I deleted it because I realized that the post was too subjective. Depends on what measure of inflation you are looking at. The CPI shows an average of 2.6% annual increase during his years, versus 3.9% during the Reagan spending spree. A comparison of price increase to GDP increase paints a little better picture. Real GDP increase was the same for them both. But don't get carried away. The most generous measurment I could create suggested at most the dollar strengthened by about 9-10% during the Clinton days. BTW, I also am in favor of eliminating income tax and substituting a consumption tax.
What I was saying is don't raise taxes on anyone ever again - the government has enough money. In fact, they've got about 10X what they need. Think about the kind of things you want the government to do: mass transit, passports, good public schools, etc. Let's start with mass transit: here in the West mass transit is a disaster. And it's not free anyway. You pay with a toll when you get on. Let's take passports: I just got one yesterday and I had to pay a huge fee to get it! Let's take public schools: that comes out of my property taxes and the schools suck and are horrendously inefficient. Social security, Iraq/Vietnam, corn ethanol, subsidized vacant farm land, huge interest on a monstrous debt - it's one disaster after another. The government doesn't need another dollar! "You may say-ay-ay-ay I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one..."
The US dollar index strengthened nearly 20% from 1992 to 2000. This is different than inflation. http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_03/milhouse021603.html
If they really wanted to, the US could coordinate with the ECB, Japan and Canada and beat the living hell out of the currency markets. The US could dump a lot of gold and buy dollars. This would send all the specs and CTAs running. And it WOULD work. But policy change would be needed to foster long term change.
ShoeshineBoy wrote: "What I was saying is don't raise taxes on anyone ever again - the government has enough money. In fact, they've got about 10X what they need." I assume you're being humorous. Federal revenue this year is about $2.7 trillion but outlays are $2.9 trillion, leaving a budget deficit of about $155 billion. Everyone knows the actual deficit is larger due to hidden expenses for Iraq and Afghanistan. At least Bush Sr. had the honesty and integrity to raise taxes to pay for his war. "Let's start with mass transit: here in the West mass transit is a disaster. And it's not free anyway. You pay with a toll when you get on." I'm in California and mass transit is so-so. It works, it could be better but thousands of people go to and from work every day on buses and trains that run on time. You're mistaken if you think mass transit is subsidized because it is inefficient -- the subsidy is a social program so the underemployed, elderly, students, etc. can get around. Fact is, if mass transit charged full fare it would still be less than what private industry charges -- been in a taxi cab lately? "Let's take passports: I just got one yesterday and I had to pay a huge fee to get it! " Sorry, but I'm glad they charged you. Why should I subsidize your passport? The gov't should only hand out free passports if it somehow improved the common good or stimulated the economy. Passports don't, so no subsidy. Next. "Let's take public schools: that comes out of my property taxes and the schools suck and are horrendously inefficient." I don't know. I have a kid in high school and from what I see our education problems stem mostly from bad parenting. Kids who have been taught ethics and responsibility at home do well; kids from crappy parents who don't teach ethics and the value of work don't. Private schools and vouchers won't and can't fix bad parenting. "Social security" What's the problem? Millions of seniors get their checks on time every month. Poverty among the elderly is much lower now than when SS started. Yes, there's a funding issue lurking out there but by and large SS has been a long-term success. "The government doesn't need another dollar!" Some day we will all look back at the Bush administration and we will realize that handing the wealthy tax cuts and corporate welfare (like oil drilling tax cuts when oil is $100/barrel) is an even more inefficient use of capital than letting the government spend it. If we can get out of the Middle East and start spending money improving our infrastructure instead of theirs, we will be on the right track.
First of all, I agree with you on some things, but there's a few critical areas where I couldn't be farther apart: Let me start with Social Security. Let's say I'm a $12/hour construction worker or a $15/hour customer service rep. I work for 40 years. Now imagine this: you put the 7.5% that he/she pays and the 7.5% the employer pays into a fund that invests in SPY or some combination of Dividend Paying Stocks or REITs, etc. In 40 years this person has an impressive nest egg and they retire and live a very comfortable life here in their last days on planet earth. And they praise the wisdom of their friend Uncle Sam. Now imagine this: instead the federal government takes the 15%, doesn't invest it and gives you $12,000/year. You eat dog food and curse the day that some idiot in Washington ever came up with such an asinine plan.