Lawyer-Wearing-Yarmulka
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
DovBear Ranks The Presidents? Hah!
DovBear is a decent guy. Sure I argue with him about pretty much anything he writes, but when it comes to political issues, reasonable minds may differ.
But after reading what he wrote yesterday, I’m starting to question his ability to think rationally. After writing that Clinton should be ranked in the top 10, maybe even in the top 5 of American Presidents he then followed up that comment with his actual rankings of the top 10 and bottom 5. Here they are and try not to laugh:
Clinton is #6, and Reagan doesn’t even make the top 10? Both Bush 41 and 43 are in the bottom five? Ignore for the moment that it is impossible to rank a sitting President. Bush 43 will ultimately be judged on how Iraq turns out, and there are years left before we can pass final judgment on it. But Bush 41 is the 4th worst President ever? Please. He sure wasn’t a great President, but ranking among the worst ever pretty much confirms that you are a partisan hack wholly incapable of reasonable thought and analysis. DovBear ranking Clinton at #6 only further strengthens my point. Clinton was an ok President, and a great politician. But we’re ranking Presidents, not politicians.
And of course, this post wouldn’t be complete with a little appeal to authority. C-SPAN did the rankings with some historians based on numerous different factors. Reagan was ranked 11, Bush 41 was ranked 20 and Clinton was ranked 21. That makes a lot more sense than DovBear’s laughable attempt to deify Clinton.
But after reading what he wrote yesterday, I’m starting to question his ability to think rationally. After writing that Clinton should be ranked in the top 10, maybe even in the top 5 of American Presidents he then followed up that comment with his actual rankings of the top 10 and bottom 5. Here they are and try not to laugh:
My top 10
Lincoln
FDR
Washington
Jefferson
TR
Clinton
Truman
Madison
Jackson
Madison
My bottom 5 are
W
his father
Pierce
Buchanan
Harding
Clinton is #6, and Reagan doesn’t even make the top 10? Both Bush 41 and 43 are in the bottom five? Ignore for the moment that it is impossible to rank a sitting President. Bush 43 will ultimately be judged on how Iraq turns out, and there are years left before we can pass final judgment on it. But Bush 41 is the 4th worst President ever? Please. He sure wasn’t a great President, but ranking among the worst ever pretty much confirms that you are a partisan hack wholly incapable of reasonable thought and analysis. DovBear ranking Clinton at #6 only further strengthens my point. Clinton was an ok President, and a great politician. But we’re ranking Presidents, not politicians.
And of course, this post wouldn’t be complete with a little appeal to authority. C-SPAN did the rankings with some historians based on numerous different factors. Reagan was ranked 11, Bush 41 was ranked 20 and Clinton was ranked 21. That makes a lot more sense than DovBear’s laughable attempt to deify Clinton.
posted by LWY, 12:19 PM
32 Comments:
Oooh, I should be a historian. I was just right on Clinton! :P
I'm a bit surprised JFK is 8 - he didn't serve enough to really accomplish much, however good he might have been. But I guess that's what happens if you're assassinated. I would've expected him around 12-15.
If Bush 41 is 20th, then Bush 43 should be well above that. I can't imagine that people would put him over Reagan, though, even long-term.
I'm a bit surprised JFK is 8 - he didn't serve enough to really accomplish much, however good he might have been. But I guess that's what happens if you're assassinated. I would've expected him around 12-15.
If Bush 41 is 20th, then Bush 43 should be well above that. I can't imagine that people would put him over Reagan, though, even long-term.
But we’re ranking Presidents, not politicians.
Except for Reagan, of course. He was a great politician, but not much else.
I agree with you on Bush Sr. There's no way he's in the bottom five. I think W probably is there, or close to it, though. 9/11 happening on his watch, a losing and unpopular war, ruining our future economy, instituting torture, Katrina, wiretapping, Guantanamo, the end of habeus corpus, etc.
Clinton I would agree shouldn't be in the top 10, just because he didn't do anything really big like Washington, FDR, Lincoln, Truman, etc. I would still put him up there with almost anybody in terms of what I believe he could do, but presiding over peace and prosperity (even though he contributed to both) doesn't put one in the pantheon of greats. Conservatives like to spin his accomplishments as not his doing, but nobody can argue with the simple fact that we did great when he was president. Note that CSPAN has him as the 5th ever for economic management.
Except for Reagan, of course. He was a great politician, but not much else.
I agree with you on Bush Sr. There's no way he's in the bottom five. I think W probably is there, or close to it, though. 9/11 happening on his watch, a losing and unpopular war, ruining our future economy, instituting torture, Katrina, wiretapping, Guantanamo, the end of habeus corpus, etc.
Clinton I would agree shouldn't be in the top 10, just because he didn't do anything really big like Washington, FDR, Lincoln, Truman, etc. I would still put him up there with almost anybody in terms of what I believe he could do, but presiding over peace and prosperity (even though he contributed to both) doesn't put one in the pantheon of greats. Conservatives like to spin his accomplishments as not his doing, but nobody can argue with the simple fact that we did great when he was president. Note that CSPAN has him as the 5th ever for economic management.
He was a great politician, but not much else.
I don't think that's true. He did a nice job of managing the end of the Cold War, and did a nice job with the economy.
I think W probably is there, or close to it, though. 9/11 happening on his watch, a losing and unpopular war, ruining our future economy, instituting torture, Katrina, wiretapping, Guantanamo, the end of habeus corpus, etc.
I'd disagree with all of that, pretty much. But we already know that.
Clinton was smart enough not to touch anything economically in a time of prosperity. That's actually quite an accomplishment - most Presidents like to make it look like it's their doing. By doing nothing, he did better than most of them. That *is* good economic management, it just didn't do anything for when that bubble finally burst. And Clinton is one hell of a speaker.
I don't think that's true. He did a nice job of managing the end of the Cold War, and did a nice job with the economy.
I think W probably is there, or close to it, though. 9/11 happening on his watch, a losing and unpopular war, ruining our future economy, instituting torture, Katrina, wiretapping, Guantanamo, the end of habeus corpus, etc.
I'd disagree with all of that, pretty much. But we already know that.
Clinton was smart enough not to touch anything economically in a time of prosperity. That's actually quite an accomplishment - most Presidents like to make it look like it's their doing. By doing nothing, he did better than most of them. That *is* good economic management, it just didn't do anything for when that bubble finally burst. And Clinton is one hell of a speaker.
Reagan was a politician and not much else? C'mon, try to be serious. This is the guy who beat stagflation and communism. I've heard plenty of knocks against Reagan, but that he was a "politician" like Clinton is a new one.
Most of the things that you've listed as negatives against W, with the hindsight of history may very well turn out to be great accomplishments.
I find it cute though that you're blaming W for "ruining our future economy", as that's an impossible prediction to make, and basically a cheap political shot.
Most of the things that you've listed as negatives against W, with the hindsight of history may very well turn out to be great accomplishments.
I find it cute though that you're blaming W for "ruining our future economy", as that's an impossible prediction to make, and basically a cheap political shot.
The CSPAN data is interesting. If you look at the historian survey you'll see that they divide each president into categories. There's no methodology section that I can find so I assume they just average the categories to get an overall score.
In that persepective, you'll notice that according to historians Regan leaps ahead in public persuasian, relations with congress and vision/setting agenda. Clinton leaps ahead in economic management and pursueing equal justice for all.
Before you criticize these category ranks, note that this is the same survey that CWY is trying to use to club DovBear.
Anyway, I think it's safe to say that DovBear ranks economics and equal justice with much greater importance than some of these other categories. If you are looking through that lense, Clinton is a top 10 president. If you value vision, then Regan's your man.
In that persepective, you'll notice that according to historians Regan leaps ahead in public persuasian, relations with congress and vision/setting agenda. Clinton leaps ahead in economic management and pursueing equal justice for all.
Before you criticize these category ranks, note that this is the same survey that CWY is trying to use to club DovBear.
Anyway, I think it's safe to say that DovBear ranks economics and equal justice with much greater importance than some of these other categories. If you are looking through that lense, Clinton is a top 10 president. If you value vision, then Regan's your man.
I care about the total picture, and that makes Reagan a very good President, and makes Clinton and Bush 41 an average one.
And there are plenty of other surveys that I didn't link to that have similar results.
And there are plenty of other surveys that I didn't link to that have similar results.
Sorry Clinton Lied no matter what he did as president I just can't make that disappear - because it begs the question - what else did he lie about? the economy etc...
There's no such thing as a total picture. These categories can't be averaged as if they are all equally relevant. The closest overal catagory performance in context of time (This happens to also track overall ranking fairly closely)
For the record Dovbear's top 5 were in the top 6 and his bottom 3 were in the bottom 5.
Frankly, the biggest thing hurting Clinton was that great presidents only exist in a time of crisis and me oversaw 8 years without a major crisis. The biggest thing hurting W is that he managed during a time of crisis and failed miserably. In any case, it will take at least another decade before either of their ranking stabilize. I suspect Clinton will move up slightly (perhaps #15) and W will take his place comfortably near the bottom. I suspect Regan will also drop, but he'll also stay in the top 15.
For the record Dovbear's top 5 were in the top 6 and his bottom 3 were in the bottom 5.
Frankly, the biggest thing hurting Clinton was that great presidents only exist in a time of crisis and me oversaw 8 years without a major crisis. The biggest thing hurting W is that he managed during a time of crisis and failed miserably. In any case, it will take at least another decade before either of their ranking stabilize. I suspect Clinton will move up slightly (perhaps #15) and W will take his place comfortably near the bottom. I suspect Regan will also drop, but he'll also stay in the top 15.
For the record Dovbear's top 5 were in the top 6 and his bottom 3 were in the bottom 5.
Exactly. So what are Clinton and the Bushes doing on those lists? He just crammed them in based on his own political prejiduces, which is clear as no one else has Clinton so high or Bush so low.
. I suspect Clinton will move up slightly (perhaps #15) and W will take his place comfortably near the bottom. I suspect Regan will also drop, but he'll also stay in the top 15.
Could be, don't know, but Reagan has been moving up as time goes by, not down. It's impossible to determine where Bush will end up, like i said earlier, you can't rank a sitting president.
Exactly. So what are Clinton and the Bushes doing on those lists? He just crammed them in based on his own political prejiduces, which is clear as no one else has Clinton so high or Bush so low.
. I suspect Clinton will move up slightly (perhaps #15) and W will take his place comfortably near the bottom. I suspect Regan will also drop, but he'll also stay in the top 15.
Could be, don't know, but Reagan has been moving up as time goes by, not down. It's impossible to determine where Bush will end up, like i said earlier, you can't rank a sitting president.
Clinton was smart enough not to touch anything economically in a time of prosperity.
"Not to touch anything?" Um, yeah. Welfare reform and balancing the budget never happened, I guess.
CWY:
Reagan was a politician and not much else? C'mon, try to be serious. This is the guy who beat stagflation and communism. I've heard plenty of knocks against Reagan, but that he was a "politician" like Clinton is a new one.
He was "the great communicator." He made people believe he cared about children while cutting the school lunch programs and declaring ketchup a vegetable all at the same time! And he didn't really do anything to "beat" communism -- the USSR sort of imploded, if you'll recall. But that's a debate that's too long for this thread.
Most of the things that you've listed as negatives against W, with the hindsight of history may very well turn out to be great accomplishments.
There's hoping.
I find it cute though that you're blaming W for "ruining our future economy", as that's an impossible prediction to make, and basically a cheap political shot.
HUGE, RECORD DEFICIT. It's not exactly a controversial stance -- even most real conservatives (rather than partisans) agree.
bsci:
In that persepective, you'll notice that according to historians Regan leaps ahead in public persuasian, relations with congress and vision/setting agenda.
That pretty much goes along with what I said about him. Great politician/communicator, not-so-great anything else. Don't get me wrong, I'm not putting him in the bottom ten, but the Republican gushing over him is absurd.
"Not to touch anything?" Um, yeah. Welfare reform and balancing the budget never happened, I guess.
CWY:
Reagan was a politician and not much else? C'mon, try to be serious. This is the guy who beat stagflation and communism. I've heard plenty of knocks against Reagan, but that he was a "politician" like Clinton is a new one.
He was "the great communicator." He made people believe he cared about children while cutting the school lunch programs and declaring ketchup a vegetable all at the same time! And he didn't really do anything to "beat" communism -- the USSR sort of imploded, if you'll recall. But that's a debate that's too long for this thread.
Most of the things that you've listed as negatives against W, with the hindsight of history may very well turn out to be great accomplishments.
There's hoping.
I find it cute though that you're blaming W for "ruining our future economy", as that's an impossible prediction to make, and basically a cheap political shot.
HUGE, RECORD DEFICIT. It's not exactly a controversial stance -- even most real conservatives (rather than partisans) agree.
bsci:
In that persepective, you'll notice that according to historians Regan leaps ahead in public persuasian, relations with congress and vision/setting agenda.
That pretty much goes along with what I said about him. Great politician/communicator, not-so-great anything else. Don't get me wrong, I'm not putting him in the bottom ten, but the Republican gushing over him is absurd.
"Not to touch anything?" Um, yeah. Welfare reform and balancing the budget never happened, I guess.
Welfare reform is more alligned with social, not economic policy. (and we all know that it was GOP idea that Clinton co-opted. Not that there's anything wrong with that)
Balancing the budget? Would have happened no matter who was President.
HUGE, RECORD DEFICIT. It's not exactly a controversial stance -- even most real conservatives (rather than partisans) agree.
We had pretty large deficiets back in the 80's and we managed to avoid ruining the future economy. Besides, as a % of GDP, the deficient isn't that bad, as it's been worse in the past, and yes, we managed to survive.
Welfare reform is more alligned with social, not economic policy. (and we all know that it was GOP idea that Clinton co-opted. Not that there's anything wrong with that)
Balancing the budget? Would have happened no matter who was President.
HUGE, RECORD DEFICIT. It's not exactly a controversial stance -- even most real conservatives (rather than partisans) agree.
We had pretty large deficiets back in the 80's and we managed to avoid ruining the future economy. Besides, as a % of GDP, the deficient isn't that bad, as it's been worse in the past, and yes, we managed to survive.
Let me translate CWY:
Everything good that happened during Regan's presidency was due to this demi-god being in charge.
Everything good that happened during Clinton's presidency was due to uncontrolable market forces.
Do you realize how ridiculous this sounds?
Everything good that happened during Regan's presidency was due to this demi-god being in charge.
Everything good that happened during Clinton's presidency was due to uncontrolable market forces.
Do you realize how ridiculous this sounds?
Do you realize how ridiculous this sounds?
Of course! That's why I never said anything like that.
Of course! That's why I never said anything like that.
CWY,
So the first comment was Ezzie's. Do you disagree?
I don't think that's true. He did a nice job of managing the end of the Cold War, and did a nice job with the economy.
This is yours.
Balancing the budget? Would have happened no matter who was President.
So the first comment was Ezzie's. Do you disagree?
I don't think that's true. He did a nice job of managing the end of the Cold War, and did a nice job with the economy.
This is yours.
Balancing the budget? Would have happened no matter who was President.
I think what Ezzie said is correct-Reagan did have to be hands on to fix the economy- stagflation couldn't be defeated with a passive President. And Reagan was instrumental in ending the Cold War.
Clinton OTOH, when it came to the economy, did the right thing and pretty much was hands off. He didn't try tinkering with a system that was working. (Tech bubble burst notwithstanding)
Clinton OTOH, when it came to the economy, did the right thing and pretty much was hands off. He didn't try tinkering with a system that was working. (Tech bubble burst notwithstanding)
So yes, you believe:
Everything good that happened during Regan's presidency was due to this demi-god being in charge.
Everything good that happened during Clinton's presidency was due to uncontrolable market forces.
Clinton did a whole lot more for the economy than you realize and Regan did a whole lot less. (The historians of the CSPAN poll seem to agree).
Everything good that happened during Regan's presidency was due to this demi-god being in charge.
Everything good that happened during Clinton's presidency was due to uncontrolable market forces.
Clinton did a whole lot more for the economy than you realize and Regan did a whole lot less. (The historians of the CSPAN poll seem to agree).
So yes, you believe:
Everything good that happened during Regan's presidency was due to this demi-god being in charge.
Everything good that happened during Clinton's presidency was due to uncontrolable market forces.
Ummmm....no.
I'm not sure how very specific example that I and Ezzie gave somehow turn into your above statement.
Everything good that happened during Regan's presidency was due to this demi-god being in charge.
Everything good that happened during Clinton's presidency was due to uncontrolable market forces.
Ummmm....no.
I'm not sure how very specific example that I and Ezzie gave somehow turn into your above statement.
Yes I'm exagarating, but every example of a postive thing for Clinton you try to explain away and everything that happened during Regan's time you give him credit for. Any exceptions? What do you think Clinton did well?
Welfare reform, Bosnia, NAFTA, DOMA, GATT, there are others.
"Not to touch anything?" Um, yeah. Welfare reform and balancing the budget never happened, I guess.
Balancing the budget? That was simply because he didn't touch anything. Huge windfalls from dot coms gave the Treasury a nice amount of money. Welfare reform was forced upon him by the GOP, and he did that well.
BSCI - What CWY said, basically. Reagan did a nice job of patching up the economy, which meant that Clinton basically had to just leave it that way for the economy to keep rolling. (The poor bump from Bush I when he raised taxes was in between.) Once that bubble burst in 2000-2001, Bush II had to do something about it, which he did, giving us the very strong economy we have today.
JA - HUGE, RECORD DEFICIT. It's not exactly a controversial stance -- even most real conservatives (rather than partisans) agree.
...a deficit which is quickly disappearing thanks to record tax revenues. Did you not expect a deficit after a huge bubble burst in 2000-2001, 9/11, and two wars? What is impressive is how it's dropping steadily just a couple of years later. (What's unimpressive is how Bush didn't veto a single spending bill.)
As for the USSR imploding, true. However, many people credit Reagan with helping that happen due to the way he handled issues during his Presidency. That's harder to gauge, though, and honestly, it's not my area of expertise at all.
Balancing the budget? That was simply because he didn't touch anything. Huge windfalls from dot coms gave the Treasury a nice amount of money. Welfare reform was forced upon him by the GOP, and he did that well.
BSCI - What CWY said, basically. Reagan did a nice job of patching up the economy, which meant that Clinton basically had to just leave it that way for the economy to keep rolling. (The poor bump from Bush I when he raised taxes was in between.) Once that bubble burst in 2000-2001, Bush II had to do something about it, which he did, giving us the very strong economy we have today.
JA - HUGE, RECORD DEFICIT. It's not exactly a controversial stance -- even most real conservatives (rather than partisans) agree.
...a deficit which is quickly disappearing thanks to record tax revenues. Did you not expect a deficit after a huge bubble burst in 2000-2001, 9/11, and two wars? What is impressive is how it's dropping steadily just a couple of years later. (What's unimpressive is how Bush didn't veto a single spending bill.)
As for the USSR imploding, true. However, many people credit Reagan with helping that happen due to the way he handled issues during his Presidency. That's harder to gauge, though, and honestly, it's not my area of expertise at all.
Reagan did a nice job of patching up the economy, which meant that Clinton basically had to just leave it that way for the economy to keep rolling. (The poor bump from Bush I when he raised taxes was in between.)
And how does Reagan's tax increase fit into this childishly oversimplied model of the entire US economy?
That's harder to gauge, though, and honestly, it's not my area of expertise at all.
I'm still waiting to see what is your area of expertise.
And how does Reagan's tax increase fit into this childishly oversimplied model of the entire US economy?
That's harder to gauge, though, and honestly, it's not my area of expertise at all.
I'm still waiting to see what is your area of expertise.
bsci-please try to keep it civil here, we're having a nice discussion here without resorting to petty insults.
I'd call that civil, but sarcastic.
If you want me to rephrase, Ezzie seems to imply that he has enough expertise to make broad statements about economic truth, but not about the end of the Cold War.
From my understanding, he's a law student and probably has no economic expertise beyond lay press and perhaps an intro econ class or two. I'm a scientist and I work with data and data driven theories. To see someone make broad statement about the economy giving no data is not a sign of expertise.
If you want me to rephrase, Ezzie seems to imply that he has enough expertise to make broad statements about economic truth, but not about the end of the Cold War.
From my understanding, he's a law student and probably has no economic expertise beyond lay press and perhaps an intro econ class or two. I'm a scientist and I work with data and data driven theories. To see someone make broad statement about the economy giving no data is not a sign of expertise.
Actually Ezzie is an accountant. I'm the law student.
BSCI - An accountant with a strong interest in economics, which would have been my major if one could actually get a job with it. I also recently edited someone's Master's thesis for their MBA, which was on economics. (He got an A-, yay!)
I'm no Moshe Potemkin, but I think I understand economics pretty well. On matters of law, I defer to CWY and Nephtuli. On matters of biostatistics, I'll go with CharlieHall.
In blogs in general, we tend to oversimplify models. If the economy were this simple, we would never have problems. Regardless, most economists give Reagan credit for improving the economy tremendously. The same does not hold true of Clinton, though I've never heard of anyone criticizing what he did, either. He presided over a time of prosperity, and did so adequately.
I'm too young to remember much of the Cold War, and I never cared enough to read up on it (as opposed to Reaganomics).
I'm no Moshe Potemkin, but I think I understand economics pretty well. On matters of law, I defer to CWY and Nephtuli. On matters of biostatistics, I'll go with CharlieHall.
In blogs in general, we tend to oversimplify models. If the economy were this simple, we would never have problems. Regardless, most economists give Reagan credit for improving the economy tremendously. The same does not hold true of Clinton, though I've never heard of anyone criticizing what he did, either. He presided over a time of prosperity, and did so adequately.
I'm too young to remember much of the Cold War, and I never cared enough to read up on it (as opposed to Reaganomics).
I'm surprised DB didn't say that Gore was the greatest president.
An A- in an MBA program? That must have been the lowest grade in the class. :)
Anyway, can you point to a single economist who isn't strongly identified with the Republican party or linked to a right wing think tank who says that all Clinton did was not screw up a booming economy? Granted historians are not economists, but there must be some reason they rank him as #5 and St. Reagan as #21.
Anyway, can you point to a single economist who isn't strongly identified with the Republican party or linked to a right wing think tank who says that all Clinton did was not screw up a booming economy? Granted historians are not economists, but there must be some reason they rank him as #5 and St. Reagan as #21.
BSCI - :P
Most economists tend to be right-wing economically, simply because that's what works. Economists are generally free-market, which the RW identifies with, the LW less so. The Krugmans of the world are rare - and often mocked by serious economists.
It could be that the historians look at the economics on a more direct level, because they are not economists: Looking at how strong the economy was during Clinton's term vs. Reagan's, Clinton's was FAR better. There are very, very few times in US history where the economy was booming like that. On that basis, Clinton would be very high on the list.
Most economists tend to be right-wing economically, simply because that's what works. Economists are generally free-market, which the RW identifies with, the LW less so. The Krugmans of the world are rare - and often mocked by serious economists.
It could be that the historians look at the economics on a more direct level, because they are not economists: Looking at how strong the economy was during Clinton's term vs. Reagan's, Clinton's was FAR better. There are very, very few times in US history where the economy was booming like that. On that basis, Clinton would be very high on the list.
Ezzie,
On economic issues the profession of economics is right of center, but the typical economist is far from right wing. I didn't say find me a left wing economist. I said find one that isn't strongly linked to the Republican party or a right wing think tank. There are many right of center economists who thought Clinton did an excellent job. In fact, many worked for him.
So back to my original question, can you point to a single economist who isn't strongly identified with the Republican party or linked to a right wing think tank who says that all Clinton did was not screw up a booming economy?
On economic issues the profession of economics is right of center, but the typical economist is far from right wing. I didn't say find me a left wing economist. I said find one that isn't strongly linked to the Republican party or a right wing think tank. There are many right of center economists who thought Clinton did an excellent job. In fact, many worked for him.
So back to my original question, can you point to a single economist who isn't strongly identified with the Republican party or linked to a right wing think tank who says that all Clinton did was not screw up a booming economy?
I said find one that isn't strongly linked to the Republican party or a right wing think tank. There are many right of center economists who thought Clinton did an excellent job. In fact, many worked for him.
I'm not sure I get what you're looking for. I agree Clinton did an excellent job - by doing nothing. He didn't implement any policies that really affect the economy (vs. Bush's tax cuts, for example). Why do you think those economists think he did a great job? Do they point to any policies of his?
Find me an economist who is not left-wing who thinks that Clinton implemented policies that helped spur the economy along. Heck, even find me a left-wing one. He did a fine job by doing nothing, which is sometimes the best approach. (Heh - Clinton was a conservative economist!)
I'm not sure I get what you're looking for. I agree Clinton did an excellent job - by doing nothing. He didn't implement any policies that really affect the economy (vs. Bush's tax cuts, for example). Why do you think those economists think he did a great job? Do they point to any policies of his?
Find me an economist who is not left-wing who thinks that Clinton implemented policies that helped spur the economy along. Heck, even find me a left-wing one. He did a fine job by doing nothing, which is sometimes the best approach. (Heh - Clinton was a conservative economist!)
WIth 2 minutes of searching, here's an article:
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartlett200407070838.asp
He doesn't agree with everything Clinton did, but he lists multiple economic benefits from Clinton. He also references some other Conservative economists. Of course you can say that he's not actually referring to economic policy decisions, but since he was a top Republican economist, that's a fairly hard position to take.
And frankly, Clinton was economically conservative. Sometimes non-action is action. And, as we know more now than before, there is a big difference between conservative policy making and Republican or right-wing policy decisions.
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartlett200407070838.asp
He doesn't agree with everything Clinton did, but he lists multiple economic benefits from Clinton. He also references some other Conservative economists. Of course you can say that he's not actually referring to economic policy decisions, but since he was a top Republican economist, that's a fairly hard position to take.
And frankly, Clinton was economically conservative. Sometimes non-action is action. And, as we know more now than before, there is a big difference between conservative policy making and Republican or right-wing policy decisions.
Of course you can say that he's not actually referring to economic policy decisions, but since he was a top Republican economist, that's a fairly hard position to take.
He's really not. He pretty much mentions welfare reform (which we mentioned earlier) and NAFTA. That's about it. As for spending, his point was that Bush is a ridiculous spender - which we also mentioned above.
And frankly, Clinton was economically conservative. Sometimes non-action is action.
Absolutely. That's what we've been saying all along, which is why Clinton was good for the economy. But it also means he didn't do anything special; in the article, he notes that Clinton blew the opportunity to do just that with Social Security.
I'd love to see the details of the articles he linked to to see *why* they liked Clinton, but unfortunately they're all expired links. Ah well.
He's really not. He pretty much mentions welfare reform (which we mentioned earlier) and NAFTA. That's about it. As for spending, his point was that Bush is a ridiculous spender - which we also mentioned above.
And frankly, Clinton was economically conservative. Sometimes non-action is action.
Absolutely. That's what we've been saying all along, which is why Clinton was good for the economy. But it also means he didn't do anything special; in the article, he notes that Clinton blew the opportunity to do just that with Social Security.
I'd love to see the details of the articles he linked to to see *why* they liked Clinton, but unfortunately they're all expired links. Ah well.
