|
Sorry, I just see a definite economic trend. During Clinton's president-elect period, the economy Bush Sr. had struggled with for 4 years turned up. During Bush's president-elect period, it turned back down. When it first happened I said, "Great, Bush Sr. finally got it fixed - but not in time to help him in the election." Now, I see it differently.
Clinton behaved like a perfect economic actor, IMHO. He turned a blind eye to corporate greed, promised everything was great, spent a lot, but also insisted on a balanced budget. We bought it, and rode the technology bubble for all it was worth, and we were all a bit richer. And yes, I realize I'm justifying some irresponsibly means with this good result. But, during his presidency, for the first time in 50 years, America finally operated in the black for a change, at least for a moment.
Reaganomics and trickle-down are laughable - absolutely. Reagan overspent on the military - remember the $6 Billion attempt at a stealth bomber that couldn't make it off the ground? There was, again IMHO, a very justifiable result on such ludicrous defense spending - we won the cold war in the only peacable way. So, I don't fault him too much for it. It was a genius result that may well not have been intended by Reagan - sorta like how Pulp Fiction is way better than Tarentino could have intended, no matter what his ego says.
But, all that aside, over time you must admit: Reagon, high unemployment and poverty; Bush Sr., high unemployment, poverty, and recession; Clinton, lower employment, still high poverty, boom economy; Bush Jr., high unemployment, poverty, and recession.
Quite simply, I don't care what patch of sand we go make war on. If President Bush wants my vote, he has a short while to do something positive with the economy.
__________________
 
|