Replies

Which part of the scenario did you not understand...I can type slower if it helps you.

Are you so naive to believe that Bill Clinton's economic policies were the accelerant behind the economic boom during his presidency?

If you do, then you likewise believe that the recent downturn came about as a result of Bush's economic policies.

In other words, you believe that a multi-gazillion economy turns on a dime.

Clinton's boom was Reagan's and Bush I's boom, Dubya's recession is actually Clinton's.

Now, you may not like the answer, but it does not change the facts.

Great post and worth repeating;

Are you so naive to believe that Bill Clinton's economic policies were the accelerant behind the economic boom during his presidency? If you do, then you likewise believe that the recent downturn came about as a result of Bush's economic policies. In other words, you believe that a multi-gazillion economy turns on a dime. Clinton's boom was Reagan's and Bush I's boom, Dubya's recession is actually Clinton's. Now, you may not like the answer, but it does not change the facts.

Are you so naive to believe that Bill Clinton's economic policies were the accelerant behind the economic boom during his presidency?

No.

I think Bush suffered a mild recession as a direct result or raising taxes and the expenses and economic uncertainty of Gulf War I.

The economy was recovering the small downturn at or in the few months before election time, the libmedia dutifully painting it as the biggest recession since the Great Depression.

Clinton swept into office, got a temporary and unsustainable Keynesian ecomomic bump from his unrealistic policies. Then, before that bubble burst, he lost the House to Gingrich.

The toughness of the Gingrich congress encouraged the business community toward economic expansion with their early credible action on holding down federal growth and combatting regulatory expansion.

I thought this view was the conventional conservative view of the matter. You've taken me completely by surprise with your interpretation.

But, you didn't answer me. Bush I, or any other president I assume, has the right and in fact the duty to lie to us and break promises at will and we are compelled to re-elect them no matter what they promise and then deliver the opposite? Is that your actual position?

You don't believe in accountability, do you? If words and actions don't agree, then what use is free speech and the ballot box to a democratic republic?

Surely, you must be aware that your argument is weak and unattractive. Not to mention anti-democracy.