Thankfully we've had Republican proposals to keep the downturn as small as it has been the last few years. Most people look at the current state of the economy and blame the US President for every problem, which is not the direction we should be looking. Instead of looking at the economy as a whole, to judge a President we should look at the contributions of that particular administration. For example, Clinton benefited from the technology boom, primarily boosting us due to events in Japan. Regardless of Clinton's actions, we saw a boost, and no President could take away the huge improvements we saw. However, what Clinton's proposals did was limit that boost, taking what would have been a great boost and making it only a good boost. Bush, or rather his economists, have taken a negative world economy, influences outside the realm of US control such as oil prices (we contribute app. 4% to the cost per barrel, mere change), and minimized the impact, allowing to have things such as almost the cheapest gas in the world right now. A good President under a good economy will make a great economy, while a bad President under a good economy will keep it at only a good economy. A good President under a bad economy will still suffer through a bad economy, but can minimize the impact from world influnces, as is happening in this case. A bad President under a bad economy would just cripple us all. I shudder to think of what would have happened if things had been reversed, if Bush had been in office during the technology boom and we had to suffer through Clinton through the bad times. The middle class would be practically wiped for certain, we suffered through a recession in 2001 because his ridiculous proposals hadn't yet expired. And the moron managed to convince people that it was a Republican's fault, someone who had just entered office and hadn't even done anything yet. The fact that people still buy into that astounds me. Bush is an idiot, but his proposals and the work of his economists have really lessened the impact we're feeling compared to the rest of the world, seriously lessened the impact from increased Chinese demand and other factors, and for that very reason we cannot afford a Democrat to come back to office in these harsh times. We can only afford a Democrat when the world is giving us a huge boost, but history has proven that 100% of the time we suffer even more greatly when times are bad. The economy itself as a whole is not a deciding factor on the worth of a mere US President, it's the contributions to that world economy and how it affects the US that show a measure. Reducing a negative impact, or taking advantage of a positive impact, we've seen both over the past few years, after seeing neither during the previous few.









Discuss