That's gotta be the worst statement ever.

You sure are a moron, still better a jerk of the highest order. When given the facts you are trying to attribute some bullshit quotes to me. I am not surprised since that is exactly what I expect from somebody like you.

How hard is it to understand that the economic growth of the 90's is attributed to the spread of the Internet and related technologies, and not to Bill Clinton, the Republican majority in the House or anything that the government did? I guess much harder than to call someone a moron.

I missed this post completely.

So it comes down to this: if all of a sudden you and every one of your friends starts making more than they used to under Clinton, then you will become a Republican? Boy, are you easy to buy and sell.

Look, I understand it when people who don't know any better start spouting off crazy theories about economics. But when a person who is supposedly one of the intellectual elite starts crediting his/her economic successes/failures on presidential policies that have very little to do with economics, I start to wonder whether or not political beliefs are blinding their judgement.

It's become so laughable, that you even managed to praise monetary policy under Clinton while bashing it under Bush, without realizing that the person who is in charge of it is still the same!

How about this for tendencies and anecdotal evidence,

1. 23 million new jobs created in 8 years.
2. The largest expansion of the economy.
3. Technological growth fueled by increases in H-1 Visas in face of criticism from hard liners.
4. The first surplus budget since 1969, happened under Clinton.

OH NO. ALL THIS WAS A COINCIDENCE AND CLINTON JUST HAPPENED TO BE THERE.

Conservatives attributed the 1994-2000 growth to Greenspan, Reagan's 1982 tax cuts among other things. What a joke. Now that Greenspan has shown himself less than capable, now it was technological growth that fueled it. Had it been up to the republicans, they would have reduced H-1 visas, not increase it. That would have screwed up the vaunted technological growth that did take place. A president with his policies and leadership can create the environment for economic growth, with which Clinton did a fabulous job. It is not that it is too hard to grasp, it is just hard for conservatives to accept that they are completely wrong. Most conservatives are so predictable and they bring the same talk radio stock bullshit talkpoints that are pathetic at best.

Monetary/fiscal policy for the country is not just managing inflation or adjusting the fed interest rate, as Greenspan does. The real policy is the one congress passed in 1993/2001 that affected the tax rates, budget deficits etc.

That may be but clearly the fiscal policies of the two admins are completely different.

Economic Left/Right 1.63
Social -.26

I'm not disputing that. However fiscal policy is not the same thing as monetary policy, and the latter was in question.

Let's assume for a second that the government CAN create ecopnomic growth on all its own, depending on what party the president belongs to. How does the Republican House fit in then?

Clinton caused the current recession

The bubble burst right as he was leaving, the internet played a rather large role in that. It also played a large role in Greenspans bald head.

The best answer to that:
Clinton/Rep Congress: Record Surplus and great economic growth
Bush/Rep. Congress: Record Deficits and pathetic economy with no job growth

What do the Tendencies and Anecdotal Evidence show here?

Wrong.

The bubble bursting cost 3 million jobs ( a lot of those lost to outsourcing during Bush) after creating 23 million jobs. Bush economic policies in the last 4 years have NOT created a single net new job since January 2001. That is a super job and was worth putting in office again.

One caveat - those H-1B visas you praise (and rightly so), get voted on by the Congress. So does the budget, or pretty much anything else the president has to offer.

Wait, so the bursting of the bubble was Clinton's fault? WOW! We're getting somewhere! Though I can't quite understand, exactly how in all his great wisdom, Clinton managed to burst the bubble (and why did he create it in the first place?)

Hey did you know that after those 3 million jobs were lost, more than 3 million were created? Whose fault is that, I wonder?

You made my point. That means Congress' performance was good during Clinton and bad during Bush. What does it point to? A good leader sets the agenda. Obviously Clinton did set a good one and Bush a disastrous one.

The leader of the House during Clinton was not Clinton, but Newt Gingrich, a Republican. Coincidentally, he left the House around the time CLinton left the office. The plot thickens...

I attribute a big chunk of the 3 million jobs lost to Bush, since most of were LOST to other countries. In April 2001, H-1B numbers were reduced. This was to make room for lot of these operations to move overseas.

Unfortunately, Clinton was not there after January 2001. Too bad even Gore could not be there to continue the policies that helped the economy, since the Supreme Court appointed GW as President.

Let's see: a recession, September 11th attacks, the stock market crash that followed, the corporate scandals. So which one of these caused a prolonged job growth slump? The answer: none of the above. It was actually the reduction in new H1-B visas from 115,000 to 107,500 in 2001. Congratulations sir, you just made my day. =D>

I'm surprsied that any amount of truth would make your day, given you tendencies for misquotes and exaggerations.

But again you are trying your switch the argument tactic again. I don't think at any point H-1B visas in any year crossed 200,000. It is just like you to try and act as if I said that reduction in H-1B caused the loss of 3 million jobs. You are grasping at straws, like you always do.

Your political compass:
Economic Left/Right: -5.52
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.46

So, basically, I'm Gandhi.

PEACE, Mike

Boy, are you a glutton for punishment.
To quote what you said yet again: I attribute a big chunk of the 3 million jobs lost to Bush, since most of were LOST to other countries. In April 2001, H-1B numbers were reduced. This was to make room for lot of these operations to move overseas.
That must be some operation! Those 7,500 people are probably running the world now!

How are you going to account for ther 2,992,500 jobs lost?

BJ = Libertarian

I have found the political party that I will show the most support in my life time

Just make sure not to hang out with Michael Badnarik

lol, ok but who is Michael Badnarik :?:

He was the presidential candidate from the LP last year. He regularly gets arrested because he refuses to get a driving license.