You keep making that “one data point does not an analysis make”, but the fact is that you don’t have any data points at all to make your original claim.

“The economy boomed” in Bush’s first eight months? I don’t think so. Average unemployment in Bush’s first year was higher than in Clinton’s last year, and GDP increased by a mere 0.8%, compared to 3.7%

Unemployment went down every single year of Clinton’s presidency. That hasn’t happened with any other post WWII President. In Bush’s first four years GDP grew an average of 2.3% per year, compared to Clinton’s average of 3.7%. Clinton didn’t have a single year with GDP growth as slow as Bush’s average through four years.

So the tax increases in Clinton’s term didn’t seem to hurt the economy much.

I also find it amusing that you’re quick to refer to “Reagan tax cuts”, “Bush tax cuts”, and “Clinton tax increases”, but also want to foist Reagan’s huge deficits onto Congress. A little consistency would be most welcome.

The tax cuts that supposedly made the economy boom are called the Reagan tax cuts, not the Democratically-controlled House tax cuts.

And the economy went in the tank after they were passed–a recession the next year, and unemployment nearly 10% for two years in a row. In his fourth year we had 7.2% real GDP growth, but unemployment of 7.5%, and the debt increased by 17.9%, the most since WWII.

So much for growing out of the deficit.

He has undone none of the socialist programs – now has he? He couldn’t even get the ablity to fire young workers in place.

What part of “The Republicans gained control of the Senate in 1980 when Reagan won the Presidency, and with the help of conservative Democrats like Phil Gramm had effective control of the House” did you not understand?

And the President is often able to set the agenda, and can veto spending bills if he doesn’t like them. Reagan pretty much had his way with Congress in his first term.

And what part of “Jacques Chirac is a conservative with an agenda of privatization” did you not understand?

France’s problems are caused by it’s socialist policies, including the health care system.

Actually the Republicans gained control of the Senate in 1980 when Reagan won the Presidency, and with the help of conservative Democrats like Phil Gramm had effective control of the House. Reagan didn’t complain that he wasn’t able to implement his agenda.

The Democrats regained control of the Senate in 1986.

So the worst years of the deficit happened with Republican control of the Senate and a Republican in the White House.

So, I know that comparison is not bull.

It’s a bit of a stretch to blame France’s unemployment rate on their health care system. Maybe the problem is that Jacques Chirac is a conservative with an agenda of privatization.

And Reagan sure did not have youth unemployment hovering in the 40% range.

Eisenhower: 0.8%
Kennedy: 2.1%
Johnson: 3.0%
Nixon: 5.5%
Ford: 15.2%!
Carter: 9.2%
Reagan: 14.2%! (over eight years!)
Bush 41: 11.8%
Clinton: 4.3% (it went down every year but one, and increased by a mere 0.3% his final year), the best since 1960, when the national debt actually decreased)
Bush 43: 7.0% through his first five years

Bush 41′s last year the debt increased 10.9%. Clinton’s first two years, still with a Democratic Congress, the debt increased 8.5% and 6.4%.

The real champ of increasing the debt was Ronald Reagan. His first year, the debt increased 10.6%, just a little worse than Carter’s last year (10.1%), but then it went wild. The next four years the debt increase 16.4%, 17.8%, 17.9%, and 17.0%. Those are the first, second, tied for third, and fifth worst debt increases since the end of WWII. (Also tied for third was Ford’s first year).

It’s also not working in Canada. And if it works better in France, is it worth the really high unemployment rate they have there?

My understanding is that it works much better in France, where they fund it 50% better than in Britain (and still pay much less than in the U.S.)

Just because it has problems in some locations doesn’t mean it’s not worth pursuing.

A large part of the near record taxes paid in April were the result of the foreign earnings repatriation of 2005. That tax holiday has now expired. Expect a symmetrical plunge next April.