Quote:
Originally posted by damasa
Good or bad economy, it can't be blamed on Bush.
It also can't be blamed on Clinton.
The GDP growth is also not a complete indicator that we have "a good economy" because we don't.
These weapons have been placed somwhere in syria but they still haven't been found.
This is not bush hating or democrat loving.
-I'm a registered indie for those that care.
|
The president's policies do tend to have an effect on economics but it's a delayed effect. For example, Clinton did many things to industry such as imposing new restrictions, laws, etc.. during his administration that started bearing fruit at the end of his presidency.
Those were aggravated by 9-11. Therefore, the Dems blamed the economy on Bush... So now during Bush's term, we have many important economic indicators trending up... Many (not all) economists will attribute this to increased consumer spending due to tax cuts..
I think the point of this thread is that Dems can't have their cake and eat it too. If you want to blame the poor economy on Bush then you also have to credit him with the improving economy.
It's also fine if you don't blame him for either one, but having a situation where you believe B but not A should be unacceptable.