Good, so is the rest of America.

I’d also like to say that when I was at Wal-Mart in 1996 through early 1998, they were really happy that the economy was NOT doing well. See, more people shop at Wal-Mart when the economy is doing poorly.

And, I’m very happy that I turned down the garden.com job in Austin in 1999, thank you very much.

Wrong. More logic for ya…

I’ll agree with you that there was a boom in the mid-80’s, but this is typical after a sustained recession. Claiming that the tax cuts were responsible for this would be problematic since another recession ensued in the late 80’s early 90’s and a second boom occurred (as, once again, they always do after a recession) when tax cuts were no longer in the equation, and well in advance of the tech boom. If you’ll recall, the economoy began its uptick in 95. As a web programmer myself, I and none of my coleagues would give that to the internet until 1997 or 1998. The whole pets.com/groceries.com/furniture.com epsiode would have gotten further into late 98 to 2000. By the time that started, we were well into a successfull economy.

Also remember, there was no productivity growth during the Reagan years, and the poverty rate actually rose.

Yes, exactly, all those deficits.

But, I’m not talking about the economy – which was successful during the Reagan years because of tax cuts and incentivizing small businesses and entrepreneurs. Neither am I talking about the successful economy during Clinton – which was a result of neither the President nor Congress screwing anything up while the Internet bubble was a-risin’.

I’m referring specifically to the chart, which speaks only too the federal governments budget deficits. And, I was referring to Wick’s statement about Republicans controlling both houses and the executive, that’s all. George W. Bush never vetoed a budget that I recall. For better or for worse…

No logic in your post.

Consider yourself saluted.

Also, if you’re using the “Republicans held the Legislative” argument during Clinton’s years, as an excuse to why that era was so successful, then the Dems could do the exact same thing for the Reagan years.

Remember, the Executive holds veto power, and can kill any agenda he/she deems unfit if the Legislative does not hold a 2/3 majority. This is why the administration is always held most accountable for any success or failure during their tenure.

How’s that for some logic, Bill?