[MJY1288]

Excellent in deed

[OXENinFLA]

You should've heard Bennett (R-Utah) today on the senate floor.

He tore apart the "lies" Kennedy ranted on the other day.

[Miss Marple]

Excellent article. I especially like the slam at Dean at the end.

[alwaysconservative]

Thanks for posting this excellent article!

[sultan88]

Great article ping!

[lepton]

Clinton probably does deserve a reasonable amount of credit for not derailing the boom.

He actually did bring it to a screeching halt (One should simply remember how the phones went silent when he gave his 1993 Health-Care speech). It took until 1996 for the economy to get going again. What happened in the mean-time? A Republican Congress was elected that stopped most of his stupidity and gave confidence to businesses.

[Mo1]

"I would go back to the Clinton era of taxes," Dean told NBC's Tim Russert, "because I think most Americans would gladly pay the same taxes they paid when Bill Clinton was president if they could only have the same economy that they had when Bill Clinton was president."

Well I wouldn't Mr. Dean, and that is why you will never be President

[wayoverontheright]

It now looks like the economy's about to take off again. President Bush will surely claim more credit than he deserves. President Bush's tax cuts were in, my book, a good idea. But they surely didn't restructure the U.S. economy.

No, but there's more than meets the eye.

The President of the United States, through his rhetoric on taxes and regulation, can profoundly influence business in ways that don't involve structural changes. Business knows when it is public enemy number one, and this fact will always tend to influence investment, capital formation, and other behaviors essential to economic growth.

Business felt that way when Clinton was President, and the way they dealt with it was to attempt to 'buy' favorable legislation through donations to Clinton's party, and by illegal accounting scams which sprang directly from the anti-capitalist climate which prevailed in those years. Those businesses that didn't succumb to either went about things in a very cautious way, which is never good for the economy.

It is my contention that business feels much more confident in President Bush's economic policies, and THAT as much as anything explains the current uptick.

[Quix]

PING FOR REF AND HANDOUTS

[StriperSniper]

Clinton started talk of his economic legacy, notes Lowry, by declaring over and over again, that the historically mild 1990-91 recession constituted "the worst economy in 50 years." And that he - and he alone - had to "rebuild" the entire $11 trillion U.S. economy. Never mind that the recession actually ended in March 1991, seven months before Clinton had even announced his candidacy.

Just listen to the news, it's deja vu all over again.
(Thanks Yogi!)

[Pan_Yans Wife]

Presidents like to claim they "create jobs." Well they do - a few thousand of them, mostly around Washington, D.C. But they don't create millions of jobs in the private sector, at least not with any precision or in a way that can be replicated by flipping some job-creation switch. Even the New Deal was largely ineffective until the onset of WWII. What creates economic growth are billions of decisions all over the world, made according to a timeline that only vaguely coincides with the political calendar.

Repeat loudly and often.