Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.

Don't You Wish We Had The Clinton Economy Again?

Seems ironic that 10 years ago we had the strongest economy in American history, doesn't it?

That was under Bill Clinton.

Now Hillary Clinton, his wife, is running for president.

Wouldn't you once again like to have the booming economy we had before?

38 Answers

Relevance
  • Piper
    Lv 5
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    You are right!

    Vote for Hillary and save our economy.

  • 1 decade ago

    Definitely !!!! I have said several times (on answers) remember when Bill Clinton was president & the economy was good....These people that keep bring up the Lewinsky thing must be #1 a male wishing it had been him instead of Bill or#2 it's a female wishing she was in Lewinskys shoes . It's disgusting that people can't let it go, sheer jealousy i say !! I also think for all that the Clintons done for blacks & now a lot of them turn on them to vote for Obama because he is black is disgusting.The Clintons have been treated unfairly . Let Obama get is & see how much he does that he has promised all talk & not enough action huh?

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Obviously economics is not your strong suit. Study the stock market. Study economics turns and cycles. An eight year presidency cannot directly effect the economy. It take more than eight years to turn any economy around. It take factors greater than any president has control over to turn an economy around.

    My question would be how many years of the Bush family and the Clinton family do you want, Bush Sr.-8 years B. Clinton-8 years GW Bush-8 years Now H. Clinton-8 years?

  • 1 decade ago

    Not really. It was an economy based on an overrated market (tech industries), just as the Bush economy was based on an overrated market (housing bubble).

    If you truly want a good economy, the US has to abandon the entire credit scheme. The populace will need to pay off all debt, and buy only what they can afford with cash.

    Credit should be used only to increase your net worth, and those opportunities are limited to: mortgage, education (increases earning power), and starting a business (or expanding a business).

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Keisha
    Lv 4
    1 decade ago

    When i first learned that Clinton was running I was so excited because i was thinking the exact same thing. I remember times being so nice then. My fiance said the same thing everything was cool when bill was in office. But i feel that bill nor his wife have that same charisma or will be able to pull it off again

  • 1 decade ago

    Yes, but I want the economy to be good by someone else. i don't want my children to believe the only waay to have a good president is to stick to who you know. I don't want them to think that keeping family members and friends in the white house is the only choice they should choose.

    It's fear!

    Fear of moving forward and trying new things..

    I believe another president can do the same thing..perhaps even better. i don't need to be reminded of the 90's over and over again in order to know that great presidents come along.

    i believe we've been thinking TOO hard..not thinking about the whole picture...

    Well, i'm sick of talking...believe what you want. I'll be making phone calls to peopel trying to assure obama's victory. I believe in my heart that clinton and Mccain are the worst messages we could ever send to our kids..and I won't have them live there life under the same dynasty..all b/c we are fearful..and reminscent..i hope the youths move the country to victory..

  • ?
    Lv 4
    4 years ago

    I hate this question because of the fact I strengthen upset over the undeniable fact that he can not. bill Clinton grow to be a expert-strengthen democrat, besides a centrist one. He would have initially raised taxes whilst first elected, yet he did so very strategically whilst attempting plenty harder than different dems might shouldn't irritate furnish-siders. almost immediately afterwards he decreased maximum of them, and that they have been consistently far below the common expenses of our authentic opposition. He additionally beganto decrease many significant investor taxes which includes cap. beneficial properties and dividends. bill greater desirable spending yet at a cost slower than that of actual financial strengthen. He knew the internet grow to be his financial possibility and he used those decrease investor tax plans to sell strengthen in the interior maximum sector. even nonetheless his reign resulted in recession, so did Bush's, that would have been skipped over by using Reagan. I commend all 3 on their achievements at proving that decrease taxes yield greater sales by using skill of much less burdens on financial strengthen. As for the present Bush, nicely I used to think of he grow to be undesirable yet I also have a feeling that the worst is yet to return.

  • Kelly
    Lv 5
    1 decade ago

    Does the phrase "dot-com bubble" mean anything to you? Lots and lots of money in it. Clinton really didn't have anything to do with that.

    Also, the economy had a whole lot to do with a genius named Alan Greenspan. I will definitely credit Bill Clinton with having the very good judgment to listen to him, though.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    what do you think got us where we are now, anyone could buy a home so home went insane now people cant pay for them or sell them for half what they owe, NAFTA, China Trade , fishing fleets went under, lumber mills bankrupt, 10 years bonds now due, shipping ports closed , people coming out of schools with no education

    You really must be real young or very rich because there was more money changing hands for a loaf of bread-most countries call that recission but the media called it economy

  • 1 decade ago

    Lexi - of course the economy goes in cycles - it is just that the cycle of growth over which Clinton administered was the longest in US history and was not paid for with massive deficits our children will have to service. I have studied economics.

    As for the answer about Greenspan - yes he did contribute - shrewd move by Clinton to keep him in that position hey - but I really don't think you can attribute the signing of NAFTA, the controlled budget balancing and the poverty reduction policies to the Federal Reserve.

    Source(s): SIU - how did he ride Reaganomics ? by fixing the deficits Reagan created? There were two recessions between Reagan's first round of tax cuts and the beginning fo the Clinton administration - please explain the economic process by which an ill thought out tax policy takes 3 economic cycles to have a positive impact on the economy? John J - during the Clinton administration 23 million jobs were created - more than in any administration in history. Are you seriously trying to say that almost 20% of the US workforce were employed by the internet boom? Yes the rise of the Dot coms helped the Clinton economy, but no more than external influences such as the breakdown of the Soviet Union and the capital exports boom from the rise of China and India helped the Reagan and Bush economies. MartinX - China and India are not part of NAFTA - try again. Mike Hunt - if you are going to measure a President solely by the downturn (and ignore the longest ever economic expansion before that) you had better get onto explaining the 2 recessions under Reagan/Bush Sr, and the imminent second recession of the Bush Jr government - all looking to be a lot more severe than the downturn at the end of the Clinton administration. SIU - I have read plenty of books - some of them longer than My Pet Goat. Restating your fatuous assertion does not prove it. Explain how the Reagan economic policy (devoid of microeconomic reform, just a self serving assumption regarding tax policy) were any more long term than any other president's. Explain why they produced a decade of economic issues from lacklustre growth, 2 major recessions, massively mounting debt and growing poverty, only to suddenly click into action as soon as Clinton came to power. You can't because in fact Reagan's tax policies had the opposite impact of what was promised and were in fact a very short term looking approach.
  • 1 decade ago

    Not gonna happen with 100$ oil, 9$ natural gas and 150$ for a ton of coal.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.