Quote:
|
Originally Posted by anomaly Clinton was simply, during the 90s, the lesser of the two evils. The Americans had no choice over how their economy would be run, as both the GOP and Clinton pushed the 'free market' agenda i.e. the pro-business agenda. Clinton's handling of foreign policy was indeed terrible at best, but he still looks like a Godsend compared to Bush in this area. I was very young during the Clinton years, and really all I know of him is that he ran a terrible foreign policy and a bad economy...his handling of the economy increased inequality all throughout the 90s and have led, combined with the lunacy of Bush, to the rough economy we see now. But why was he elected twice? I suppose because the people were fed up with Bush I, and saw no hope in Dole, so they chose the only remaining candidate, Clinton. |
Now, I'm no fan of Bill Clinton, but to say both he and the GOP ran a "bad economy?" Then what do you attribute one of the biggest periods of economics growth in our countries history to? Much of it was technological, but a lot is due to the actions of both sides in allowing business to run its path.
The "shaky" economy we have right now is growing at 3.4% per year and has one of the lowest unemployment rates in our history. Household income has increased staggeringly over the past 20 years, while inflation was held at bay.
Clinton was a poor president in many, many ways, but to say that he and Bush contributed to a bad economy during the 90's is not arguable.