Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: GOPsterinMA
No comparison. Clinton was relatively likeable and the economy was decent in 94. Image and video hosting by TinyPic 0 by June at this rate of decay.
69 posted on 12/13/2009 6:52:28 AM PST by omega4179 (The impulse of the betrayed is to tear their fallen deities to shreds.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies ]


To: omega4179

You should be a climate scientist.


82 posted on 12/13/2009 6:57:44 AM PST by Lonesome in Massachussets (The CRU needs adult supervision.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies ]

To: omega4179

Clinton tanked in ‘94 largely due to HillaryCare. But when that didn’t pass (didn’t even come up for a vote), the Pubbies came in and overeached and the rest is history. Clinton, although a leftie, was more interested in his legacy and his reelection rather than ideology. So he moved to the center and actually to the right with welfare reform and later a drop in the capital gains rate. As to 1994 itself, the economy wasn’t bad but wasn’t great either. In fact, it was the worst year in almost 70 years for the bond market as the Fed was raising rates. 1995 and beyond featured the full advent of the internet and thus a roaring economy for awhile.


84 posted on 12/13/2009 6:58:27 AM PST by bombthrower
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies ]

To: omega4179

Good - then his exit from the presidency should be easier!


86 posted on 12/13/2009 6:59:44 AM PST by GOPsterinMA ("Henceforth, you shall be known as...'Nobel Obama'".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson