[cake_crumb]

"Economic Policies that were, in fact, so good, that the country still prospered economically for 7 years or so, even after the biggest tax hike in history in '93."

"Of course, the tech boom helped the economy along, too, just as it sunk it the economy in '00 and '01."

Yep. But then, many of Reagan's own policies were still in effect then. The first four years of Reagan's presidency weren't that great for many of us. We were coming out of a full-blown depression (thanks Jimmah) and many of Jimmy's failed policies were still in effect. During his second term, it was all Reagan policies in effect, and most of us (including me) did quite well.

Likewise, during Clinton's first term, most Reaganomic policies were still in effect and the economy was still enjoying the benefits. Clinton took credit for that. During Clinton's second term, Clintonomic polcies were in effect. The artificial tech bubble masked that but only for about two years. By 1998, some of us could see the signs of economic downturn and were flamed as gloom-and-doomers. By 2000, MANY people could see the downturn. In effect, Clintonomics failed almost as soon as it was implimented.

Clinton's policies were still in effect when GW took office. We're just beginning to get into the economic effects of Bush's policies. I'd like to see him get another term, because he is a strong adherant to Reagonomics (supply-side)

[colorado tanker]

The biggest factor causing the 1991 recession was the huge expense of the savings and loan collapse. The cleanup of the S&L's, another Dim program born during the Roosevelt era, was a heavy burden and one of the reasons Bush 41 (unwisely) agreed to a tax increase.