Replies

Gee, you never hear about the dip in the GDP change under Clinton from '94-'95.

This is interesting and it points out a few things (to me anyway).

Clinton enjoyed a 5 year economic run who's roots stemmed from some good policy making that took place in the earlier part of the 90's. And, his administration did do some good things around monetary issues. (Maybe it had something to do with a fiscally sane republican congress but not solely)

People enjoyed enough of a run that they expected it to go on forever. That's foolish thinking.

One could make the same case that Bush I inherited prosperity and created poverty but they actually got things going in a positive direction even with the gulf war happening in the middle of his watch,

The 2000 economic decline was a major crash. 4% GDP going to negative territory in a year is pretty sharp.

Sept. 11th did not have the material impact on the economy as people have stated when you consider the sharp growth rate of GDP that followed.

This economy has grown rapidly since the end of 2001.

What this proves is that Bush's economic policies have been pretty spot on and that his administration has done a good job of keeping us moving forward in spite of 9/11 and a recessionary spiral that he inherited. I'm not pleased with deficit spending but in part it is war time related and a factor of declining tax receipts in a recessionary period.

Lastly, did total government spending go down during Clinton's reign?

Wow! This chart seems to indicate that we weren't having the "worst economy in 50 years" as we heard over and over again from the Clinton/Gore '92 campaign. </sarcasm>