>Sorry, don't by it and neither to any economists that I know or have read.
>
> -----Original Message-----
>From: dana tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2004 1:53 PM
>To: CF-Community
>Subject: Re: Kerry's record in Senate
>
>
> As I recall, he started talking about what terrible shape the economy
> was in and both consumer confidence and the stock market took a nose
> dive :)
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Andy Ousterhout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 06:43:17 -0500
> Subject: RE: Kerry's record in Senate
> To: CF-Community <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Since the recession started 10 months into Bush's term it was Clinton's.
> We've been over this ground before. If you think it was Bush's, please
> list
> the actions he took to cause the recession in such rapid time and what
>effect
> that action took.
>
> Andy
OK A little economics for everyone.
Neither Bush or Clinton had much do with the economic expansion of the late
90s and the recession that started 2001. Monetary policy from the Federal
Reserve Bank has more to do with the economy then fiscal policy introduced
by the President. Of course fiscal policy can impact the economy but they
generally play second fiddle to Greenspan's decisions.
The only really blunder that comes to my mind regarding Bush and the
economy is that he publicly approved one of Greenspan's decision early in
his term. A big no-no. I can't, although could be persuaded, understand
why large deficits would be considered bad. Especially considering how
cheap it is to borrow money right now.
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
