Let me finish my thought. For example, once the numbers are revised, it turns out that the average growth rate during the Clinton Administration was only .39 greater than Reagan's (3.75 vs. 3.36), even though there was a recession early in Reagan's term to drive out stagflation. Federal receipts averaged less than 1% more (19.11 vs. 18,16). The average poverty level was only .39 less under Clinton (14.08 vs. 13.71).
members.tripod.com
The website is pro- Clinton, but various numbers belie the argument, as noted above, and once one takes into account what was essentially a Carter recession, the numbers actually favor Reagan.
As far a Bush's original budget proposal goes, I hope you are not arguing that he should be held accountable for not anticipating the meltdown in the economy, or the shock of the September attacks. Even if one can argue that the budget was optimistic, at least it had the virtue of being an estimate of future events, not a current or historical account, as in the numbers I was alluding to....... |
