Quote:
Originally posted by arsenal+Oct 6 2004, 05:32 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (arsenal @ Oct 6 2004, 05:32 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Cowperson@Oct 4 2004, 09:56 AM
Bush is a sure thing. I can't see the deficit situation changing much. Let's see what the other guy does.
If I'm not mistaken, the Clinton period saw annualized budget deficits shrink to surpluses.
Cowperson
|
Clinton had a little better situation than Bush.
Clinton's term was during the .com's, Enrons and Worldcoms.
The economy at that time was good for everyone. Administrations usually have little to no effect on the economy. But they do take credit for it when the economy is good.
Bush has inherited the fall-out of the .com crash, the Enrons and Worldcoms falsifying their numbers. Not to mention the 9/11 attacks against the heart
of the financial district. Airlines loosing huge amounts of money, becuase of new policies put in place by the administration. It is a trickle down effect. If large corporations loose money, they will look to rectify it. Hence outsourcing, lay offs, etc.
The economy will stabalize eventually, and it wont matter who is in office. [/b][/quote]
Well the problem is that administrations (governments) have huge effects on economy. Frankly, to date I haven`t heard anyone suggesting otherwise, whether they think these effects are positive or negative.
Another thing, total debt accumulated under Bush administration was the highest in the US history, even if you subtracted military expenses that can be attributed to the post 9/11 world.
However, this is not to say that Kerry would have done much better, quite the contrary - Kerry`s policies are far more on the `social spending side` where you can reasonably expect another increase of debts.