Quote:
Originally posted by JoesHO1@Jun 17 2004, 08:35 AM
Yep Serge, the only thing that beats numbers, is the underlying theme of how they were achieved.....
One could argue that if it was due to Reagan, that clinton had success, what happened during the four years of bush senior?
and why was during the clinton years the economy at an all time HIGH, but miraculously once Bush junior got into office, it crashed again? face it the policies of the democrates, are what increases the economy... FACTS speak louder than numbers, my friend.... 
|
I think everyone's being unfair and partisan here. Reagan and Clinton years were good
from the traditional point of view (that's for you Buff). Clinton did raise taxes in a similar way to how Reagan later did, in an attempt to decrease the budget deficit. In Reagan's case, I believe he wasn't able to get congress to cut spending - but I am not certain of that. As far as Bush, he was inaugurated on January 20, 2001 and the economy went into a recession in March. Prior to that most everyone knew a recession was coming. For example, in November 2000 the US Commerce department "confirmed economists' predictions that the US economy is in the midst of a slowdown, with speculation and fear developing as to how far the downturn will go. Substantial profit losses and layoffs have been reported in the auto, office equipment and US defense industries, as the dot.com sector of the economy reports record failures."
06-17-2004
Threaded Mode
