Doug Kanter wrote:

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
" Tuuk" wrote in message
...
Hey,,
Somebody needs to fiscally responsibly run the country or other
countries. I
mean your socialist friends would spend their way into poverty and end
up
with nothing. If you dont like the way the country is running, just sit
back
in your arm chair, collect your welfare and go play bingo. Leave the big
things to those who know how to do them better. If not for you, for the
sake
of the entire nation's survival.

Really? As I recall, eight years under Clinton......fantastic economy.
Reagan? Economy sucked. Bush I? Economy sucked. Bush II? Economy was
driven into the ground in a hell of a hurry.

Fiscal responsibility, indeed!

Actually, if you look at a graph of the stock market and compare it with
parties in office, it's always done significantly better during Democratic
administrations. The Repubs in my PaineWebber office used to hate this
chart. Their stock response to it was "Yeah...well....oh yeah?"


Well, there's a very good explaination for this trend. Usually, it takes
time for the economy to "turn around". Fiscally responsible policies,
put in place by republicans, usually do not fully "kick in" until after
their term is over. Since people are usually not patient enough, they
can be swayed to vote with their wallets, and a democrat can get in when
times get tough. But as things turn around, it's usually the policies of
the previous administration, which are normally responsible.

The other theory, is that the economy is completely independant from the
effects of politics. Little or nothing a political figurehead can do,
will affect the economy to any large degree. But perception often being
stronger than reality for some people, they often think that politics
make a bigger difference, and the political trends are merely
reactionary.

Dave