America's economic situation changed drastically between 2000 and 2001 and the only thing that changed within that time was our president...Congress remained in control by Republicans.
Yeah, but (as you say you disagree with below) some people believe that the nation was already starting into a downward trend (namely, the stock market, an early indicator of the ecconomy's future trends, was slowing down during the 2000 election campaign...oddly enough, each time Gore went up in the polls, the market dropped several points, and when Bush went up in the polls, the market went up slightly.)
While I don't deny that you received a tax cut, I think if you put it in perspective--when you look at the rising energy prices and tuition costs, you will see a net loss like so many other families. And, to tell you the truth, my family's economic situation is excellent but that doesn't mean that I support the policies that help our family. We don't need anymore help--I'd rather see our tax cut go toward healthcare for the uninsured, education, national security, or research for alternative energy. And it is important to mention that people like Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Jay Rockefeller, and Herb Kohl--all of whom fall into that "top 2%"--voted against giving themselves a tax cut. That says a lot about their character.
My family's mid-middle-class (I think), and I myself (if you consider me as being over 22 and a college student, but qualifying as being named my own familial "unit") am probably lower middle-class (due to my degree/education bring me up by my lack of funds being a point lowering me down. ^_^) Despite what a lot of people said, middle-class famlies were helped greatly by the tax cuts, which for my part helped fund my education.
You may be right about the net loss, but had the tax cuts not passed, do you really think that money would instead have gone to making college more affordable and keeping gas prices down? It probably would have gone to pork spending instead. You bring up healthcare, education, national security, and research for alternative energy, but forgive my lack of faith in our politicians, but I just don't see them actually puting the money into those things had the tax cuts not passed. MAYBE the healthcare (though that would likely not have passed), and they might have put a little in education ([voice=sarcasm]because as much money as they're already pouring into education is REALLY helping[/voice]), so forgive me if I think them pouring yet more money into education would not be all that beneficial...besides which, had the tax cuts not passed, probably only around 5% of that money would have gone to education and maybe all of 1% would have been split between healthcare and alternative energy research. The other 94% would have just gone to pork spending and $1,000 toilet seats...
Let me remind you that the Clinton Economic Relief Act of 1993--which instituted the changes that led to the longest economic expansion in our nation's history--passed in Congress without a single Republican vote in both Houses of Congress. It took Vice President Gore's tie-breaking vote to get it past the Senate. And the Republican controlled Congress passed several budgets that President Clinton vetoed because of tax cuts for the wealthy and cuts to Medicare, among other things. Remember the government shutdown? And the Congress never changed hands between 2000 and 2001 and yet the economic conditions changed.
As I said, the 90s aren't really within the basis of my knowledge (I was...10 years old in 93, hadn't even discovered jackin' off for goodness sake. ^_^), though I don't doubt that the Democratic Congress passed something before the Reps took over. But see, AGAIN, that's saying that it was the Congress, not the President, that had the major impact. Don't get me wrong, Clinton had a hand in the drafting and pushing for the bill, and since I believe your account is accurate, Gore cast the tie-breaking vote. But I doubt that the ecconomic upturn was entirely the work of Clinton, nor does he deserve full credit for it (as I said in the post above this, the ecconomy is multifacited with many controling variables, the President being only one of those.)
I actually vaguely remember a government shutdown, but as a preteen at the time, no one would explain to me what it was about.
Now then, as for the 2000/2001 situation, Congress didn't change hands, but the people in Congress changed, no (the some seats did change hands.) The Bush tax cuts also hadn't really gone into major effect (people hadn't gotten their refund checks yet, I don't think), so that wasn't a key cause either. In all honesty, I imagine it was a part of the natural ebb and flow of things. Ecconomies only tend to do well for so long before there's a hickup (if not an outright downturn.) I'm not really sure why, maybe it's that consumer confidence begins to wane as people start worrying about an ecconomic downturn, which turns out to be a self-fulfilling prophecy (I mean, every time we hear the market doing really well, the first thing people seem to start saying is how they're worried that the market is doing "too well" and that there's going to be a recession (and things like that do tend to happen when enough people say they're going to. One must ask if it's because they see something, or if it's simply the unrest such words engender.)
This claim--which people on the other side repeat about as often as the claim that Iraq had WMD--is false, like the WMD claim. The recession began in the spring of 2001--shortly after the passage of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.
I'd actually like to find some real numbers for this. I remember from the 2000 election that the market was down quite a lot during the election season, so there was clearly a lot of ecconomic unrest about who would be the next President. While the market seemed to like Bush better, clearly he was a "newcomer", so the market still went down some, and this naturally affected the ecconomy and job market. Now, the question is was this a trend that started off of the Clinton years (as some suggest, a result of the ecconomic policy of the Congress of that Administration), or was it something else. After all, you have to realize that most things that help aren't long term. It's kinda like shooting a cannon, what goes up will inevitably come down unless you do something to keep it up.
I guess to say it more clearly, the question is, which of these was it:
A) The ecconomy was doing badly and getting worse (this one I believe is simply wrong)
B) The ecconomy was doing great, but something (pre-9-11) caused it to begin to slow AFTER Bush took office (now, whether this was related to Bush being in office or was some outside thing...)
C) The ecconomy was already slowing down and simply continued this trend into the Bush administration
Note that B does not require it being Bush's fault (though it could be.) To determine whether it was B or C I'd need to have some actual data to look at though, and something more significant than the unemployment numbers that have been given; the stock market, GDP, and so on are also important factors to consider. There are cases where the GDP and market can be up and unemployment can be up also, but such a case is indicative of a healthier ecconomy (as if the market and GDP keep going up, more jobs will be created), and periods of low unemployment may seem good, but if the GDP and/or market are down, that's actually a sign of an ecconomy that's about to go into a recession and experience increased unemployment as a result.
So yeah, only looking at one thing is about as ignorent as saying that there's only one cause (the Presidency) affecting the ecconomy. PLEASE tell me that even if you disagree with my conclusions you can agree with that.
's got some talent!