> I hope you don't mind if I jump in.

Course not... actually, my post was meant for you. I type Robert in by mistake. :o)

Anyway...

> The recession started on Bush Sr watch.

Hold on here. Isn't it Reagan who supposedly caused the stock market collapse? What was with the S&Ls back in '87 (I believe it was '87)?

When
> Clinton was elected,
> are country was in red ink up to it armpits.
> When Clinton left office
> we were running in the black ,and he left a
> huge surplus. And the
> stock was in a bull market.

Hang on again here...

Clinton was responsible for the LARGEST TAX HIKE in history, if I'm not mistaken. And for TAXING SOCIAL SECURITY! That's where your surplus came from... from the government making money off of the people - something no government should ever be doing.

And Clinton may have been in office at the time, but I would hardly draw the conclusion that he was the driving force behind the craziness of the stockmarket. I'd say it's more like good luck (timing) than good management.

Reminds me back when Fraser (conservatives) lost the election to Hawke (socialists) down our neck of the woods. The economy was down the crapper, drought was going gangbusters and things did not look good. After Hawke won the election the drought broke, and a few other things came into play - which had been instigated by Fraser before the election. It all made Hawke look good even though he had nothing to do with it.

> Since then on Bush Jr watch he gave all the
> surplus money away. We
> are back in red ink, and the red ink is
> flowing like wild fire. The stock
> market is heading into a great depression.

Again, I would hardly draw any conclusion that Bush Jr's presence in the White House has caused the stock market to go down.

If stocks are a reflection of the underlying business (and they are). And if eventually the prices will correct themselves to be more inline with the true value of that underlying business (and they do). Then what's really going on is nothing more than a market correction back to the underlying business' true worth, based on its "business."

If "business" is down, it is not to do with Bush. It is to do with the flamboyant, non-thinking crazy, hyper-inflated stock prices coming back down to reality. The dotcom bubble bursting as people finally realized a company which has never made a single penny in profit should not be worth $150 a share. Thousands of people suddenly being layed off around the same time. Vast amount of vacant commercial office space. The pool of advertising money drying up. And so on.

If anything. Bush has inherited a bad economy which had not fully exhibited how bad it was until after the election.

> What is happing now is just about a carbon
> copy of what happened on
> Bush Sr watch, red ink, down market, and a
> war with Iraq.

A carbon copy inasmuch as a bad economy being inherited, maybe.

As for war... isn't it Clinton who has committed more American troops and gotten involved in more conflicts than any other president in history?

What's the point of mentioning war anyway?

> None that I can think of.

I did a search and found a president who was in power for more than one term during a bad economic time. His name is...

Roosevelt. He was president from 1933 - 1945. During The Great Depression!

So doesn't that disprove any so-called trend that presidents in bad economic times only get one term before being voted out of office?

Michael Ross