they added might just be basic stability to the economy or a reduction in job loss rates, but either way, they did add to the economy.

    When you either take people from unemployed to employed or add new workers to the workforce, you add to the economy and so you could say that although we grew very slow and still have many millions not in the workforce, we still added something.

    That something would be real growth and we should be able to hold most of those gains as we deflate from the loss of ZIRP, QE, etc...

    Plus, there's the fact that most of the QE/ZIRP gains have been on the investment side of the economy. I understand that this spills over to employment, but most of the effect went to the rich.

    So, it could be the case that the rich become less rich while the poor can still keep their jobs or at least most of them.
     
  18. Eraserhead, Feb 8, 2016
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2016

    Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #18
    If you look at the FTSE it was barely higher in the 2015 peak than in the 1999 peak, given the world economy is nearly twice as big as then we can't be in a bigger bubble. It makes no sense.

    https://www.google.com/finance?q=INDEXFTSE:UKX&ei=DRO5VrnAHMKOUqiFqdgC

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_world_product
     
  19. Dmunjal macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #19
    You can't look at just the stock market. The indexes do not take into account the shadow banking system that is made up of derivatives.
     
  20. 1458279 thread starter Suspended

    1458279

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Location:
    California
    #20
    If you look at Nasdaq and China, you'll notice that the 'mountain' of gains have mostly been lost as the bubble pops. China has given back most of it stock market gains, just like the Nas did back in the DotCom day.

    The stock markets have become a casino. Cheaper money (margin/ZIRP) cause more gambling and 'too big to fail' type safety nets is like saying: "you can gamble all you want, we'll let you keep your winnings and write off your losses"

    Imagine a casino the wrote off your losses and let you keep your wins.

    That's what we've had.

    However, we actually have 2 economies. Labor and capital. Labor has had a recovery. The labor market recovery has been helped by many things, including time, investment, etc...

    The investment economy actually deserves to take a bit of a dive. It did little to help the 'main street' people. It was a drunken, ZIRP/QE induced binge. Let them have their hangover.

    We the people just need jobs, better jobs, but any job is better than no job. Time has maybe been the labor markets best friend.

    The past is gone, the longer it's gone, the better :D

    I have little sorrow for the investment economy, but the labor economy doesn't need to be drug thru the rat hole because of this.
     
  21. Dmunjal macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #21
    If you remember 2008, the investment economy collapsed. Government had an opportunity to hit the reset button and let a new labor economy take hold. Instead, they bailed out the investment economy (Wall Street) and let the labor economy (Main Street) fester and die. Why would this time be any different? Maybe if Trump or Sanders win, you won't see the Wall Street bailout this time. If HRC or any of the other Republicans win (save Paul), you can bet Main Street will be left carrying the bag. Again.
     
  22. 1458279 thread starter Suspended

    1458279

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Location:
    California
    #22
    I wouldn't bet on many from Washington doing what's in the best interest of the labor economy. More so if they look back at 08 and say "well at least it did work".

    Another point is that the president only has so much power. How many go in say one thing, only to find gridlock? Right now, Bernie would be going into extreme gridlock because he's more left than Obama.

    One thing that's on the side of the people is that they got the short end of the stick last time. The people are clearly pissed. They voted out people in Washington in MASSIVE numbers. Obama went from super majority to least power in many decades. Even on the right, very powerful people were kicked out.

    I think (hope) they get the idea that their jobs are on the line.
     
  23. thermodynamic Suspended

    thermodynamic

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #23
    What's more interesting is that we have seen how premiums keep rising at single or double digit values each year and that was long before the ACA (Romney's baby), people denied coverage - even newborns for having "preexisting conditions"...

    Whose economy? You forgot to put up the graphs showing how wages haven't quite kept up with inflation...

    http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...rs-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/

    http://www.cbpp.org/testimony-jared...the-senate-health-education-labor-and-pension

    How's that trickle down workin' for ya? Took only 30 years of deregulation and union busting to make the sheer utopia everyone is clearly enjoying today... (NOT!!!!!) Was Reagan right, how freedom could be lost within one generation?

    And we all know the old phrase, "Clinton was the best president republicans ever had". At least before Obama.
    --- Post Merged, Apr 3, 2016 ---
    Anyone to the left of Reagan who, if he ran today, would be seen as an ultra-liberal as well thanks to illegals' amnesty and a number of other programs...
    --- Post Merged, Apr 3, 2016 ---
    I recall politicians saying "let it crash" but none of them went into any detail as to how to rebuild. Maybe everyone missed the memo? How would the system be rebuilt? ;)
    --- Post Merged, Apr 3, 2016 ---
    It's a shame freedom is tied to money, isn't it?
     

Share This Page