On Tue, 6 Jul 2004 16:05:02 -0400, "Gary Warner"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .

Clinton is no more responsible for the increases in jobs during his
watch, than Bush is responsible for their loss. The economy is an
entity in and of itself, which operates outside of the political
machine. ...

To some extent I agree. Economies go in cycles and are dependent on
hundreds of thousands of variables, most of which are not controllable
by the political parties or administrations of the US. On the other hand,
you make it sound like a president and his administration has almost no
effect on the US economy. I submit that while the Clinton administration
was lucky to reign over a prosperous time, they also made many right
decisions that helped that time continue and helped the US economy.

I would certainly like a list of just what those "decisions" were.
Remember, congress creates the bills. The president either approves or
vetoes those bills.

Someexamples are that instead of spending all the revenue they ren surpluses.
(And this goes counter to the line the Democrats just spend spend spend on social
programs.)

Do you think that the budget surplus just might have more to do with a
republican controlled congress for the first time in decades? The
"contract with america" spearheaded the effort to cut government
spending. Clinton had little choice but to go along, with the notable
exceptions of when he held the government payroll hostage and then
blamed it on the congress' "unwillingness" to do things "his way".


I also believe that Clinton's efforts of diplomacy and as well
as his
general "calm" and his aligning the US with the world gave many people both
inside and outside the US a calm & secure feeling.

The same "calm" he used when he passed up the opportunity to take
Osama Bin Laden from the Sudanese? Or perhaps the calm he displayed
when indiscriminately bombing those aspirin factories to take the
public's eyes off of the depositions in the Paula Jones trial?

And that this helped lead
to prosperous times. ~ Compare that with Bush who, even as the ecomomy
was tanking gave tax cuts and continued to spend like there was no problem.
Yes, I do understand that tax-cuts might stimulate business & the economy.

Then you should understand why it was necessary. The economy was on a
downturn before election 2000. The recession was official before
Bush's first budget hit the floor. The tax cuts were a good way to
prop up the core spending of the American consumer. Since the
recession was not overly deep, and has been recovering for the last
year or so, it could be effectively argued that this was a good
strategy.


And
Yes I understand and agree that in some cases government spending can be a
way to revive an economy. I just think President Bush didn't use these tools
well. Also, I feel that from the moment George Bush took office he started
creating a feeling of unease in the US and all around the world. When people
feel that a war could break out at any minute and the the future is
uncertain,
business and economies tend not to thrive. (Unless there is huge spending
on
war, which can create jobs & technological advances, but has huge "costs"
of it's own.)

Of course, having a fanatical terrorist group fly planes into some
high profile targets on U.S. soil just might have a much broader
effect on economic "uncertainty".

But I guess that's Bush's fault too......

Dave