I just remembered what republicans did to overturn some of the Clinton's policies - Bush cut marginal income tax along with the capital gain tax..

Also, budget deficit under Clinton (2000) as a percentage of GDP was higher than the one under Reagan/Bush administrations in 1990.

whaaaa? at the end of Clinton presidency we did have a budget surplus. Even your article states so. That's because they could not agree on how to spend the money ( again because of gridlock ). When Bush came into the office he found all kinds of create ways of spending them.
And, yes, Svetlana, you can pass or at least try to pass laws without a supermajority.

And, yes, Svetlana, you can pass or at least try to pass laws without a supermajority.
And, yes, Михаил, they did..;-)

"And, yes, Svetlana, you can pass or at least try to pass laws without a supermajority"
Several major legislative initiatives were filibustered by democrats in the Senate - they never made it to the floor for an up-or-down vote.
Bush was also a major disappointment on the fiscal front - he was able to reduce the taxes, which was good, but he never followed up on the second part of being fiscally prudent - reducing spending. He allowed House republicans to run wild with their spending pork (democrats were only too happy to oblige and join "the party") and never used his power of Veto - until the very end, when it was too late. My initial statement still stands: THROW THE BUMS OUT!!!

The political citu ation during Clinton years was very interesting - Clinton and Newt Gingrich actually worked together!!!

Zoya, giving your place of residence, you should have said: "can't weall just get along?" Or am I too old and nobody remembers LA riotsanymore?
Oleg, i was trying to be original :-) oh, and i was here for the LA riots, btw. and what do the riots have to do with liberals and conservatives? :-D

Mike, i so agree with you, its not even funny. i still don't get why people tend to blame the government for something it cannot fully control.

********zfacts.com/p/318.html
here it is (national debt ) as a % of GDP.. went down under Clinton as well.

just few more questions..name top few reasons for the financial crisis 2007-2009..was it just a natural economic downturn with the government having nothing to do with?? or did the
government/policies/congress play, at least, some role in it??
and what could have been done by the government to prevent it, in your opinion??
the interesting part is that the Congress (B Frank) is still not admitting their role in the crisis, continuing the failed policies (buying bad mortgages) and not letting the RE bubble to recover..even now..

i thought i covered this in my long post?
although the crisis is a part of normal cycle it got "enhanced" by the preceding policies, which did not allow a number of downturn cycles to complete naturally.
They are doing it again now though, so the next downturn is going to be by FAR more brutal.
I don't think they will ever learn :).

Mike,
As Mark Twain once observed, "there are lies, damned lies and statistics".
Take a look at the following site (the data is similar in Wikipedia):
***********.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_debt_chart.html
It shows that in 1988 (Reagan) debt stood at 51% of GDP, in 1992 (Bush Sr.) it stood at 64% and in 2000 (Clinton) it was at 58%.
So I guess what I am really saying is that it is a mistake to lump Reagan's and Bush's stewardship of the economy into one, as someone tried to do earlier in this thread.
I personally was never impressed with either Bush. But I must note that I was even less impressed with those who ran against them: Mondale, Gore and Kerry.
So let's not mix together Reagan and Bush.

In my view Reagan's biggest policy mistake was choosing George H.W. Bush as his running mate. Neither Bush was ever а true conservative. Recall it was Bush Sr. who coined the phrase "Voodoo economics" mocking Reagan's supply-side approach, approach, which proved to be correct.
Reagan should have selected Jack Kemp instead.

I don't think they will ever learn
yes, that's because they don't want to learn..their policies give they tremendous power over hundreds of billions of taxpayers' money..while dems love badmouthing CEOs of private companies making millions..their buddies (appointed by them) at F/F making millions (12 million??) on taxpayers' dime..that's hypocrisy..

In 1981 ( when Reagan got elected ) it was 31% of GDP, in 89 it was 52%.
what was your point again?

Svetlana, did the republicans learn?
Here is the problem
1) politicians want to get re-elected
2) the only way to get re-elected is to "do something"
3) doing something usually means spending money to benefit a specific group of people
4) this always causes unintended consequences
5) eventually the bubble bursts.
I don't cares dems or reps, they are all the same.

The point is simple, if you're a student of history. Substantial jump in debt as pct. of GDP was a direct result of Reagan's military buildup that was one of the major causes of the collapse of the Soviet totalitarianism.
This was done after years of neglecting military, which by the end of Carter's administration was falling apart.

Или как сказал Рейган на своём корявом русском: doveryaj, no proveryaj :-D :-D :-D

The Death of the Global Warming - Mini Cooling Age is here.

Send my regards to Al Gore and his cohorts...
***********.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html

Dear All:
I am urging you to call your friends in Massachusets to vote for Scott Brown (R)on January 19th as Ted Kennedy’s Senate replacement. This is your chance to stop the harassment of banks and the witch hunt, along with all the rest.
Thank you!(v)(v)(v)(F)(F)(C)

<<< Reagan's biggest policy mistake....>>> etc.

Natan, I agree with every word in that post. (F)(Y)