On the Idiotic Claim that the Clinton Tax Hikes of 1993 Were the Primary Reason for the Economic Progress and Shrinking Deficits During Clinton's Two Terms

It's ludicrous. a) Federal expenditures (according to the CBO) decreased from nearly 23% of the country's GDP in 1992 all the way down to 18% by 2000 (the end result of Newt Gingrich and Erskine Bowles sitting down and rolling their collective sleeves up). b) The economy was poised for a recovery in 1993 and if anything the tax hikes retarded it (compare it to other recoveries; 1921, for instance); less money in the hands of the middle-class to spend and invest, etc.. c) The dot com bubble (fueled in large part by Greenspan's inflationary FED policy) was largely fueling the economy. And d) the economy didn't really start to explode until the President and Congress passed the capital gains tax cut in 1996. I mean, I know that simple minds have a tendency to seek out simple explanations (those that buttress their narrative, for the most part) and all but this particular argument is even more absurd than usual, folks.