Skip to main content

View Diary: An ideological realignment driven by demography (130 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  ARMANDO: you said "largest peacetime recovery (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    whaddaya, erratic

    in the nation occurred after the Clinton tax hike in 1993..."

    First, recovery from what? The 1990 recession had ended by the time Clinton was inaugurated. If you mean the record of GDP growth under Clinton, while that was very good, it was exceeded during the Kennedy/Johnson tenure (4.65% K/J versus 3.88% C). This, I thinks, supports your larger point that there was greater GDP growth under the restoration of a sensible tax policy under Clinton than under Reagan, Bush1 and Bush2. GDP growth was even larger under K/J and Truman when tax rates were substantially higher for the wealthiest.

    •  he's right (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      whaddaya, erratic

      Kennedy/Johnson wasn't peacetime unless you ignore the Vietnam war.

      And Clinton's term was a recovery. No, his policies didn't end the recession (because the recession had ended), but it was a very good recovery. It's a reasonable thing to compare.

      Contrast with the current "recovery". Technically we haven't been in recession for almost 4 years, but the recovery has been terrible. (Although, since it was a totally different kind of crash, the two are not directly comparable.) So it's not crazy to compare the recoveries.

      •  Contrast with the current 'recovery'... (0+ / 0-)

        if that's what we insist on calling the two eras, is instructive. Before Clinton assumed office GDP was already above where it had been at the peak before the 1990 recession. So it's a stretch to call the remarkably positive growth during his tenure a recovery.

        And to insist that we call the current environment a peacetime era with two wars waged, as contrasted with the Viet Nam era, also seems a stretch. It seems to me that military Keynesianism was potentially as powerful a stimulus in the 2000s as it was during the 1960s.

        But I actually was trying to support Armando's point that higher taxes for the wealthy have not historically led to slower growth. Taxation was much higher during the Kennedy/Johnson administration.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site