Re: an arteest

You have a point, John...the economy began its decline before Bush took
office. But I think Clinton did a good job cutting government spending
and actually managed to get the Fed. budget in the black for a year or
two. Bush did inherit an economy about to enter a recession to some
degree, and 9/11 exasparated that, but I don't see him running the
military on a tight budget (why do we need those 20-30 bases we have
scattered around Europe?) or very committed to fiscal responsibility. I
think Clinton has him beat hands down on this issue.

Jim

John P Baumgardner wrote:

>Clinton did great with the economy? Why do people say this like it's an
>accepted fact? The changes made by those in office typically affect the
>economy years down the road. The economy started heading south within
>months of Bush's inauguration. In some significant ways, the Bush
>administration was left to reap the seeds of the Clinton administration.
>The economy greatly overextended itself during the Clinton years (ie.
>Enron, all the dotcoms, etc). Sure everything seemed great, the stock
>market was growing at absurd rates on the backs of prospects, who had yet
>to turn a profit. It was like a gold rush, without the gold. Land prices
>skyrocketed and everybody was rich on paper. The value of their land was
>increasing 15% each year! But alas! no gold. Should have sold back in
>1999. The bubble burst and we had to come back down to reality and its
>mathematical limitations.
>And now people say, "The economy was great under Clinton, now Bush has it
>all f'd up." Now I don't see one as better than the other, but please
>don't tell me that Clinton did great with the economy.
>
>JPB
>
>-
>* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
>* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
>
>
>

-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Mon Apr 21 11:41:21 2003