A) No... he didn't.  Clinton became president in 1992.  The recession ended in 1991... around March.   Anger at Bush was because he went against his pledge to raise taxes.  (Against the rich no less) because the Democrats refused to any deal to cut spending unless there were tax raises.

B) I thought you blamed the Recession that happened under bush due to the grahm leach baily act which was a huge by partisian bill inacted under clinton.  Either way, it doesn't change the fact he got us out of one.   You didn't ask why people thought republcians were good with the economy, you asked why people thought they could get us out of recession.  Answer being... it's kinda there thing.

C) The Recession under Ford ended in 1975.  Carter came to office in 1977.  Though looking at the record you are right to say there was a very slight 1980's depression caused by carter that he solved, before he caused another one, that Regan had to fix.

As for does the party answer any answers to those who are struggling financially?   Sure, it's arguement is "We're the party that ends recession's, so we'll end recession's get jobs in the country, and give you a chance to get out."

As for who in the poor that applies too?

Probably a larger percentage group back then, then now... but still.

Of course as you may remember, I think recessions are just a matter of "waiting them out" and not making things worse, but.... you aksed why people would think republicans can get us out of recessions... and it's pretty simple just based on the fact that they've done it more often.   Democrats have made good economies run better, while republicans have gotten us out of recessions.

Just what each side has done...  in general, seems like Democrats cause the boom, then republicans take over around the bust, and clean up the bust.  Leading to democrats taking over again.  While Republicans call the Democrats Keynsians... argueablly the Republicans follow Keynes will better more often then not when in power.

This is the ultimate answer.

First: in the political-system of the US it is very hard for a third party to establish itself. Basically you have a two-party-system. So for everyone that is not happy with the democrats, the republicans are the logical alternative.

Then, both parties have basically the same economical recipes. So I can understand many people elect based on other considerations than economy and personal wealth.

The republicans have the big plus, that they are perceived as more fundamentalist christians. Poor people can also be hardcore-christians. So if you against gay-marriage and abortion and in favor of death-penalty and generally a more christian lifestyle, you are more likely elect republicans.

Also the republicans are perceived as more nationalistic. So if you want the US as #1 in the world (although neither republicans nor democrats can stop china from taking this position) and prefer solving conflicts with military force, you probably elect republicans.

Note, that I said in both points before, that they are perceived in this way.

The GOP is not the answer, precisely the problem is in the two party monopoly system. Both parties are essentially the same thing, they just say different things and do the same thing. Continuity of government is very real no matter which one of these bozos from the 2 parties you vote in. Nobody is providing actual solutions to the problems we have. Vote for the republicans or democrats at your own demise.

This has been a long time in the making, and many of these presidents that you say created booms are very much part of the problem. Just making the economy grow at any cost should not be the goal.
Over the past 30 some years we have had massive creation of credit, lowering interest rates and encouraging people to spend their savings which isn't necessarily a good thing in the long run even if it grows the economy. The problem we have now is that we are not living within our means. We have no savings anymore because of low interest rates, credit cards, student loans, and house mortgages all heavily encouraged by the government. We are stretched far to thin. All of these things at one point were part of the booms are now coming together to create a massive bust. When the people aren't spending the government steps in and spends money making any kind of savings you might have had worthless. When the economy suffers the fed steps in to lower interest rates and print more money. None of this is remotely sustainable. Just so that in the short term everything might look a little bit better for a little longer. The government is the problem.

Arguably by the way, the Republicans are the real Keynesians... at least when in power.

With spending cuts when the economy is doing good, and increased spending when the economy is doing bad.

Though really practically every president after Calvin Coolidge could be considered a Keynesian at least in handling downturns. Nobody wants to be remembered like Hoover as the president who did nothing. (Though in actuality... Hoover did a lot, he was a Keynesian before Keynes was. He was all about supply side economics and did so.)


Arguably the least Keynsian presidents we've had have been the First Bush, who handled that recession with increased funding for the benefits of those in trouble, cut spending and raised taxes.

and.... Obama! Afterall, Obama is trying to propose that warren buffet/millionaires tax.

If Keynes were alive now, I'm pretty sure he'd be shouting at the top of his lungs "What they hell are you doing, we're in the middle of an economic crisis! That's going to lower aggregate demand, pay it off later."

Unless I missing something anyway.

Carter started the Community Reinvestment Act, which made housing affordable for most who couldn't afford it, causing a huge bubble for decades without oversight. 

I would argue that had less to do with the Community Reinvestment Act as signed by carter, and more to do with the huge expansions and pressure by democratic leadership to lower standards more, espiecally for minorites, and to accept things like government assistance as income.

About Reagan, isn't it easy to fix the economy when you spend your way out of it? The man tripled the nation's debt. Although, let's not kid ourselves. Unemployment rose to over 10% in 1982 before it started to recede. Reagan didn't fix America's economic woes, falling oil prices did. Reagan, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. were all miserable failures from an economic standpoint, racking up trillions of debt that will eventually threaten the nation's very existence. The only half way competent economist to run the country in the last 30+ years was Bill Clinton.

Not really, you can spend your way out of a recession but there will always be a kick back.

Which is why Bush had to clean up after Cold War spending dried up. 

I was talking about perceptions though, which this is the general perception... not that Reagan did fix anything.

As for Clinton, he argueably set up the financial crisis we're currently in now.  (It's actually hard to argue he didn't... people either blame the Banking Modernization act, or expanded Subprime morgages, which both happened under his watch, and he was for both.)

The reason Clinton didn't run up deficits?  PAYGO was passed by Bush Senior and he had rapidly rising tax revenue increases from the boom being created.  He and congress really couldn't have if they tried.

Bush Senior was really the only good "economic" president... he had a huge deficit, but that was largely due to democrats refusing to cut spending to meet the giant drop in revenue even though Bush Senior was elected specifically to "Not raise taxes."

Then Bush gave in anyway, and raised taxes... got spending cuts... and everything was fine without keynsian stimulus.