While Don continues to ignore the thousands of lives Clinton's inaction on the terrorism issue caused and the indescriminate killings by Hussein that are at least for now stopped, he is correct on the economy to some degree.

The 90's were one of the most prosperous periods in history. The lowest sustained unemployment, massive job creation, low inflation, low interest rates, high stock market gains, increase in home ownership etc. Giving Clinton all the credit is a big stretch though. I think Greenspan deserves the most credit followed by equal credit to a Republican Congress and a Democratic President stifling each others spending excesses. Carter was an unmitigated disaster, but Don was talking about Clinton.

Bush's tax cuts for the rich have been exactly what anybody with any economic sense could predict a very weak and slow impact on economic recovery. The cuts were exactly the ones Republicans have pushed for years with or without a recession and the recession was just an excuse to get them rammed through. A tax cut truely aimed at stimulating the economy would have been aimed at those that are most likely to spend money immediately, not after next quarter's or next year's dividends are paid out and reinvested some 3 to 12 months later. What little impact Bush's cuts have had has probably been due mostly to the small portion of his cuts that did go to the middle class.

I'd love to see a hawkish Democrat or independent ram Bush's economic favoritism down his throat the next election. I'm fed up with a lot of Bush's domestic failures but dread some liberal Democrat mucking up the followup in Afghanistan and Irag even worse than Bush has.

Regards,
Mark