The recession was on its way before Bush took office. Clinton holds more responsibility for 911 than Bush does, and the fact that Clinton creted so many low paying jobs did little to actually help the economy.

If you see how so many large companies were multiple times overvalued, the "correction" in the market was expected.

Sooner or later things must balance out...Clinton got them out-of-whack,a nd Bush is trying to get things back on track to be stable.

The REAL test of Bush's financial policies will come during this term, as the things he put into effect in the last 4 years will soon begin to show the differences they should make. If they do, great, if they don't...well...let's just hope they do help.

Most all of you folks get a paycheck every week or two, but as a Ind. Sales Rep. I don't get paid unless a purchase is made. The products I represent apply to a very narrow market in the electronics industy...and none of them are low cost. I would LOVE to see major companies start loosening the purse-strings on capital purchases...believe me, I could breath easier if they did!

As to Bush's environmental policies...I don't like them either. He stinks in that Dept., BUT, sad to say, there is more to running the most powerful office in the world than fish and trees.

Of the 2 choices, Bush was far and away the best choice. IMO all politicians are crooks, so it is a matter of choosing the lesser of two evils in any event.

My 2 cents worth...(and that is the same value as any of our opinions holds)

Mike