Quote:
Originally Posted by Hell Puppy
it's still all about the cycles.
i would contend that whoever was elected in 1992 was bound to have a good economic ride.
likewise, whoever was elected in 2000 was bound to inherit one hell of a shit sandwich economically.
|
No, sorry, not exactly true. If Clinton was a "tax and spend liberal" he would have taxed the crap out of that good economic ride until it died, and the poor people would be eating steak instead of bologna. Things were on the upswing, yes, but poor management or agressive moves would have killed it dead.
On the other side, Bush came into an almost perfect situation. He could have eased taxes slightly for everyone, and the economy would have continued on it's merry way. But the same people that brought you voodoo economics decides to screw the pooch, and in doing so, made America weaker than it had been. 9/11 blew a hole in the US economy, and Bush then let loose the dogs of war and they chewed the economy's feet out from under it.
It's all about choices. The economic conditions are NOT set in stone, they can aided or hindered by the administration. GWB has engaged the US into a number of costly wars (that are likely not even needed) which has turned the US from a prosperous nation to one bailing out it's banks and other financial institutions. Not bad for 8 years.
97 days. Can you guys get him to leave sooner?