To: Metacomet who wrote (16244 ) 4/1/2007 11:35:39 AM From: elmatador Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 218585 This is human being reaction and I point to it in the subject of this thread when I mention the need to fight the easy conclusion. It is impossible to drive to the ground a country like the US in six year -the age of this century. Clinton did not play a role differently than Reagan. I mentioned that there's not way to differentiate one party form the other. Reagan got a country with e memory of Vietnam's debacle, Nixon debacle, high inflation, end of the cheap oil price era, stratospheric interest rates, in short, a sickness of thousand little virus... Circumstances as always. He came and said: It's morning in America. 600-ship navy, Fight evil empire, Star Wars... The American people believed it was just like before, and that set of circumstances were still there. Clinton and he made me -for a couple of years in late 90's- doubt my late 80's conclusions of the shrinking of the US. He implemented a few measures that again, give a lease of life to the US economy. The Communists collapse, the peace dividend in terns of military technologies freed for civilian use all that contributed to the growth of the 90s. Freeing those technologies form military use, and let them be public at the same time that many technologies were maturing, create that impulse that gave us the Internet and the tech-bubble. Cheap manufacturing in Asia started also contributing to low inflation. In short: A nice set of circumstances that created the Clinton nice years. I don't think Bush has that power to screw up, neither has the power to right things. It is a democarcy, you have to look how paower is shared and then make a conclusion. There is a share of blame to the Legislative and the judiciary too. Not to mention the ones who choose to elect those representatives.