Steve’s comment below in the End Times post reminded me of this interview with economist Joseph Stiglitz discussing a new world economy:
Q: Policy-makers often talk about the U.S. as the world’s indispensable nation. Is that consistent with how you view America’s place in a post-crash world economy?
A: Well, America is still the largest economy in the world, and in that sense it is going to continue to be a central player. Even the most optimistic forecast for China’s growth suggests that it will be a quarter century before China is comparable in size, and even then, China’s per capita income will be markedly lower than it is in the United States. And I think the United States is likely to continue to be the source of innovation, the source of higher education. So, the role of the U.S. is going to continue to be very, very strong. But there was a short period between the end of the Cold War and the crash of Lehman Brothers where the U.S. was the superpower not only militarily, but economically. It had a very strong role in dictating the terms of international agreements. That position is not likely to be restored.
“But there was a short period between the end of the Cold War and the crash of Lehman Brothers where the U.S. was the superpower not only militarily, but economically.”
Hmmmm, let’s see; that would be 1991 (end of Cold War) to 2008 (Lehman Bros crash). I’ll refrain from making any obvious observations regarding these dates but let me just say that Clinton was elected at the end of 1991.
Hmmmm, I do not have your personal strength to refrain. I assume you were applauding the economic might of the USA during a certain time in history. I’m glad you view that as a good thing. Some would have us believe it is not good thing.
I’m sure all the civics minded people that read this blog understand that the President attempts to set an agenda for the budget and the congress actually holds the purse strings. The chart below appears to signify that the republicans played a significant role in the time period in question.
Year Congress President Senate (100) House (435)
2009 111th D D – 55*** D – 256
2007 110th R D – 51** D – 233
2005 109th R R – 55 R – 232
2003 108th R R – 51 R – 229
2001 107th R D* R – 221
1999 106th D R – 55 R – 223
1997 105th D R – 55 R – 228
1995 104th D R – 52 R – 230
1993 103rd D D – 57 D – 258
1991 102nd R D – 56 D – 267
1989 101st R D – 55 D – 260
1987 100th R D – 55 D – 258
Taken from ontheissues.org:
“The great budget battle finally ended in August, with the passage of Bill’s (President Clinton’s) economic plan. Before the vote, I had spoken with wavering Democrats. One Republican Congresswoman called me to explain that she agreed with the President’s goal to tame the deficit but had been ordered by her leadership to vote “no” regardless of her convictions. In the end, not a single Republican voted for the balanced budget package. It squeaked through the House by one vote, and Vice President Gore in his official role as President of the Senate had to vote to break a 50-50 vote tie. Several courageous Democrats, who did what they believed to be in America’s long-term interests, lost in the next election.
“The plan wasn’t everything the Administration had wanted, but it signaled the return of fiscal responsibility for the government and the beginning of an economic turnaround for the country. To pay for these reforms, the plan raised taxes on gasoline and on highest-income Americans”.