The 1990's brought about so many economic changes, both good and bad, that it is hard to just pick one to focus on. I decided to focus on one of the biggest events of that decade, when President Clinton took office in 1993. The U.S. economy was still in the process of trying to recover from a recession. Unemployment was up, government spending was high, taxes were low, and both public and private investing was down. Clinton wanted to enact policies that would (hopefully) jumpstart the economy again. His policies became known amongst his peers as, "progressively fiscal conservatism" (Frankel & Orszag, 2017).In order to help economic growth, Clinton wanted to cut government spending and increase taxes.

These policies jumpstarted the longest running expansion since The Great Depression. Government spending was cut. This helped with decreasing the national deficit and eventually creating a surplus. Private investment in research and development was raised. This led to an increase in new jobs, more firms expanding and investing, new technology being invented, and wages were increasing. Consumers were buying vehicles, houses, and just generally spending more money. The government was able to save money and focus any spending on areas such as research and development and education. The multiplier, in this case, is Clinton enacting his reform policies. The multiplier effect is the increase in economic activity.

How do I disagree with this? And site my answer?