88 wrote:Your latest post would make sense but for the content of the links you provided in your earlier post:
You're mixing two differents arguments here (actually, there've been three). If we briefly recap, you C&P'ed a diatribe from respected political analyst The Unabomber that attempted to demonstrate how the wretched disease known as liberalism has epidemically infected and spread throughout our once respectable conservative society. I responded, tongue-in-cheek, with a C&P from a
humor Web site rebutting that notion with exaggerated Republican beliefs. (First argument) You then responded by dismissing most of what was cited in my C&P, and added that the Dems do nothing. I countered the claim of inactivity with the link to Clinton's accomplishments, which shows that at least one Democrat did more than nothing during a two-term presidency, and for good measure added another link for the sake of comparison to the same humor Web site from which I earlier C&P'ed to illustrate the bumbling record (both in and out of the White House) of the boy in your corner. (Second argument) You then minimized the positive contributions made by Bubba, and overinflated Dubya's achievements, by citing the recession Dubya inherited and subsequently turned around. My retort was that this was a familiar refrain heard ever since Dubya took office (and especially since 9/11) - that the bad things that have happened on Dubya's watch are all really the result of Bubba's actions, or lack thereof. It also meant to illustrate the "have it both ways" tendency of some (on both the left and right) to credit their team for economic prosperity while their guy is in the White House, but to deflect blame for hard times to the last guy. (Third argument)
Your last post is taking my reply to argument #2, and saying it is incongruous with what I said in argument #3, mixing apples and oranges.
And calling the 'crats "Demospenders" is not laughable, considering the "agenda" you posted and their track record. Furthermore, calling the 'crats "Demospenders" has nothing to do with the recent "Republcospenders". Both parties have been spending our money as fast as they can.
Alright then.
You seem to think that the 'crats are going to be fiscally responsible and push an agenda that will solve the country's problems. I'm very skeptical of that notion. I think they will spend just as recklessly as the "Republicospenders" have been doing for the last 6 years.
No, I don't seem to think that. If you recall,
I wrote:I'll wait & see how everything works out
I am also skeptical. I suffer from no illusion that the last election was an endorsement of the Democrats' agenda. It was clearly a rejection of the track record of the party that has controlled the White House and both houses of Congress in recent years. The fact that the Democrats won is simply the result of there being only one other option when the country is dissatisfied with the status quo; the result of a two-party system.
Getting back to who deserves credit or blame for the economy, it's not difficult to make some predictions on what might happen in a few years. For the sake of argument, assume a Democrat is elected in '08. Between now and then, the economy continues to grow at a slow but steady pace. In 2010, it takes a downturn, and there are rumblings that we are once again in recession. Who's to blame? The Democrats will claim that it's the result of policies implemented by Dubya, while the Republicans will point out that it's the fault of the sitting President. Doesn't really matter what the
true cause might be, even if it could be irrefutably identified. It's the nature of the beast. Besides, economics is hardly an exact science. Reminds me of the question, "If you laid all the world's economists end to end, would they reach a conclusion?"
