I think it's more of a partisan re-writing of history. Democrats hold Bill up as their champion and they don't want to give Reagan any credit so they have to make the distinction. Republicans have difficulty admitting that Clinton was in any way successful.CID1990 wrote:I'm not saying they didn't. I'm just saying that Clinton has been lauded before for rolling back many of Reagan's fiscal policies. Whenever he or Hill talked about how they balanced the budget ad nauseum there was usually a reference to the days of soak the rich policies as being what they rolled back. Almost every pundit who worhipped at the altar of Hill-Bill put them forward as a repudiation of Reagan.kalm wrote:
Smaller government, low top marginal tax rates, and most especially financial de-regulation and free trade all continued under Clinton.
Today, making the argument that CLinton somehow was "Reagan Lite" serves the purpose of providing a nuanced way of saying that Obama has represented a fresh direction. (Which I would agree with.... just that it isn't fresh... it has already been tried in other countries, most of which have already collapsed, and by others that are well on their way).
In my opinion, Obama is a mixed bag rather than a fresh direction. He passed health care legislation that is similar to the Republican's alternative to Hillary care, done very little to regulate the financial services industry, cut taxes, escalated a war, and has shown little interest so far in changing free trade. That being said he is responsible for the stimulus package, and rather than contracting the money supply a la Volker, his fed has increased it.
