No, he inherited an improving economy (the recession was over by November 1992, but most voters had not yet realized it) and the beginnings of a tech boom, which caused a gusher of revenues at the federal and state level thanks to taxes paid on capital gains (remember all of those internet millionaires and billionaires?). His main contribution was in not messing it up by listening to Robert Rubin instead of the liberal wing of his party.

I still remember the famous quote by the Ragin’ Cajun, James Carville – “You mean that we have to worry about what a %^?#$@ bond trader from Wall Street thinks?!”

Orian: He did this with a Republican controlled house and senate.

He did this because he had a Republican controlled Congress – and Republicans remembered why they were Republicans. And I seem to remember that prior to the fall 1994 elections that resulted in that Republican Congress, the main goal of his administration appeared to be nationalizing health care (remember what Hillary Clinton was doing BEFORE she was Senator Clinton?).

Anyone who thinks that deficit reduction is possible when the federal government basically takes over the health care sector is kidding themselves.

Orian: GW Bush came in and flipped it right back around into the nation’s largest deficit within 3 months with the same house and senate.

No, the economy was aleady trending toward a deficit-mode before Bush took office. Note that the economy was slowing down in early 2000, as the tech boom was over (NASDAQ, for example, peaked in early 2000) and all of the spending associated with Y2K needs was finished.

Orian: Seems to me that the Republicans are no longer fiscally conservative nor should they be trusted with running our country until they get back to their roots. For what it is worth I never voted for Clinton – or any other Democrat until I started looking a little deeper and got sick of the FUD the Republicans were spreading – seems they can’t win on merit so they resort to whatever they can now to win.

And when the Democrats advocate reforming the real drivers of spending – Medicare and Medicaid – and start talking about cutting more than defense, let me know.

Otherwise, I don’t consider anyone to be fiscally conservative when they talk about raising taxes to cover more and more spending.

Last time I checked, the Democrats have said that even cutting the rate of those programs’ growth is tantamout to throwing grandpa on the streets and letting him die of (pick the disease or condition that works for this particular soundbite). Hardly the party of reasoned discourse…

And I just read an article comparing the fiscal policies of both major candidates. Guess what – neither one will do anything to reduce deficits. Given that this Congress appears to be even worse in many ways than its Republican predecessor, I shudder to think of what may happen if a Senator Obama wins.

I am not in favor of the bailouts. But they are coming.

My plan? Get the EFF out by 2013!

Here we go with “Bailout to Nowhere”

On the big day, the Japanese won by a mile.

The Americans, very discouraged and depressed, decided to investigate the reason for the crushing defeat. A management team made up of senior management was formed to investigate and recommend appropriate action.

Their conclusion was the Japanese had 8 people rowing and 1 person steering, while the American team had 8 people steering and 1 person rowing.

Feeling a deeper study was in order, American management hired a consulting company and paid them a large amount of money for a second opinion.

They advised, of course, that too many people were steering the boat, while not enough people were rowing.

Not sure of how to utilize that information, but wanting to prevent another loss to the Japanese, the rowing team’s management structure was totally reorganized to 4 steering supervisors, 3 area steering superintendents, and 1 assistant superintendent steering manager.

They also implemented a new performance system that would give the 1 person rowing the boat greater incentive to work harder. It was called the ‘Rowing Team Quality First Program,’ with meetings, dinners, and free pens for the rower.. There was discussion of getting new paddles, canoes, and other equipment, extra vacation days for practices and bonuses.

The next year the Japanese won by two miles.

Humiliated, the America n management laid off the rower for poor performance, halted development of a new canoe, sold the paddles, and canceled all capital investments for new equipment. The money saved was distributed to the Senior Executives as bonuses and the next year’s racing team was out-sourced to India .

Sadly, The End.

Here’s something else to think about:
GM has spent the last thirty years moving all its factories out of the US , claiming they can’t make money paying American wages.

TOYOTA has spent the last thirty years building more than a dozen plants inside the US . The last quarter’s results:

TOYOTA makes 4 billion in profits while GM racked up 9 billion in losses.

GM folks are still scratching their heads.

IF THIS WEREN’T TRUE, IT MIGHT BE FUNNY.

However, I do understand that for many, empty gestures are an easy easy substitute for getting up off one’s backside and actually doing something.

Look at what the domestics did with the profits they reaped from Americans: Buying foreign companies and employing workers in other countries. Sheltering profits overseas to avoid US taxes, bloating UAW contracts and the ultimate sin of paying the brass too much money for poor performance.

They do not deserve a dime of tax money, even a loan. That sends the wrong message

To the free-marketers out there, the US has never been and will never be a purely capitalistic marketplace. Pure capitalism is based upon rational decision-making and zero information costs. People act irrationally and information costs money. Secondly, pure capitalism makes no pretenses about distribution of market gains. Most of us have a concept of decreasing marginal utility of each additional dollar that you receive; however pure capitalism does not adjust for decreasing marginal utility. Pure capitalism also poorly adjusts for the fact that as people become “have nots” thanks to the inequitable wealth distribution of capitalism, they have less personal stake at keeping the system alive. If the inequities get bad enough, they revolt and change system. A self-preserving capitalist system has to have some safety valve for easing top-heavy wealth distribution.

It is an overly simplistic economic argument to say that the automakers should fail because they are failing. An injection of new money gives the automakers a chance to reach a Pareto-superior position. It is theoretically possible that the pareto-gains resulting from the injection of money could be split between the automakers, the employees, and the taxpayers.

And why should these companies be allowed loans with current management?

Interesting theory, but how does it account for the thousands that are employed by the transplant factories in the US? Not to make it personal, but my brother gets benefits while working at Honda.
Is it possible that maybe, just maybe, the root of the problem is poor management? Blaming the workers or government regulations ignores the reality that lack of vision by management is what got them to this point. Until that mentality is surgically removed, the bailout will do no good. The workers can stay; some of the dealers can stay. But bankruptcy represents the BEST and most complete recovery option, once the bloated management has been removed.

Simple. Give it to the transplants. If the money had to be spent, at least we could be reaonably assured it would be spent wisely.

Here’s a thought, though: when people make things other people don’t want, even though they are paid, we all get poorer. As long as Detroit gets paid imaginary money to make stuff nobody wants, we all lose. It’s like the argument that war is good because it provides jobs. War is something not everyone wants, so paying someone to do it does not improve, ie, my life. However, the person paid to do it competes with me for things I want, driving up cost for both of us.

This is the main problem with the ’save jobs’ argument, that the people so paid are competing with people who have to make things other people want for those things other people want, so the number of people producing things people want goes down while the number of people wanting those things stays the same. This results in a reduced standard of living. This is the true reason no directed economy ever survives.

As I’m fond of saying, Communism works until the food runs out. Well, Socialism is more like boiling a lobster; it just takes longer to destroy us all.

Doesn’t that by definition make it not obvious?

The new hires are getting just that. The problem is the Social Security System, Federal Income taxes, Property taxes and education programs are no longer being funded. The Mortgage failure in many instances is due to the now low wage structure the American worker is now getting. The result is a mess in every sector of the economy. Except the imported cars that simply do not support the programs over here the way the American worker does. The Import buyer is just so proud that he thinks he is getting more for his money. A shiney new penny and his kids will not be educated or his parents will have to move in with him.

American car
Cost building car + social programs = carcost

Import car

Cost building car + no social programs = car cost

American car

cost $15,000 + $5000 = $20,000 car & Social Fix

Import Car

Cost $15,000 + profits = $20,000

Now you figure out who wins in this matter. And, can you imagine the car we would get if you get the old, sick, edcuation systems off the car companies backs.

Battery and charging systems, solar recharge panels for electric vehicles, regenerative braking systems, electric air conditioners and power steering systems, and computer control systems for electric vehicles could be made in the U.S.

I would rather have my tax money go to retooling, and thus helping American workers keep their jobs and continue to pay taxes, than having them go towards financing a worker buyout.

Perhaps the big 2.8 need to go into some kind of receivership similar to Fannie and Freddie. The current leadership and boards would be fired, the shareholders would lose money, the Unions would lose benefits and contracts would have to be renegotiated. The Treasury would review all spending plans. That could be the pound of flesh the taxpayer could exact in exchange for the bailout.

Is this a bad idea? According to so-called Free Market theory, yes. But can someone tell me one place in the entire world that has imposed a purist Free Market economy without rounding people up and shooting them? Can someone give me one example where pure Free Market ideas have worked? They didn’t work in Chile.

The fact is, Keynes has been proven right in just about everything. When the economy is in a recession; Keynes said the government should spend more to stimulate the economy. What do you think the government should do? Let the dollar crash? Create another Great Depression?

I have to think back a bit and look at the Clinton years – he inherited the nation’s largest budget deficit, then by the end of his term turned it into the nation’s largest surplus we had ever had. He did this with a Republican controlled house and senate. GW Bush came in and flipped it right back around into the nation’s largest deficit within 3 months with the same house and senate.

Seems to me that the Republicans are no longer fiscally conservative nor should they be trusted with running our country until they get back to their roots. For what it is worth I never voted for Clinton – or any other Democrat until I started looking a little deeper and got sick of the FUD the Republicans were spreading – seems they can’t win on merit so they resort to whatever they can now to win.

$50 billion, if they can get garauntees it will protect jobs in this country seems pretty reasonable when we are spending $10b a month on Iraq now.

You would be too if people weren’t buying your products (rightly or wrongly) and as a result you were rendered unable to maintain your workforce.

That’s one of the big root causes of American automakers profit losses, they are all structured like they still own the market they founded and have dominated for most of their existences. They have the number of brands, plants and workforces that come with that legacy.

Now that people are abandoning American cars each finds themselves stuck with a unionized workforce that they cannot shrink to reflect their market reality, and alas it results in massive massive losses.

Good point. Only problem is that most of the electorate don’t care to do that type of research. Perhaps some TTAC readers do, but the average Joe/Jane is too lazy, watches too much tv, spends too little time with their kids, etc.

And for those that do pay attention, nearly 1/2 are in rapture of Obama and the other nearly 1/2 think McCain is the man.