Relative Performance

Let me get this straight.

Bill Clinton comes into office in 1992, and Wall Street is terrified that the Democrats will raise taxes and screw up the economy.  Instead, Clinton puts world-class economic minds into top positions.  The result is a spectacular economic boom, for the stock market as well as ordinary Americans.  Yes, there was the dotcom bust, but that didn’t touch the fundamentals of the economy, and just a couple years later the entrepreneurial tech sector was growing again.

George Bush comes into office in 2000.  The stock market has gone sideways over a period of eight years.  We’ve spent a vast fortune on the war in Iraq, with no end in sight.  The deficit is through the roof, and most other economic indicators are much worse.  And then, we get the housing meltdown, and the credit crisis that is taking out huge chunks of Wall Street as we speak. Bush’s economic team does little to inspire confidence, and much to destroy it.

Now, tell me why an entrepreneur or businessperson would vote for the Republican in this election?

Oh, and don’t forget that John McCain was one of the “Keating 5” sanctioned in the S&L debacle, which was the economic mess the previous time the Republicans held the White House.

I have no problem with religious fundamentalists supporting Palin/McCain.  I have a big problem with entrepreneurs and businesspeople telling me they oppose Obama because he’s going to raise their taxes.  Doesn’t relative performance mean anything in finance?  Would you rather have the Bush economy or the Clinton economy?  Because the evidence is pretty clear that the Democrats today are the responsible stewards of the domestic and global economy.