Seeking clarification.......?

Question

It is often pointed out on here how good the economy was under Clinton. When agreeing with this, many conservatives point out that for 6 of 8 years Congress was majority Republican, thus they deserve credit for any positives in the economy. When disagreeing with this, many conservatives point out that the budget wasn't "balanced" and Clinton just used the money from social security , or cons claim that Bush was handed a recession caused by Clinton, or some other negative claim.

So, please clarify, do conservatives believe the economy was good or bad during Clinton's terms, and who gets credit, Clinton or Congress?

Answer 1

Haha.  I like the way you think. (logically)  

Answer 2

It was good for most of the time except near the end. And I would say both would deserve some credit.

But don't forget that there was also a Bubble that created that good economy just like the current housing/financial bubble. Many many of the Tech companies that drove the economy are now bankrupt , very similar to many of the banks , finacials that are having trouble

Answer 3

I heard the economy was good under Clinton but like you said it had a lot ot do with the fact he had a Rep. congress & he did take money from SS to balance the budget, s******g SS.  So I think it's fair to say he did a good job while he was in office but he left a h**l of mess to be cleaned up after he left.

Independant.

Answer 4

Anybody who tries to attribute macro-economic progress primarily to political figures lacks either understanding or honesty.  The "economy" is composed of the actions of countless people participating in the market.  I do believe that political officials have a great deal of influence (too much, in my opinion) upon our economic well-being.  It may be debated whether political actions help or hinder the market.  But in the final analysis, if the "economy" is good it is thanks to the people who actually created wealth.  Politicians do not create wealth.  In the eyes of some, the best that they can do is to foster environments in which people can create wealth.  In the eyes of others (myself included) their best action is to step aside.

All of this debate is also complicated by the dubiousness of such terms as "the economy".  As stated above, the imaginary construct of the "the economy" is composed of the individual actions of all people who compose the market.  It should be questioned how much these actions may be aggregated.  Statistics have been dreamed up that allow politicians to take credit for "economic progress".  To illustrate, I hope that you'll take the time to read this fine critique on GDP [1].

To get back to the primary thrust of your question, I do think that claims that Clinton "balanced" the budget are fabrications.  However, spending during his administration was much more under control than it has been during the Bush administration.  I honestly don't know whether to credit that to Clinton or the Republican Congress.  It should not be forgotten that Clinton would have instituted some kind of national health care program if he could have.  It also should be remembered that many of those "responsible" Republicans of the 1990s are the same ones who allowed Bush to wreck havoc with the Federal budget.  It may take us back to the old dictum that gridlock in Washington is good for the economy regardless of which roles are played by which parties.