Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
This is a dumb debate, but I can't help myself: Eisenhower?
Now, to address your flawed argument... Clinton would have presided over a disastrous economy had the Internet not come along. And as he was leaving, the economy was sliding into a recession. A recession you probably think should have been Al Gore's.
And why did Clinton not fuck up a good economy with which he was gifted? Because he wasn't really a Democrat. He was what would have been called a Rockefeller Republican years ago (before the GOP merged with the Jesus Crazies and Randians).
Carter oversaw a four year slide and, had he been re-elected, would have seen four more. LBJ? Nothing but growth there, right?
It's dumb to fixate on parties. Stop doing it. It's annoying and I know you know better, which makes it all the more irritating.
|
No, Garfield. In office about 6 whole recession free months. It was a long, long time ago.
Clinton did something truly unique in the history any of us can remember - he balanced a budget. Yes, the Rs helped and gridlock helped, but, still, hasn't every other president (including Reagan) solved gridlock with a mutual spend-fest, and doesn't resisting that count for something?
I don't buy the idea that the internet was the salvation of the 90s economy. I think Japanese stupidity was. By causing their economy to stagnate, they let us rebuild some of the basic industries that otherwise would have just disappeared. Hank has Japan to thank for Detroit's continued existence.
Party does matter; Ike was able to do things for civil rights no Democrat could have done at the time, and Clinton was able to do something on the budget no R could have done at the time. Had the Rs had the Presidency and the House, you would have seen a spendfest on their issues - as we did with Bush.
