shakran

This is the argument used by Trickledown Republicans who want it both ways:

They want to say that Clinton didn't help the economy because it takes 12 (that's what they usually say) years to have an effect.

They conveniently forget about the fact that Bush left office in 1992, when we were still in the depths of recession and national debt. Reagan/Bush had had their 12 years, yet the economy still sucked.

Then they want to blame Clinton for wrecking the economy for Bush, even though Clinton was only in office for 8 years and therefore according to the republican logic should not have been able to cause the economy to slump that fast.



What they really want to hide is the fact that trickledown works perfectly - if you happen to be rich. You get a lot more money. Sure, the economy goes in the toilet but that only hurts the poor and middle class, so it doesn't really matter.

You're correct in that the economy does cycle up and down, but you fail to give proper credit. When the economy is on a downturn, a president can either lessen it or make it worse. Reducing taxes while increasing spending is not the way to improve the deficit level. The higher the deficit and debt go, the less confidence in the dollar people worldwide have. As the dollar becomes devalued, the economy as a whole suffers.

The poor suffer greatly because even a slight reduction of income makes a huge impact. If you have $10 and I take $1, you barely have enough to buy one meal at mc donalds.

The middle class also suffers for the same reason. If you have $100 and I take $10, you don't have enough to buy groceries for a family of 3 for one week.

The rich don't really suffer. If you have a million dollars and I take $100,000, you still have $900,000. You can still buy pretty much anything you want.

Same percentage of income reduction, but vastly different outcomes.