the life as a "corporate pilot"

[HawkerF/O]

Clinton also didn't insist on a balanced budget. The Congressional elections of 1994 brought in the new Congress with it's "Contract with America" that vowed a balanced budget. (The majority party of Congress later broke that contract proving that there is no difference in the spending habits of congressmen based on party affiliation. In fact, many of the members of Congress who were swept into office with the election of '94, having campaigned on the Contract with America have since quit.) Again, Clinton recognized the direction of the tide and wisely went with it.

No, you are not giving credit where credit is due and only telling 1/2 the story. Clinton DID insist on a balanced budget, what he opposed what amending the Constitution to accomplish it. Huge difference. The GOP wanted (Contract with America) insisted on a balanced budget AMENDMENT to the Constitution. The DEMS said to take a hike and rightfully so. Had that gone though, we would not be able to be fighting the wars we are today because of the fiscal restrictions that would have required the #s to balance. A balanced budget amendment and balancing the budget are 2 different things and apples and oranges. Would you argee?

 

[HawkerF/O]

HawkerFO--Just a couple of small corrections. Clinton didn't bow to the wishes of Alan Greenspan. He threatened to fire Greenspan after his statement in '93. Wall St. had a $h!tfit and the market started to slide within minutes of the rumor being floated. Clinton backed down.

You've received some bad information. Had Clinton fired Greenspan he would hav torched his own econimic plans and he campaigned on that and won because of it, so I knwo it is something that he was unwilling to do.

Let remember: The Fed Chairman and the President work for 2 different things. The president wants as much econimic expansion (positive grown) as possible. No such thing as too much in his eyes, at least while he is in office. No president has ever been voted out of office for an economy that was too good. Never. While the Fed Chairman wants that same growth, he wants it in moderate, steady, and consistant terms that is not explosive.

Clinton NEVER once publically critizised Greenspan or tried to strongarm the Federal Reserve. Never. Their relationship always remainded close, even when they did not always see eye to eye. They essentially wanted the same things, just on different scales. Here's why they didnt see eye to eye:
In 1994 and early 1995 when the economy started to show a hint of inflation, the Fed reserve moved extremely quickly to check that inflation. Clinton took it personally and thought they were trying to spite him because of their haste. He was pissed; furious. By raising interest rates, that puts people out of work and hurts the President. If you go back and look, that same year, 1995, Greenspan was seated between Tipper and Hillary at the State of the Union. That seat is not reserved for someone the President is considering firing! By putting Greenspan in that seat, it showed him that Clinton trusted him and that they were going to make this work, and it did. Clinton knew he did not know what Greenspan knew in terms of the economy, so he trusted Greenspan to do his job. Clinton did what he needed to do and Grenspan did what he needed to do. The Feds backed off those rate hikes and then for the most part did not touch them again for 3 1/2 years. In that time Greenspan was essentially trusting Clinton as well and as long as things did not get out of control, he just was along for the ride with Clinton to see what would happen. Well, the ecomony took off and unemployment dipped and stayed below 6% and Greenspan still didn't touch the rates, even though most economists would scream at the top of their lungs that unemployment at levels that low and interests rates going unchecked would result in high levels of inflation just the same way as the sun rises in the East every morning. That inflation never happened and the rest is history.

 

[SCT]

It must be winter time.....

 

[dbchandler1]

I'm afraid I'm still taking the position that the most important thing Clinton ever did concerning the economy is to get elected at the proper time. If you look at the data the economy was coming out of recession at the end of the first Bush presidency and was already turning the corner as Clinton took office. Encorporating technology into every facet of our lives and businesses really exploded in the nineties, mostly because of a user friendly operating system (windows). you cannot lump all of the advances in technology into a tech sector. by the end of the nineties there was not one area of the economy that computers didnt touch. also think about this: a tech company takes a successful dot.com onto the internet and goes public what they really have done is taken a company that has no infastructure or equity and made that company worth millions. when wealth is suddenly created like that every sector of the economy benifits. more rich CEO's that invest in diversified stocks which help more startup companies which buy more corporate jets that employ more pilots that travel to more FBO's that hire more hot ladies behind the counter that can suddenly afford to get married that get diamonds from there fiance that causes jewelry companies to make huge profits,etc... you get the picture. That had never been possible before the nineties. in the past a company had to buy expensive equiptment or gain expensive expertise, or procure valuable resources. This is part of the reason that it was so bad when the tech bubble burst. when a technology company that is supposedly worth billions goes out of business and all they can liquidate is an office with 10 computers it is very bad! balancing the budget had more to do with cutting a cold war military and the increased tax base found by inheriting a economy that was suddenly capable of creating billions out of nothing than with any person or political party.


And by the way, the way you organize the seating charts in politics has nothing to do with who you like or are able to work with, it only has to do with what you want and who can give it to you. Clinton sits by Hilary too and we all know that doesnt mean a dang thing.

 

[dbchandler1]

yes, it is winter.

 

[2000flyer]

"Life as a corporate pilot" to "b*thcing about politics!"

Yep...that about sums it up

 

[AA717driver]

I hate to strip off your rose colored glasses but, here goes:

From the Virginia Pilot on June 6, 1994

CHAOS DEPICTED EARLY IN CLINTON TERM

Insistent advice from Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan to President Clinton during the presidential transition and early in the new administration led Clinton to pursue lower deficits at the expense of the economic populism of his campaign, according to a new book.
The book, ``The Agenda: Inside the Clinton White House'' by Washington Post Assistant Managing Editor Bob Woodward, is an intimate look at how the new Democratic president and his stumbling, feuding team of advisers struggled to formulate and adopt an economic program during Clinton's first year.

It depicts a chaotic policy-making operation, crucial intercessions by Hillary Rodham Clinton and an active policy role played by four outside political advisers.

The four were given open access to the White House, which they used in part to criticize the economic team. They complained that Clinton's fall in popularity was a result of policies being promoted by the economic advisers - or at least the way those policies were packaged for sale to the public. The two groups are described as virtually at war with each other.

The book describes Clinton temper tantrums, and it depicts him as frequently indecisive and reluctant to delegate. It portrays virtually every member of Clinton's inner circle, including Hillary Clinton, as critical of the president's management style.

On the vital economic front, Greenspan is described as a central player, albeit once removed from the inner circle. The book recounts what Woodward calls a crucial meeting between Clinton and Greenspan in Little Rock, Ark., in December 1992, the month before Clinton's inauguration.

During the 2 1/2-hour session, the Fed chairman told the president-elect that reducing the long-term federal budget deficit was ``essential'' and that the economic recovery could fall on its face if policies credible to Wall Street, particularly to bond-traders, were not advanced.

Later, in what became a pattern, the Fed chairman made suggestions, Clinton acted on them, and Greenspan rewarded the action with approving words to Congress, or other public comments meant to signal his approval.

Greenspan outlined to Clinton an economic approach Woodward calls the ``financial markets strategy.'' Policy was to be designed to send a message to Wall Street and ultimately, drive down interest rates.

The theory, and the policy Clinton adopted, bore little resemblance to the economic program on which he had campaigned. Clinton's ``Putting People First'' campaign banner stressed government ``investment'' in programs that would improve the lives of middle-class Americans such as job training, early education, government promotion of cutting-edge technology. A middle-class tax cut and health care for all Americans were sweeteners.

Greenspan's advice to Clinton that a long-term deficit-reduction program was of paramount importance was backed not only by Bentsen, but also by Budget Director Leon E. Panetta and his deputy, Alice M. Rivlin, according to the book. The president's economic advisers, with his assent, quickly jettisoned the tax cut, delayed health care reform, and then added an energy tax and spending cuts.

Clinton's political team - campaign advisers James Carville and Paul Begala, media adviser Mandy Grunwald and pollster Stan Greenberg - are portrayed as horrified and disgusted with this effort to please the market. Carville is quoted as joking he used to want to die and come back in a second life as the pope or president, but now he just wanted to be the bond market because it seemed to run the world.

The four seem to have spent much of last year decrying what that saw as mismanagement at the White House and firing off memos arguing that the president and some of his aides had lost their souls to the deficit-cutters.

Clinton, while intellectually acquiescing in the devastation of his investment programs, raged nonetheless at how it happened. While the book depicts him as highly intelligent and energetic, it recounts several Clinton temper tantrums, quoting senior aide George Stephanopoulos as calling them ``the wave'' - overpowering, prolonged rages that shocked outsiders and often seemed far out of proportion to their cause.

A recurring theme in the book is Clinton's inability to terminate debate and make a decision and his reluctance to delegate.

A memo, written in July as the White House headed into the crucial month leading up to the budget vote, warned apocalyptically that the ``current course, advanced by our economic team and congressional leaders, threatens to sink your popularity further and weaken your presidency.'' The memo, referring to extensive polling and focus groups, recommended dropping the gasoline tax, paring back the deficit-reduction package, and repackaging and reselling an economic program so it was not about taxes but about getting the nation's economic house in order.

The memo prompted Hillary Clinton to go to White House Chief of Staff Thomas F. ``Mack'' McLarty and insist it was ``panic time,'' with no plan to sell the program they were about to send to Congress, no strategy and no decisions made on key elements.

At one crucial meeting last July attended by the president and the first lady, Hillary Clinton chastised both the economic and political teams for ill serving Clinton, for lacking organization and planning, for creating a ``dysfunctional'' White House. She complained they had allowed Clinton to appear to be a ``mechanic-in-chief,'' erased his ``moral voice'' and changed his economic program from a ``values document'' to a bunch of numbers. ``I want to see a plan'' for selling the program, she demanded.

---------------------------

Clinton was forced into a program aimed at deficit reduction. Greenspan got his seat at the State of the Union because he was pulling the strings on the economy. (Greenspan was secretly directing economic policy by going through Sec. Treas. Lloyd Bentsen--the equivalent of passing notes in class.) Greenspan's suggestions worked and he became the darling of the W.H. I will have to do more research on the particulars of how Clinton and Greenspan got to this relationship. I could swear they had a rocky begining.TC

 

[Lead Sled]

All of this over a comment about baggage. Amazing, simply amazing.

 

[AA717driver]

Yep. It really is stupid. But, that's what you get in Winter... TC

 

[HawkerF/O]

Come on TC. The Virginian Pilot? A book? Bob Woodward? I must have missed the part on his resume that said "economic expert". That book was a flop and I've never heard of it. I have studied in great detail the economic expansion of the Clinton Administration. The article says Hillary was critical of her husband. I don't think so. If there is 1 thing that is for sure, that is the fact that Hillary would not be critical of her husband, especially to a reporter. Carville and Begala, same thing. There is just no way. They all would have too much to loose, especially Hillary. Unless I saw her with my own eyes, I would never believe something like that, and neithr should you. Aside from this story, tell me of another time when you have ever so much as heard of Hillary critizing her husband (Lewenski issue aside). When it comes to politics, there is just no way something like that happened. Even so, the article said that all these folks were critical of Bill, but then went on to give ZERO examples! Does that not strike you as suspicious?

Lyodd Bentson was not in the administration very long. As soon as new $ was printed with his name on it, he bailed (no kidding), so the impact of LB was minimal. IT was Bob Rubin's tenure at TREAS when America's longest period of economic expansion took place. Also remember, sustained economic growth has NEVER taken place during a Republican administration. Never. and there has noot been a budget surplus until Clinton since 1969. Those are facts to think about.

Carville is correct, the Bond market/traders (along with the Federal Reserve Board) will make or break a president. They run the economy.

Let get seomthing a little more credible than this book and we'll go from there. I'll research it was well. I'm not calling you a liar, I'm just saying in all of my research, I've never come across Clinton and Greenspan being at each others throat. They have not always seen eye to eye, but it was always a professional relationship with mutual respect.

I hate to strip off your rose colored glasses but, here goes:

From the Virginia Pilot on June 6, 1994

CHAOS DEPICTED EARLY IN CLINTON TERM

Insistent advice from Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan to President Clinton during the presidential transition and early in the new administration led Clinton to pursue lower deficits at the expense of the economic populism of his campaign, according to a new book.
The book, ``The Agenda: Inside the Clinton White House'' by Washington Post Assistant Managing Editor Bob Woodward, is an intimate look at how the new Democratic president and his stumbling, feuding team of advisers struggled to formulate and adopt an economic program during Clinton's first year.

It depicts a chaotic policy-making operation, crucial intercessions by Hillary Rodham Clinton and an active policy role played by four outside political advisers.

The four were given open access to the White House, which they used in part to criticize the economic team. They complained that Clinton's fall in popularity was a result of policies being promoted by the economic advisers - or at least the way those policies were packaged for sale to the public. The two groups are described as virtually at war with each other.

The book describes Clinton temper tantrums, and it depicts him as frequently indecisive and reluctant to delegate. It portrays virtually every member of Clinton's inner circle, including Hillary Clinton, as critical of the president's management style.

On the vital economic front, Greenspan is described as a central player, albeit once removed from the inner circle. The book recounts what Woodward calls a crucial meeting between Clinton and Greenspan in Little Rock, Ark., in December 1992, the month before Clinton's inauguration.

During the 2 1/2-hour session, the Fed chairman told the president-elect that reducing the long-term federal budget deficit was ``essential'' and that the economic recovery could fall on its face if policies credible to Wall Street, particularly to bond-traders, were not advanced.

Later, in what became a pattern, the Fed chairman made suggestions, Clinton acted on them, and Greenspan rewarded the action with approving words to Congress, or other public comments meant to signal his approval.

Greenspan outlined to Clinton an economic approach Woodward calls the ``financial markets strategy.'' Policy was to be designed to send a message to Wall Street and ultimately, drive down interest rates.

The theory, and the policy Clinton adopted, bore little resemblance to the economic program on which he had campaigned. Clinton's ``Putting People First'' campaign banner stressed government ``investment'' in programs that would improve the lives of middle-class Americans such as job training, early education, government promotion of cutting-edge technology. A middle-class tax cut and health care for all Americans were sweeteners.

Greenspan's advice to Clinton that a long-term deficit-reduction program was of paramount importance was backed not only by Bentsen, but also by Budget Director Leon E. Panetta and his deputy, Alice M. Rivlin, according to the book. The president's economic advisers, with his assent, quickly jettisoned the tax cut, delayed health care reform, and then added an energy tax and spending cuts.

Clinton's political team - campaign advisers James Carville and Paul Begala, media adviser Mandy Grunwald and pollster Stan Greenberg - are portrayed as horrified and disgusted with this effort to please the market. Carville is quoted as joking he used to want to die and come back in a second life as the pope or president, but now he just wanted to be the bond market because it seemed to run the world.

The four seem to have spent much of last year decrying what that saw as mismanagement at the White House and firing off memos arguing that the president and some of his aides had lost their souls to the deficit-cutters.

Clinton, while intellectually acquiescing in the devastation of his investment programs, raged nonetheless at how it happened. While the book depicts him as highly intelligent and energetic, it recounts several Clinton temper tantrums, quoting senior aide George Stephanopoulos as calling them ``the wave'' - overpowering, prolonged rages that shocked outsiders and often seemed far out of proportion to their cause.

A recurring theme in the book is Clinton's inability to terminate debate and make a decision and his reluctance to delegate.

A memo, written in July as the White House headed into the crucial month leading up to the budget vote, warned apocalyptically that the ``current course, advanced by our economic team and congressional leaders, threatens to sink your popularity further and weaken your presidency.'' The memo, referring to extensive polling and focus groups, recommended dropping the gasoline tax, paring back the deficit-reduction package, and repackaging and reselling an economic program so it was not about taxes but about getting the nation's economic house in order.

The memo prompted Hillary Clinton to go to White House Chief of Staff Thomas F. ``Mack'' McLarty and insist it was ``panic time,'' with no plan to sell the program they were about to send to Congress, no strategy and no decisions made on key elements.

At one crucial meeting last July attended by the president and the first lady, Hillary Clinton chastised both the economic and political teams for ill serving Clinton, for lacking organization and planning, for creating a ``dysfunctional'' White House. She complained they had allowed Clinton to appear to be a ``mechanic-in-chief,'' erased his ``moral voice'' and changed his economic program from a ``values document'' to a bunch of numbers. ``I want to see a plan'' for selling the program, she demanded.

---------------------------

Clinton was forced into a program aimed at deficit reduction. Greenspan got his seat at the State of the Union because he was pulling the strings on the economy. (Greenspan was secretly directing economic policy by going through Sec. Treas. Lloyd Bentsen--the equivalent of passing notes in class.) Greenspan's suggestions worked and he became the darling of the W.H. I will have to do more research on the particulars of how Clinton and Greenspan got to this relationship. I could swear they had a rocky begining.TC