Date: 10/13/2004 9:47:00 AM
From Authorid: 49101
It won't work to put it that way, I tried already. If it is good, it can only come from a Republican, or a member of the Bush Clan. If it is a bad thing, it can only come from a Democrat. *sigh*  |
Date: 10/13/2004 9:53:00 AM
From Authorid: 2030
Reagans economic plan set the stage for lower inflation rates, controlled and lower interest rates and a tremendous increase in home ownership. Much of the robust economy of the late 90's was a house of cards based on the dot com industry that was basically a great deal of wealth on paper but little more. Then it hit the skids and soon after 9-11 came along and kicked the pins out from under the economy for good. Right now I think we are are on the verge of a decent recovery once all the election business is over. Come mid to late Novenber you'll see a bump regardless who wins. Business will carry on regardless of who sits in the oval office.  |
|
Date: 10/13/2004 9:54:00 AM
From Authorid: 2030
Clinton did wonders for the imported cigar market however, and I give him full credit for that. |
Date: 10/13/2004 9:58:00 AM
From Authorid: 25390
Should he get full credit? No. Because Reagan and Bush did have more to do with the increasing economy. Did Clinton continue the growing economy? yes, I think so. (and for the record, I carry more Republican traits)...  |
Date: 10/13/2004 9:59:00 AM
From Authorid: 6915
No, he shouldnt  |
|
Date: 10/13/2004 10:14:00 AM
From Authorid: 2030
Fact is the only president to make significant changes in economic policy in the last 30 years was Ronald Reagan. Tax increases take money out of our hands and put it into the governments hands. One spends it wisely the other spends it on more government control. Note: Money = Control. I've personally never met a tax cut I didn't like, however they are good for a short term boost and then things level off. |
Date: 10/13/2004 10:30:00 AM
From Authorid: 53284
The government has little effect on the business cycle. The last boom was brought about by a rapidly maturing computer business. Everyone was getting computers and most business were replacing their machines on a three year cycle. Software was booming as everyone had to computerize their opperations. That business has matured. If anyone can explain to me how the government had a direct affect in that (other than Al Gore inventing the internet), I would appreciate it. The most important thing that Clinton did was to just leave that business alone.  |
|
Date: 10/13/2004 10:33:00 AM
From Authorid: 2030
Wild Bob has a knack for making sense when I seem to struggle with it. Well said. |
Date: 10/13/2004 10:49:00 AM
From Authorid: 15228
I think Carter should get the credit.  |
Date: 10/13/2004 11:53:00 AM
From Authorid: 47218
In my opinion, the acting president has very little to do with the current state economy. The forces at work take a much longer span than a president's brief four to eight years in office. But then, I don't think any president really has that much influence. The FTC (a non-partisan group) has a lot of power, thanks to their control over interest rates. The chairman is appointed by the president, but note we've had the same guy in charge for the last few presidents. Congress has some broad power through legislation that affects importing and exporting and taxation, etc. But I really think most of the credit should be given to the local level-- invidual businesses thrive thanks to state infrastructure including laws and university systems. I think it's the governments of states with large tech industries such as California and Texas that we should be thanking for the previous economic boom.  |
Date: 10/13/2004 5:26:00 PM
From Authorid: 47296
The Reagan/Bush economy of the 80s focused on getting American business back to a point where it should have been all along. One of Reagan's best projects was to get the military back up to a certain level, which in turn had a strong impact on the civilian and industrial economies that were tied to the military build up. One negative effect of the Reagan/Bush economy was the base closures that continued through Clinton, and still continue today. Many areas that depended heavily on a military presence for their local economy lost much needed dollars when bases in their areas were closed. Some cities have been able to convert abandoned bases to industrial or other needs, but not all. During Clinton's administration, there were carry overs from the Reagan/Bush years. Under Clinton, we also saw trade measures implemented which in some areas had a positive impact, but negative impacts in others. We saw some American businesses go outside the US for their operations, but also saw an increase in foreign business that decided to make the move to America. The ones that left did so not only because of cheaper labor, but also because it became cheaper to import their products. Those who decided to make the move to America did so because of tax incentives, as well as a dependable work force in need of jobs. George W has done a few things to help the economy, but little that stands out. All in all, our current foray into Iraq has done more to hurt the economy than the things done to help it. The fear of more terrorist attacks also hinders the economy. Now, does Clinton deserve cedit for the somewhat improving economy? Yes he does. To say it is all George W would be wrong. As an independent business person, even after 9-11, I saw only a slight drop in expendable spending among those I do business with. Within 60 days of our entry into Iraq though, I saw a drastic decrease in spending. That was not an effect of the Clinton administration, but of Bush's war policy.  |
Date: 10/13/2004 7:08:00 PM
From Authorid: 62752
VOTE bill 2004 wahooooo oh wrong page (lol)  |
Date: 10/13/2004 8:24:00 PM
From Authorid: 34487
Ummm... the only credit Clinton deserves if after being in office for 8 yrs...he accomplished basically nothing. As for the economy...he was successful in bringing us into a SLUMP that Bush inherited. I guess ole' Billy Boy was too busy hitting on all the interns.  |
47162 Category:(Debate) Created:(10/13/2004 9:41:00 AM)