Actually, my point was that these were common misconceptions, and that I had an opinion completely different. Sorry if I was unclear.
And, Rudey, i.e. "Economics", I also don't think that any of us can TRULY know the full economic spectrum that is the United States. Lord knows my little second degree in Economics from USC has not given me access to the privy information that is only made available to George Bush himself. None of us are completely informed about the goings-on of the budget, foreign influences, etc... I don't try to act like I know, which is also why I didn't publicize my opinion, because I'm not sure if it's right.
Down here, the common defense that republicans use when democrats say that their administrations have proven better economically is that the economy is in a 4 year cycle. So, the improvements that were made during Clinton's administrations were caused by Bush, and the former slump (I understand that our economy is on the uprise now, hence my pointing out the improvements in stocks) was caused by Clinton. Let me reitterate: this is the southern Republican's view. I personally think that this is contradictory seeing as how Clinton held an 8 year term, and some of the causes in the slump of the US economy were caused directly by the incidents of 9/11 and the international doubt of how the US economy would improve.
Sorry if I hated, ok, but people have been jumping down my throat on these boards lately, so I'm already a little on the defensive.
Now. Go at it. I'm sure you want to tear my theories apart.
And PS, I only have about a 3.4 in Economics, and a 3.8 in Music, so you can figure out which degree is my main one.
Quote:
Originally posted by Rudey
I did. Nowhere in there did you have a grasp of Economics. Stop hating now ok? My name is Economics.
-Rudey
--Stop hating ok?
|