Naming accomplishments that lead directly to a booming economy is simple.
1.)Peace.
2.)Reduced military spending, because there are no enemies out there capable of invading us, resulted in money being spent for investments in our collective futures, not down a rat hole.
Clinton has deployed US troops more than any other president. Increasing the duties of our armed forces, while cutting the their budget. This has left our military in the worst state of readiness since WWII. I'm not for increased military spending, but don't use our troops as international cops.
3.)Reduced deficit.
The republican congress shoved this down his throat. The welfare reform act, in perticular, not only cut the budget moved many welfare recipients into the work force.
4.)Regulatory rulings favorable to business, high employment and business expansion.
True, the best thing the Clinton administration did for the economy was nothing. As far as favorable rulings and business expansion, I don't think a republican administration would have ruled against businesses. personally, I think the feds should re-evaluate their policy regarding corporate mergers. A few years ago they nixed the staples/office depot merger (not enough Office superstores around), but they let mobil/exxon go thru.
5.)Winning a second term in office, giving everyone (business, our allies and enemies, and shoppers) reassurance of continuity and stable policies.
I hardly think keeping your job can be seen as an accompishment of the administration that helped the economy.
6.)Expanded "free trade."
Just about the only people against NAFTA was Perot, and the unions. But then again just look how popular the WTO was in Seattle.
7.)Low interest rates, low inflation and low unemployment.
You're misinformed on the role of the Federal Reserve...the Fed and its board REACT to the economy and the actions of the administration to keep things in balance. Without an administration stoking the fire, there would be nothing for them to react to.
Your right in that the fed does react, however it is to the ECONOMY that they react in order to keep things in balance. The market soars, inflation increases...the fed raises rates. It's complex and takes a guy like greenspan to slow growth without smothering it. The only thing the admin does to "stroke the fire" is get out of the way (excluding the fed, which can play with rates). Of course, the administration does need to balance letting companies prosper with protecting the enviromental, economical and civil rights of the people.
Naming aspects of Bush's plans that will ruin a good thing are just as easy.
1.)His #s greatly exceed the Congressional Budget Committee's agreed upon assumptions as to what the economy is likely to do...therefore, like his daddy and that mentally challenged Reagan, he'll run a massive deficit.
Bush's plan outspends the projected surplus by about the same amount as the Gore plan. Both assume robust economic growth like that we have seen for the last several years, which is not likely. The difference is Gore will spend it on new programs, while Bush will cut taxes and therfore never collect the needed revenue. Since it's hard to shrink the goverment once it grows I prefer the Bush plan.
2.)His tax cut plans will create inflation...taxes are deflationary and a radical reduction will cause radical inflation.
In general this is true, but the effects of this tax cut will be spread over 10 years and many economist think that greenspan is overreacting to current inflation level and the economy is slowing too fast. The additional income from these tax cuts may offset that trend.
3.)Giving everyone a portion of their SS to invest will improve the take of CEOs on stock performance bonuses and stockbrokers, but will only create inflationary increases in the portfolios the rest of us own..demand in face of finite supply causes increased prices. Also, with the short fall this policy will create for SS entitlements, our taxes will increase as those entitlements are in place and have to be honored.
The percentage of the SS fund that would be invested in the stock market would be small, but still a large amount in actual dollars. Currently the return rate on a individuals investment from SS is 2% annually. Even during the United States worst economic period (the depression) the stockmark doubled this return rate over a 10 year period. Since only younger people would be able to divert a portion of their SS fund into the stock market, they would be investing for 30-40 years.
What I would really like is the option to Opt out of SS. I'm saving for retirement and I dont need the goverment taking money I could put into bonds and easily out perform them, with the same security.
As far as Icarus's post defending Gore's 'misstatements'. I'm sorry to tell you Icarus, but most of those statements are true. And it is not Republican propoganda, on half of the statements I have seen Gore advisors defending him. The most common defense is that Gore misstated or some thing like "This isn't even worth discussing, let's get to the real issues", which is another way of saying it's true.
The only statment on which Gore may have had a legitimate defense was the case of the girl who stood in class for a day. The article which gore was sent incorrectly stated that the girl stood for the first several days of class. However, in the debates Gore insinuated that the girl has to stand everyday of school. I beleive this topic will be raised at the debates tommorow night, I just hope Bush and Lehrer put his feet to the flames.
Also:
Fiction: Gore stated at the first debate that he had accompanied Federal Emergency Management Agency head James Lee Witt to fires in Texas in 1996.
Fact: Gore recieved a breifing in the airport hanger from an assistant to Witt, on his way to a Texas fundraiser hundreds of miles away from the areas affected by the fires. Gore said he may have "got that wrong" the next morning on Good Morning America.
Hell, I just felt like ranting. I don't care who you vote for, the parties are converging on most economic issues. Personally, I'm voting for Nader. Mostly to promote a national third party. And I haven't slept in 22 hours so excuse the typos, misspellings, false statements, and racial slurs.
(Hey, I'm watching Win Ben Stien's money and one of the contestants is named Anand....could it be? )