Some of you may not even know he was even a President, and most of you probably only have a vague idea of his policies from History class. However, he was President during an extraordinary, technological revolution that drove the US economy to incredible heights, the largest economic boom in US History. Americans were living the good life and reaping the economic benefits of the "Roaring Twenties." The stock market was high, everyone had a good job making great money, and was becoming wealthy. However, today no one attributes the economic growth of the 1920s to Calvin Coolidge. Most experts say this was just part of an econmic cycle. In fact, the same exact economic pattern occurred 70 years later during another technological revolution. Why then do many people attribute the economic boom on the 1990s to Bill Clinton? Do you think in 60 years Americans will still feel the same way about Clinton, or will people in their 20s then, only have a vague idea Clinton was even a US President?
2006-11-17
09:12:55
·
11 answers
·
asked by
TheMayor
3
in
Politics & Government
➔ Politics
Is everyone missing the point of my question? Only a couple of people seem to get it.
Smartass you are correct Coolidge's administration was mired by scandal and corruption; and yes not every one shared in the wealth generated during the 20s. However, for the first time many average Americans gained much wealth through the stock market. Does this sound at all familiar? And when Coolidge ran for election (his first term came when Harding died in office), he easily won. Does this also sound familiar to you?
2006-11-17
09:36:48 ·
update #1
Studbolt Slickrock, LMAO, that's pretty good!!
2006-11-17
09:46:09 ·
update #2
Jim W. will you at least try and learn, and attempt to end your ignorance? I guess you won't. Is the only thing you can do when confronted with facts and logic is make irrational statements?
When I make statements I ALWAYS supply facts to back them up. All you ever do is spout the same nonsense over and over. If you actually read my statements, and checked my sources you would know this. Stop your Clinton worship. He was a horrible President. I am not saying Bush is much better, but Clinton was just God awful.
2006-11-20
04:58:27 ·
update #3
Jim W:
Fact, for six of eight years of Clinton's Presidency we had a Republican controlled Congress that stopped his tax and spend ways. Clinton demonstrated this inclination during his first two years.
Fact, the way our System of government works is the President purposes a budget, the Congress makes changes to it, approves it, and the President signs it. The Congress is just as much responsible for the 2000 balanced Budget as Clinton, in fact probably more so, since Congress has discretion to change or reduce spending allocations.
Fact, there was a technological revolution that happened to occur while Clinton was President that created an economic boom. Clinton had absolutely nothing to do with the economic success of the late 1990s. Can YOU site specify economic legistration that Clinton proposed, or policy he enacted to created the economic success of the late 1990s? I guess not since you have never done this.
2006-11-20
05:00:10 ·
update #4
So Jimmy boy, I challenge you YET AGAIN, prove me wrong. Supply some facts to disprove my statements. What's that, oh you can't? That figures.
BTW, you are a hypocrite. Why do you send me racist emails, and have an unregistered email address, so I cannot respond to you? You have stated so many times how Conservatives don't publish links to their email addresses, like you do!
Ha, what a liar you are, all you have is a link to a dead email address!
Lastly, I did not report you genius, since you are so interested in my questions, why don't you try reading my third to last. If you can manage it, read the whole thing!!
2006-11-20
05:01:09 ·
update #5