Quote:
20 will get you. ;-)
Interest rates were about half that when Reagan left office though. Should one judge a "presidential economic figure" by it's average, it's sum, or it's end?
For example, should Clinton get credit for balancing the budget in 1999 or should he get blamed for adding $1.6 trillion to the debt during his administration? Should Reagan be judged by the 81/82 recession or the 82% rise in GDP during his tenure (higher than Clinton's 8 years incidentally which were quite good in their own right).
Seems to me that during most four years stretches and in any eight year period one can find whatever data they wish to justify their particular political position.
|
Funny thing is...even with the years of experience between then
and now, I would do the same things today as I did back then.
The construction market was hot, and money flowed like water.
When you're on a rush, you don't need the nuts to bet aggressively!
But today there would definately be better damage control.
...and like any selfish human being, I can only judge a presidential
tenure by how it affects me personally. I hate to admit that I'm
not liberal enough to worry much about "The Common Good"
Bob