posted on May, 2 2005 @ 02:06 AM
Not true, James, as far as parties go. President Eisenhower, a Republican, presided over on of the greatest periods of prosperity in American History,
although it could be argued that Eisenhower was originally a Democrat. And in the 60's, which was a period of economic decline, was presided over by
Democrats. Also, the economy went to crap under Carter, and rebounded under Regan. However, I personally dont believe the President or the ruling
party really have a direct effect over the overall economy. Clinton had the revolting habit of taking credit for the economic boom of the 90's, a
miracle he had nothing to do with and no right to take credit for.
I also don't believe Republicans are a bad party per se, and have often had more respect for Republicans than I have for recent democrats, whom some,
not all, but some, have degenrated into whiners. The Republicans degenrated into religous nuts when the Religous right took over what was once the
common sense party.
So it has nothing to do with political parties, only the ethical standing of the administration in office. I would not trust my retirement in the
hands of Haliburton or Heinz ketchup.
Bush did not start the economic downturn, that was occuring when Clinton was still in office. he has, however, through his faulty policies, aggrivated
the situation and made it worse. And of the Democrats did not have the balls to interfere and take a stand, they are as guilty as the Republicans are.
But I highly disagree with your assesment of parties vs economic status, as there really isnt any correlation. if we were to do that, then I could
call Democrats the war mongering party, since the vast majority of wars and militarty actions in the past century were started when democrats were in.
(WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Kosovo, Bosnia, Clintons airstrikes against Afghanistan, our involvement in Haiti, as compared to republican conflicts, such as
Gulf Wars 1&2, Somalia, Grenada, and Panama).
I dont care who is in office, what matters is what they do.