Main Menu

One of the issues that I would like to deal with is the idea that Clinton balanced the budget and that George W. Bush got us back into deficits. 

Nominally, that is correct.

But the reality is that the Federal Reserve chairman under Clinton was Greenspan - a Republican.  But his party affiliation was actually irrelevant.  What was really going on is that the Fed chairman, conforming to the requirements of the law against recessions, kept the economy going in the 1990's, which also resulted in the stock market being driven up more and more (as people became more and more confident and bought into the stock market more and more), both of which resulted in tax revenues going up enough for Clinton to be able to balance the budget. 

But then with the developments of the early 2000's, the new president, George W. Bush, got us back into big deficits.  (Of course, his big tax cut did not help the matter, but I remain convinced that he did not see the developments coming that threw a monkey-wrench into the works; I did see that things were going to get worse, however - using some of the methods outlined on this website - and so when the tax cut happened, I knew it would not go well, and in fact figured that the tax cut had come along just in time for things to start getting worse, which is exactly what happened.)

It is my contention that the fact that we (nominally) got to a balanced budget in the 1990's, under a Democrat president, and then ended up with huge deficits again under the next, Republican, president, had very little, if even anything, to do with what party the president of the time was affiliated with and what their ideology was and everything to do with the timing of when they were in office. 

In other words, due to the law against recessions, we would have ended up with a (nominally) balanced budget in the late 1990's even if we had had a Republican president at that time and, because of the stock market exponential of the late 1990's (which was inevitable in the context of a law against recessions being enforced) and its consequences in the years after, it was also completely inevitable that we would end up in large deficits again in the 2000's, even if we had had a Democrat president at that time. 

The methods used on this website - especially the Kondratieff wave - describe why this would be the case and those methods are entirely non-partisan, they just simply play out the way they play out, there is nothing partisan about them.  And that is why I am non-partisan, as well - because what has happened and what is happening was and is going to happen just simply because the methods described on this website say they were/are going to happen (approximately) when they were/are going to happen regardless of the politics of who was/is in charge at the time. 

Yes, the ideological bent of the person in charge might have some influence on the degree of the situation - but I do not think it has any influence at all on the basic situation itself.  I think the only thing that had an influence in the past was the relentless enforcement of the law against recessions after 1987 until 2000, combined with the fact that that inevitably meant that the stock market was going to keep going up until it could not go up anymore, namely it went into an exponential, which it did in the late 1990's/early 2000, and which guaranteed that things would start going downhill from there (inevitable - ALL exponentials end badly) when, and after, the exponential came back down, and when that happened, it was inevitable that the government finances would start getting worse again, too (probably at a very fast rate - which they have). 

In other words, I do not think one can assign a partisan cause to it - I think it was simply a matter of when the (objective) methods described on this website ran their course, over the course of the years, relative to particular points on the calendar and in particular, in the big picture, relative to the year 2000, at which time the stock market went exponential, which was a very interesting development especially considering exactly when it happened (i.e., within months of the year 2000 transition). 

In other words, the Kondratieff wave and when things normally happen within that over the years, combined with the enforcement of the law against recessions, which resulted in the plateau phase of the current Kondratieff wave being stretched out for years beyond where it would have otherwise ended, along with distortion of the depression phase of the current Kondratieff wave as well, resulted in everything happening when it did and continuing to happen when it does.  The stretch-out is determined by the law against recessions - not by partisan issues.