Neither am I, perhaps, as open minded as you. Aside from axes, I trust neither party with much of any anything at the moment. I simply distrust Republicns less than Democrats.

You are correct in that each president inherits and economy from his predecessor.
At some point, however, if you feel that a president somehow effects the economy, that president has to take responsibility for how things are going. You can’t, on one hand, say Reagan’s legacies were responsible for the remarkable performance of the market during Clinton’s administration (they weren’t in my view) yet say that Clinton’s tax policies were tremendously bad for the economy. For example, its much easier to explain the Clinton economy via a combination of reduced military spending (frees up of resources to the general economy) and ridiculously cheap oil (something he had not much control over).

To me, it seems each president has little effect on the economy since it largely seems to ignore their wishes. Probably their largest effect is through controlling the money supply and simply the budget. It’s tough to get new taxes and certainly no one wants them but the piper must be paid eventually. You can’t keep living on credit. Anyway, there are much more salient analyses of the economy and taxation out there for me to bother with in a comment section. ;-)

Irrerspective of Congressonal or executive addiction to pissing away money, I should think you would at least admit that the economy does not turn on the very second a new administration comes to Washington. Clinton’s prosperity was built partly on the residual effect of Reagans policies, just as the Bush administration spent the first 3 years digging out from the delayed effects of Clinton’s overtaxing. I seem to remember a bit of whining from your side about where were the jobs, during Bush’s first 3 years.

Yes, increasing taxes does create more revenues to a point; however, it eventually drives costs and layoffs higher, just as lowering taxes inreases disposable income, private spending and investments which eventually lead to higher revunue from a growing economy. A point, regrettably, which has yet to be allowed to happen, given your sides apparent inability, or perhaps unwillingness, to fully comprehend.

I’m still paying for the great “War on Poverty” which apparently didnt do jack given the size of the Social Services Department and the number of manic depressive bums stoned on prozac at our expense still wondering around.

I’d much rather leave my kids an estate free of other wealth redistribution schemes, and let them decide where and how to spend it.

tell us what Clinton actually did to the economy

Very simply: balanced the budget and left a surplus (which Bush squandered), with low inflation and unemployment despite the bursting of the tech sector bubble, a strong housing market, lower crime rates, a strong military… I could go on, but suffice it to say peace and prosperity.

What I can’t let stand is your assertion that liberals are not compassionate, which is an outright fabrication. Normally, conservatives whine (what they do best, by the way) about how touchy-feely we are, caring for the homeless, the infirm and the elderly, you know, the old bleeding-heart liberal. My rationale for pointing out the longest peacetime expansion in our history in this context is merely to state the obvious: a rising tide lifts all boats (if that’s what zawako meant by “makes them wet”). What is more compassionate than to include everyone in our national prosperity?

“real wages have barely increased in 7 years” …that is because there are more $99 cent stores with a new produce isle.

The raise in wages in California have sparked laying-off people who would have not been laid-off ( LA TIMES); and this means that people that use to make some money now make none. This is because of the incompassionate Liberals who love to see people get laid-off because it makes them wet.

-the national debt has increased by 50% since Sept. 2001;

-real wages have barely increased in 7 years, with the average person taking home only $10 a week more than in 2001;

-the trade deficit has ballooned to more than $800 billion dollars, double what it was in 2001;

-foreign investment is increasing at an alarming rate (nearly double in 5 years), mostly as a result of our trade deficit;

-the airlines continue to bleed money, with Delta alone accounting for a $6.2 billion dollar loss;

-Chrysler announces a layoff of 13,000 manufacturing jobs; Ford is not making it, and GM is slipping in market share faster than you can say “hybrid”;

-and finally, retail sales are stagnant year-to-year.

Meanwhile, despite the escalation and promises of stability with a whack-a-mole al Sadr, 6 more soldiers die today, and even some Republicans come to their senses, saying of the surge: “the benefits were temporary, the body bags were permanent” (Rep. Ric Keller, R-FL).

Thanks, I’ll take more of that Clintonian peace and prosperity, a balanced and in-surplus budget, and real, sustainable growth. Imagine what Rudy/Mittens/Walnuts are going to campaign on as the war drags on, the economy falters, and the bills for Bush’s wild spending come due (but, hey, that’s for future presidents to solve).

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke told Congress the economy should grow modestly this year and i…