FACT:
and here's another fact
<
Facts often don't mean a lot without context and rational explanation.
The context for a lot of the growth that did occur when Clinton was president is that the top tax rates where still effected by Reagan's reduction in rates, by the selective deregulation from the late 70s through the 80s (total regulation continued to increase, but some of the more foolish regulation was eliminated, and mostly has not been restored), by the end of the cold war (which Reagan helped along), by the end of crazy inflation pre-Reagan (that was mostly Volcker, but Reagan supported him, and also the necessity to wring the inflation out caused a deep recession at the begining of Reagan's term, if you look at the time after that recession ended, Reagan's economic stats look better than Clinton's, not that either really belong to the president, once again many other factors where at play, but the president has an impact, and Reagan had more than most).
FACT: The longest economic expansion since WW II occurred under Clinton.
So? Before that the longest was under Reagan.
Hardly. There were no budget surpluses.
Do you read what you quote before replying to it.
Hint "economic expansion" != "there are surpluses".
By almost every parameter, the expansion under Reagan was no match for Clinton's expansion.
By most parameters it was close to as good as, similar to, or even better than Clinton's. Expansion. Criteria for expansions are things like growth rates, employment growth, reduction in unemployment etc.
And yes, presidents do matter.
Sure they matter, but we don't have a communist economy (and even in one the government can't really exercise total control), they matter but they are not a predominate influence on the economy except in very extreme cases (and those extreme cases are more about harming the economy, which is easier for powerful government officials to do, than to help the economy). |
