ZOMBIE FORUMS

A topic that's troubled me for a while. In an effort to be unbiased, I will present it from a devil's advocate's (at least for me) point of view:
The current economic crisis in the US. Many say it's Bush's fault, but, unless he's so bad a person that his mere presence in office caused a downturn, then it seems to be Clinton's fault, not Bush's.

Discuss.

Actually from what I understand, the economy had been in something of a decline before Clinton, and then Clinton managed to bring it back up a little. Then Bush came into office and it went into an even steeper decline. I mean there's this war. Its pretty expensive, like all wars, especially before it really gets started, and it hasn't really generated any extra jobs or anything to help boost the economy yet.

But I still don't think that the President has immediate enough control over the economy for it to be Bush's fault that it tanked right after he was elected. It could be Clinton's fault. I agree that he's done less to help than Clinton, but the economy was actually beginning to rise when he was elected. I guess it might matter as far as confidence is concerned, but... Also, there's the fact that the stock bubble was effectively set up by Clinton, or at least left alone.

I personally think (to quote Abunai!), that it's all Reagan's fault. During his presidency, the 80's, was when the debt began to rise at a much faster rate, higher than even the normal exponential growth you'd expect to see. Then, to pay off the debt, Clinton had to ignore all the corporate corruption and keep the bubble going. Or, failing that, maybe just concentrate on keeping the deficits down to the exclusion of other things.

I have a graph of the deficits/surpluses, debts, and debt payments of the US over the last 100 years, but I can't find it at the moment. Suffice it to say that the deficits skyrocket starting in 1980, then plummet under Clinton, even going to surplus, then skyrocket again under the second Bush.

The only thing I can say on the situation is from my father's perspective, as I have not have been on my own long enough for the economy to affect me. All I know is that the economy sucked before Clinton, and during Clinton was the best time financially for my father ever, and post Clinton, his 401k and retirement funds and such have gone to the toilet due to the terrible economy. Clinton did not directly affect the economy, but it would be ultimatly his doing, as with Bush. Its more the people appointed and elected that do the work. Bush hasn't done as well as Clinton did because he surrounded himself with his Dad's advisors, who drove the economy down the tubes the last time they were in charge. As for the war, it will most likely be the thing to turn the economy around, at least for a bit that is.