- Feb 12, 2007
- 59,384
- 24,018
- 2,290
i thought that didnt matter? it just mattered who was in charge? if thats the route you want to take now, you open the door for great justification as to why Obama increased government spending to stave off another depression.
we can look at Clinton for a great example. Higher taxes on the wealthy, lower taxes on the middle class, huge economic boom for all 8 years of his presidency. debt decreases, and we actually had a surplus (but im sure you will give all the credit to the republican congress)
Bush comes into office. passes huge tax cuts for the wealthy, starts 2 wars, obliterates the surplus immediately and drives up the debt and deficit. continue the clinton boom, but it is short lived as we have a recession after 9/11 (although short lived) followed by a short boom, and then we tank into another recession. (but then again im sure youll simply blame the democratic congress for all of this as well)
and thats just a good start.
Your assessment of Clinton is inaccurate. Clinton benefited from the growth oriented Reagan era policies, the peace dividend, the Gingrich Congress, the Y2K tech spend bulge, the Dotcom Bubble, and the Telecom Bubble.
Your assessment of Bush is inadequate for other reasons.
And one can hardly call your ignorance of economics a Good Start.
like i said, you simply will claim that it was a republican congress that is the only reason Clinton succeeded.
but i though the republican mantra was never to raise taxes? so why did they let clinton raise taxes on only the wealthy? doesnt that go against supply side / voodoo economics? why did that alienate the republican base?
FactCheck.org: Were Clinton's policies responsible for the 1990s' economic growth?
clinton in fact raised taxes with huge opposition from the republicans, who "denounced it as the largest tax increase in history."
under Reagon GDP declined, and the deficit rose. since that time supply side economics has been widely discredited as sound economic policy.
The Failure of Supply-Side Economics
Economist's View: The Great Lie of Supply-Side Economics
Robert Creamer: New Economic Data Shows that Right Wing Economic Theory Is Simply Wrong.
That is not what I said, you dim bulb.
Clinton benefited from the confluence of some highly favorable conditions for growth. Some were long term systemic (until the government undid them), some were temporal blips (dot com bubble). He was also politically astute enough to change course in 1994, something Obama is congenitally unable to do.