I think the Democrats are still more to blame. Here's why:
Ford ignored inflation, rand budget deficits every year, and raised taxes, which almost bankrupted NYC. He wouldn't bail them out. Carter appointed Volcker chairman of the Federal Reserve Board who raised the prime interest rate to a height of over 21% in 1980, whilst still spending more for the creation of federal social programs. The Carter administration was also involved in near-0% interest financing for foreign investors (now, now, don't run off on me) while then-current Americans faced 20%!
Reagan, a Republican, cut regulation, spending, and taxes, and put a control on the money supply. The Republicans are not entirely blameless, however, as deficits were not controlled, speclating that because of this George Bush Sr. had to reneg on his "read my lips" quote and raise taxes again. But Papa Bush faced a *Democratic controlled congress* going in, as Bush wanted to cut spending but the Dems wouldn't allow it without a tax increase, which Daddy B promised he wouldn't do. He was forced to by the Dem congress, which lead to a combo-tax hike-and-spending cut bill that would have cut the deficit by $500b in 5 years being subject to a Republican smackdown. Bush I then had to captiulate to a *Democratic* led plan to raise taxes *and* spending, thus pushing forward a growing crisis. Bush again tried to resist a Dem plan to raise the marginal tax rate and cut exemptions for the wealthy, but failed. B-man did however increase social program spending during a poor economic time. The net effect of all plans during capital B's administration left us with almost 8% unemployment and over 14% poverty.
Back to the Dem's presidency, Clinton actually did some good for the economy, final putting a combo tax hike-and-spend cut bill through, with Republicans (to their discredit) fighting it tooth and nail to an eventual loss. In 1998 we saw our first surplus since 1969, and a surplus again in 99 and 00. The 90s continued to be a period of growth. Republicans fought Clinton on every tax issue, pushing trough cust for the wealthy, which Clinton was able to match with cuts for the poor. The Dems were finally responsible for increasing growth and decreasing inflation, unemployment, and poverty. People got jobs and got off welfare.
Then Dems did it again by enacting legislation such as NAFTA, which were intended to spread economic benefit (and did) but allowed it to come at the expense of the American economy. A lowering of barriers made it possible for foreign products to replace American ones, and foreign jobs to be chosen over American ones. (See: "They... took... mah... JAHB!!!," "Tukyerjab!!!," and "Derk-a-derb!!!") Clinton also signed a landmark trade agreement with China, which has been problematic since it's inception. This internationalization effort was a particular bitchslap since Dems traditionally back labor unions, but abandoned them in favor of globalization.
Then Dubya, the man, the myth, the legend, comes along. He cut taxes across the board, but increased tax complexity to American detriment. Lil' Bush also increased spending (especially militarily), thus widening the gap again and increasing deficits. Bush was also inconsistent on his international trade policy. Both Dems and Reps would suffer from financial scandals during the Bush II era. The financial crisis over the home scandal is certainly not all one party or another, but more Dems than Reps were responsible for taking money from Freddie and Fannie and stifling republican criticism and Ron Paul's bill to fix it.
I will not discuss Obama since he hasn't been inaugurated yet. It wouldn't be fair to accuse him of something he hasn't yet done, let alone had the chance to.
---
I purposely left out non-economic issues as the biggest mess is the economy, and that's where Democratic subversion shows through the most. But don't think I'm not willing to blame Republicans too, it's just Reps tried to do something about it and Dems didn't.
Both parties are guilty of a vast number of governmental atrocities. Personally, I think we should round up both Dems *and* Reps and have them all shot, Soviet-style, and give all the mistreaten third parties a chance. (Okay, so maybe not literally execute them, I'm not a murderer)
Non-violently clearing out the parties that have dominated politics since the 1800's and have gotten so big that they are squelching independent (not necessarily Independent) thought would be nothing but good for this country. It's time we give the parties that the D/R both ignore and hamstring at every opportunity a chance. And that's change *I* can believe in!
