SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Mainstream Politics and Economics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: DallasKevin who wrote (42201)4/28/2013 11:06:49 AM
From: Jorj X Mckie1 Recommendation  Respond to of 85487
 
Actually, Clinton's economic success was set up by Reagan's policies. And by the time Clinton was out of office, the pendulum was already starting to swing the other way...it takes almost a decade for major changes to policy in the US to start taking affect.

this is something that most people don't understand. There are some policies that have near-immediate reactions, but for the most part, if it is a one term president, we won't see the effects of his policies until late in the next president's term. And if it is a two term president, we won't see the effects until late in his second term.

Further, congress's role in the economy is greatly ignored while the president's role is greatly exaggerated.

But if we are going to stick with the president gets the credit, Clinton's real legacy was the crash of 2000.



To: DallasKevin who wrote (42201)4/28/2013 1:04:43 PM
From: Broken_Clock  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 85487
 
it takes almost a decade for major changes to policy in the US to start taking affect.
Using that metric the things we're seeing today were caused by Bush policies then?