Close, but no cupcake
This opinion piece in the Financial Times talks about how Democrats and Republican economics differ. "Since the 1960s, the Republican and Democrat administrations have switched places on economic policy. The pattern is so well established that the generalisation can no longer be denied: the Republicans have become the party of fiscal irresponsibility, trade restriction, big government and bad microeconomics. Surprisingly, Democrat presidents have, relatively speaking, become the proponents of fiscal responsibility, free trade, competitive markets and neoclassical microeconomics. This characterisation sounds implausible. Certainly, it would not be recognisable from the two parties' rhetoric."
The author makes a stab as to why, but doesn't make much of a guess. Here is mine - Carter and Clinton were interested in improving the economy. Reagan was and Dubya is interested in making their wealthy friends wealthier at the expense of everyone else. All four succeeded (or is succeeding) at their primary interest.
8:37:33 AM 
|
|
