>Partially wrong. While Clinton was out of office, Bush II had not been in office long enough to have ANY policies or even laws passed to even remotely affect the economy good of bad. So yes, something well prior to March 2001 caused the downturn of the economy and did happen during the last year of Clinton. I point to the IT bust and not necessarily anything Clinton did or did not do.

Bush II's tax cut plan was submitted to Congress in February, 2001, the economy peaked in March 2001. I don't think it was just a coincidence that 3 months after taking office and 2 months after an irresponible tax cut proposal the economy started to tank.

>If you choose to blame Bush II for that downturn, then you have to give his tax cuts and other accomplishments for the return of the growth. You probably have to give him the credit for that upturn anyway. A growth that gets very little positive play in the mainstream media outlets.

I think it's very easy to grow the economy when you borrow money, and my understaning is that running budget deficits, like we are now, is borrowing money. I can borrow a ton of money and live pretty well, but someday that bill is going to come due.

What isn't so easy is making tough, responsible choices to balance the budget and even pay off some of our debt. Clinton did this. I am still waiting for a Republican to do it.

And while the economy may be growing, it is certainly a jobless growth. Not only are we borrowing a lot of money, but we aren't producing many jobs.

Throughout his 2 terms, President Reason ran budget deficits. Through his only term, President Bush I ran budget deficits. Clinton ran surpluses toward the end of his 2nd term, and actually paid down some of the debt. Now Bush II has had almost 4 years in office, and we are again running huge deficits.