This reduces to the bumper sticker: “Why have peace and prosperity when you can have Bush.”
It is leftist BS.
Clinton's ‘prosperity’ was the derivative of Reagenomics. Clinton inherited a sound economy, spent wildly, propped up the economy by SLASHING THE HELL OUT OF THE MILITARY. He ignored 11 major Islamofascist attacks on US interests. His attack on MicroSoft helped to reduce CV funding which encouraged the tech bubble to deflate. Some economists estimate that this alone took 6 trillion dollars out of the economy.
I'm disgusted with Bush for his betrayal of the conservative base and especially his spending, which can be described as nothing less than socialism.
But Bush inherited an Islamofascist enemy that was pumped up and encouraged by 8 years of appeasement and buy-offs, a STRONG recession (and remember how the media scolded him for mentioning the recession during the 2000 debates, that he was talking down the economy and would cause a recession, compare that to the behavior of the MSM during 2008 elections and how they helped manufacture the mother of all October surprises, the ‘economic crisis of 2008’), and a decimated military.
Considering that Bush had to rebuild the military, fought two wars, and dealt successfully with the recession by a series of good tax cuts (not the pretend kind that Obama is talking about, a rebate is not a tax cut), the economy could be a lot worse than it is. Don't get me wrong, I think it is only going to get worse—because of Bush and the Democrats’ socialist approach to the economy.
But trying to use Bush's term to make Clinton's sound like paradise is just more of the same propaganda they've been cramming down our throats for 8 years.
1. The anti-trust suit against Microsoft started under Bush I.
2. The "economists" that claim that reigning in the Microsoft monopoly has harmed the economy are full of it.
3. Microsoft, through it's monopoly, has harmed the economy to a much greater extent than any foolish "scaring off the funding." By keeping the price of the dominant operating system artificially high, Microsoft has slowed the rate of hardware sales.
4. Paradoxically, by keeping Windows at approximately the same price today as DOS was in 1990, Microsoft artificially opened a price niche for expensive "boutique" niche players like Apple. Apple manages to maintain that niche because it is primarily a seller of hardware and basically throws in the OS for free. If they tried to compete on price Microsoft could easily lower the price of Windows and push Apple right out of the market.
The complaints that Apple's are expensive are funny considering that Windows takes up nearly the third of the cost of a new PC. If Microsoft was forced to reduce the price of it's OS through competition, like the price of every other software package in the last 20 years, it would cost about $20 retail.
5. Through it's monopoly status, Microsoft has repeatedly destroyed innovative technology simply by advertising that it was entering a market. For example, in 2005 Microsoft advertised that it was going to enter the anti-virus market (no real product, mind you, just SAYING that it was going to play) and tanked the stock of both McAfee and Symantec. Microsoft has routinely done this in many markets.