<p>Most economists agree, however, that there is a significant lag of at least 2 to 4 years before an economic agenda truly take effect. You can’t measure 2001 or 2002 and really attribute it to the Bush administration or GOP agenda. </p>
<p>Similarly, Clinton’s first 2 to 4 years are hardly his work.</p>
<p>Oh, so the first 4 years of Bush’s weren’t his either? So I guess when Kerry talked about the “worst economy since Hoover” that he was really referring to Clinton’s administration. I see.</p>
<p>Well, FF, looking at your table, I see a steady downward trend throughout Clinton’s presidency, after inheriting a high rate from Bush 1, and then, woops, an upward rate starting with Bush 2. Well, he’s got a few more years to turn that around–not sure the high debt, war, etc, will help him do that, but he can always blame Katrina when things don’t get any better.</p>
<p>I guess when raw numbers don’t suit your argument, you can always fall back on “trends”. Oh well.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Fear?!! Fear???!! Don’t make me laugh. </p>
<p>Pity more like it. </p>
<p>Stay with Noonan et al, driver. She’s witty at least.</p>
<p>Witty indeed, with a great historical perspective–and a Rush admirer to boot.
<a href=“http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110006150[/url]”>http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110006150</a><br>
I didn’t know the EIB Network’s tentacles reached all the way to Tahiti (or wherever your paradise is). :)</p>
<p>Noting that Rush helped break the ‘monopoly’ --along with Howard Stern btw–does not make Noonan a personal admirer, driver…I think there is a difference but hey, prove me wrong. Find me a Noonan quote where she gushes over Rush’s intellect. I will be amazed if you find one. She operates on a much higher level.</p>
<p>My father is a Rush fan. I’m not. I, for one, was not surprised to learn that Rush works in a drug-induced fugue. Made sense to me…</p>
<p>Trends, funding father? You mean that Clinton was handed a high rate, and lowered it, then Bush took that low rate, and raised it, you dismiss this by calling it “trends”? Each one had to start from where things were when they got into office; there’s no blank slate handed to them.</p>
<p>From a Noonan article entitled “So Much to Savor”:
<a href=“http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110005844[/url]”>http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110005844</a></p>
<p>Not exactly gushing about his intellect, as you requested, but it’s pretty clear where her heart lies. I’m constantly amazed by those who find solace in believing that they are smarter than their political opponents, even has they are being run round in circles by them. Whatever. I’m a huge fan of Laura Ingraham too–former editor of The Dartmouth Review, where our dearly departed FountainSiren has just gotten her first assignment. I look forward to her columns–and her radio show, eventually 
That liberal compassion again…I love it.</p>
<p>OK, if you want to take a statistical view of the numbers, at least look at a statistically significant sample. Look at the 20 year average poverty rate (13.2) and compare it to Bush’s worst year - 12.7. If it gets above the 20 year average you can complain, until then I’d say we are doing pretty well.</p>
<p>All I can say is that whatever the Hippies said back in the 60’s about the “establishment” I discovered is very close to the truth. And I must admit reluctantly ,that what the left,libs or democrats said about Bush turned out to be true also. However, that does not mean that the democrats will easily slide in to the White house in 2008. Why? They are not organized and have weak candidates. They cling to extreme social issues placating far left groups while ignoring the middle or independent voters . </p>
<p>Democrats obtain their power from big government (generally till Bush showed up) and Republicans gain their power from big business and strong familial and business connections. Each party gets in the white house and proceeds to build their power base (whether it be big government or business handouts to their friends)…in the final analysis we the taxpayers,citizens,voters…whatever, get to live in a more complicated society, that becomes more difficult for every generation to navigate …truly when you peel back the layers no one has been able to truly convince me that there is any significant difference between republicans or democrats. Regarding some issues there are stark differences, outside of that it is a zero sum game for the rest of us!</p>
<p>There ya go. Noonan loves Rush. Learn something new everyday.</p>
<p>Hey…if you can demonstrate compassion for Clinton’s sex addiction, I guess I can feel sorry for a guy like Rush.</p>
<p>You first.</p>
<p>I do feel sorry for Clinton. His marriage and his family life are his own business, and I don’t know if he’s left that totally screwed-up or not; but if he did, I would feel sorry for him. Not look down on him. It’s hard for me to imagine messing up my family and living with it.</p>
<p>I feel sorry for him as a philanderer, too. I mean, JFK appears to have been a sex addict as well, but at least he was hitting on the top sex symbols of his time…Marilyn and whatsername the mob boss’s kitten. If you’re going to get impeached, at least have Sharon Stone or someone in the oval office, not some twerpy intern. In fact, if he’d had a real grown-up non-employee in the oval office, he wouldn’t have even been impeached.</p>
<p>Songman,
The democratic party is not the party it was in the sixties. And Bill Clinton if I remember correctly reduced the size of the federal government along with a concerted and deliberate attempt to reduce the deficit. </p>
<p>There are good people out there but until we stop voting for an “image” it ain’t gonna happen.</p>
<p>Lizschup- for every example you may cite regarding Clinton or Democrats, I could equally argue a counter point.Many of the arguments or defense of one specific party over another only prevents us from seeing the bigger picture. We pay more in taxes today (especially silly cell phone and cable TV hidden taxes etc…that were phased in under both parties,we still have the same health plans,education woes, etc… The largest most rapid consolidation of american business in history took place under Clinton’s admin (he was not acting like a democrat) ,and Bush has run the deficit up higher than any president in history,is for amnesty for illegal aliens,spends like a drunken sailor(does not act like a republican)- Blah blah blah… in the end it is a zero sum game for all of us IMHO!</p>
<p>It seems like an argument bent on excusing Bush by saying “after all they are all the same.” I also think it is unrealistic to say that we were all losers under Bill Clinton. He made some mistakes to be sure but nothing compared to Bush. Have you forgotten that Bush started the war in Iraq and the consequence is thousands dead on both sides along with sky high costs. That along with those foolish tax cuts did more to undercut the long term economic security and national security than anything Clinton did. Pick a different Republican if you want to compare and maybe I’ll agree but George Bush is by far the most disastrous president we’ve ever had. We will be living with the consequences of his mistakes for a long time to come.</p>
<p>“He made some mistakes to be sure but nothing compared to Bush. Have you forgotten that Bush started the war in Iraq and the consequence is thousands dead on both sides along with sky high costs.”</p>
<p>500,000 dead Iraqi children, dying in the arms of their parents after Clinton bombed the wastewater treatment plants and refused shipments of simple antibiotics, don’t have tongues that can speak. More dead than in Rwanda. More dead than in Kosovo. Ten times as many dead as under George Bush.</p>
<p>No, they aren’t all the same, and it doesn’t have anything to do with Lewinsky’s dress. (Frankly, I wish he’d spent more time at it.)</p>
<p>No way do I excuse Bush…he has been a disaster…- and again we can, and many people do ,attempt to argue their side in terms of degree or measurement. Statements like" Well Clinton may have been fooling around in the white house but at least he didn’t start an unnecessary war" This statement ignores some of the serious laws, or rulings that occurred during Clinton’s admin that we are paying for today. For e.g. major consolidation of industries through takeovers that allowed companies to stick it to us with higher prices, tremendous layoffs, outsorurcing ,etc…it happened …that is a fact …just like Bush is a disaster also… Or how about since 1981 neither party did anything to explore alternative energy sources or fuels. As a matter of fact Jimmy Carter was the only president that had a major energy policy because oil prices spiked in 1978 +… Here we are again with politicians screaming an energy policy on both sides of the aisle.</p>
<p>Its funny ,I am sure you have met staunch democrats or republicans. They will not concede no matter how corrupt or wrong their candidate may be…I guess I am a staunch independent that trusts neither party…I will admit I was fooled by Bush …to me he was the lesser of two evils…but Kerry was not a sufficient alternative for me…if the democrats can come up with a candiate that is more centrist or logical to me like Lieberman was or heck even Al Gore maybe? I might consider the Democrats again. Don’t get excited as I predict that even if the democrats regain power in the senate and congress again ,it will be more of the same…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah, probably. Regardless, I think every economist I’ve ever read from has said again and again: The President taking credit for an economic upturn is disingenous. He simply doesn’t have that kind of effect, and he doesn’t legislate to begin with.</p>
<p>None of this explains to me why Bush’s fans, despite being so-called conservatives, are still so staunch in their support.</p>
<p>He’s argued for tariffs, he’s overseen a huge increase in spending, and his administration has generally been regarded as profligate.</p>
<p>REGARDLESS, blame lies SQUARELY IN THE LAP OF CONGRESS.</p>