Quote:
Originally posted by Ziroc:
quote:
Originally posted by Skunk:
I think that you would get on well with my wife Ziroc. This is what she said to me a couple of years ago when she bought a new coat:
Her: "Hey I saved us 200 EUR by buying this coat in the sales! It was originally 600 EUR, but was marked down to 400 EUR! Am I good or what?!"
Me: "Ummmm.... no, you just cost us 400 EUR on a coat that you didn't need"
Her: "Dam! You never see the positive side of things!"
Me: "That's because there are 400 negative things that just appeared on the bank statement"
When the jobless figures are lower than when Bush came to office, then you have positive news about the economy that Bush can claim credit for.
|
funny. As I told Skywalker, if the numbers were lower, you WOULD credit Bush with causing it.. It's silly.. Admit when something is getting better, no matter how small. It will take time, but we are slowly growing again, and it's good for everyone... [/QUOTE]I'm not that partisan although, as you allude, I do have a stake in how well the US performs and how it structures its economy.
In general, I have always thought that the Republicans were better suited to producing economic models and policies that served foreign economies best (thus benefiting me) by producing a strong domestic economy. As such, I have a *lot* of praise for the way that Reagan and Bush Senior ran the country.
Clinton did well by simply refraining from making any major changes to the economy and keeping himself to minor tinkering. In other words, his was riding on the coat tails of the previous administration.
Bush jnr's administration, on the other hand has shown nothing of the wisdom of previous republican administrations. They just seem like ideologues, intent upon instigating 'tax and spending reform' without reference to the current economic climate or other important factors (ie the cost of the Iraq war) which neccessitated adjustments to their plan. Consequently, they have so far proved costly to the financial health of the US.