########################################################################## # If Goanet stops reaching you, contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] # # Want to check the archives? http://www.goanet.org/pipermail/goanet/ # # Please keep your discussion/tone polite, to reflect respect to others # ##########################################################################
I dont think Bush deseves blame for the current state of the economy. Likewise, Clinton cannot entirely take credit for the booming economy in the 1990s. The long term growth of a nation is determined by polices established decades in the past. Many believe that it is Ronald Reagan's cuts in big government, welfare and cuts in corporate and investment taxes in the 80s that set the ground work for the 90's boom. Unfortunately, Bush Jr. has not followed in Reagan's footsteps. Even after subtracting out the war and homeland defence related costs, Bush Jr. has precided over the largest increase in US government spending growth in almost half a century. Cutting taxes is easy, but keeping a hold on spending is not. Bush has simply not had the courage to stand up to congress (dominated by his own party) to keep a lot of highly questionable spending in check. Bush's sycophants argue that much of this spending was necessary to pull the economy out of recession. This is a very reasonable argument, assuming the money was spent strategically and with the intention of providing a short term boost. Unfortunately, many of the spending bills such as the expansion of medicare coverage have only served to increase the government's obligations to perpetuity. Kerry for his part has promised all kinds of additional government programs - which will also bloat the government. However, I do believe that regardless of who takes power, the next administration will be forced by the market to keep spending in check or face the threat of continued steep declines in the value of the dollar and/or coupled with sharp rises in real interest rates. Marlon --- Peter D'Souza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Tim de Mello wrote: > > >[EMAIL PROTECTED]: > > > > > > "We should not forget that this administration > inherited a > > recession after > > the technology bubble had burst and it was > like handing Bush a > > hand grenade > > with the pin pulled out." > > > >By the same token we should not forget that Clinton > inherited an economy > >that was already devasted by the Bush Sr. but > managed to turn it around in > >four years. > > > Tim, you're wrong. The economy had started to > recover during Bush Sr.'s last year in office. The > third quarter growth rate of his last year in office > was 3.4%, a very respectable number. As for managing > to turn it around in four years--some credit is due > to the fact that there was a Republican-controlled > House and Senate. Concerning Clinton turning around > a Bush Sr. economy in 4 years, Bush Jr. has acheived > the same level of unemployment that Clinton had > achieved at the end of his first term--a record > which helped Clinton run his re-election on the > theme of prosperity. >