Any economist worth his salt will tell you it was Reagan's reducing marginal tax rates from 50% to 35%. , particularly the capital gains tax rate, was the key in providing the capital needed to take advantage if the new technology that lead to the growth in the economy. The ONLY thing Clinton did was slow the rate of growth when he increased taxes in '93.
The Bush tax rate cuts for all American has resulted in the best economy in the history of the world. Current income to the US treasury is greater than the current expenditures, that first that has ever happen in time of war in the countries history, as well. Do a search WBMA.
mike
> Michael Pardee wrote:
>
>> (I only voted for GWB the second time around - in 2000 I wrote
>> in a candidate.)
>
>> I was dubious about Bush's abilities until he had to deal with the
>> California electric power crisis in 2001. Governor Gray Davis of >> California
>> was lobbying Bush for tighter price caps on electricity at a time when
>> wholesale prices were running wild. Bush refused to do that (by executive
>> order) because it would make the situation worse. It wasn't obvious - I >> had
>> to think about it - but it was certainly true. Capping electric prices >> would
>> ensure there would be no increase in generation because the product would
>> probably have to be sold at a loss. Letting the reins go was painful for
>> everybody involved at the time, but it created a "gold rush" for new
>> generation that brought new power plants on line in record time. (Good
>> thing, too; historically the average time to complete a proposed plant is >> 15
>> years.) The utility I work for built two peaking plants in less than two >> years.
>>
>> For behind-the-scenes accomplishments (always a cheat for the president
>> responsible because reporters and commentators don't want to talk about
>> them) Bush helped put together the Israeli land concession to Palestine.
>> That the Palestinians threw away their chance by electing Hamas was too >> bad,
>> but the concession had the potential to stop the bleeding in one of the
>> hottest spots in the mid-east.
>
> Those aren't sufficient reasons to approve of any president.
> Character matters much more, and GW Bush has the character of a
> spoiled, lazy rich kid who's never accomplished anything on his own.
> A person who commands a military powerful enough to change the fate of
> the world (positively or negatively) should be much better than him. >
> The Callifornia electric power crisis wasn't caused primarily by
> shortages of capacity but by Enron manipulating the market, as court
> records, including audio recordings, have shown, and planning the
> ouster of Grey Davis to have him replaced by Arnold Schwarzenegger.
> That's not to say Davis had even an ounce of competence in him.
>
> Until 9/11, GW Bush virtually ignored international affairs -- just as
> he said he would, and rather than continue the existing peace process
> he abandoned it and let the Israeli-Palestinian situation drift into
> crisis. And when he finally did get the US back into negotiations, he
> foolishly pressured the Palestinians to hold the election that gave
> undeniable legitimacy to Hamas, which won about 70% of the vote. >
>> Roosevelt and Reagan presided over two amazing economic
>> turnarounds and each deserves recognition. GWB merely applied
>> Reagan's principal of reducing tax burden to pull us out of a
>> relatively minor slump.
>
> FDR did far too little to turn around the economy. All he did was
> give people hope, and it was the WWII spending that finally made the
> economy recover. Neither did Reagan create an economic miracle.
> Rather, he became President at the time when the OPEC cartel was
> cracking (i.e., the Saudis were tired of holding back production) and
> Fed chairman Paul Volcker's draconian tight money policy had been
> squeezing out inflation. The recovery wasn't amazing but only
> average, and Reagan's 30% supply side tax cut had to be trimmed back
> to about a 25% one, which was what Jimmy Carter had initially
> proposed. The GWB economic recovery also hasn't been spectacular,
> with very few new jobs being created and median incomes being almost
> flat, and the only reason big budget deficits have been tolerable is
> because China has prevented labor inflation.
>