They didn't give Bill Clinton any credit for the roaring economy of the 1990's either.

[bluestateguy]

No, that was all supposedly because of something Ronald Reagan did in 1981.

[Raine]

1. No but they sure blamed Clinton for the bad economy under Bush

claiming it was all Clinton's fault that Bush inherited a bad economy. :eyes:

[HughBeaumont]

3. Which also was total bullshite.

Best average monthly job creation year during 1999-2009: 1999 (average of 202 thousand jobs created per month)

Gee . . . who was president then?

During that time, Bewsh's revered rich/CEOs began telling people to "stay in stocks" while not-so-quietly cashing out of theirs, leaving US with the 2001-2002 BILL. If anything can be counted on during harsh economic times, it's that the wealthy will pretty much stay that way.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/HughBeaumont/94

[JohnnyRingo]

2. Good point

As soon as the economy picked up they claimed it was a delayed reaction to supply side economix. It skipped right over Bush 41 because he raised taxes, then kicked in when Clinton took office. It's the same with anti-terror. Nothing for eight years, then everything begins to fall into place under the Dem.

If it takes a Democrat in office to make Republican policies work, that's a good reason to keep electing Democrats.