Bush, and the Economy

[Vitas]

What is everyone's opinion?

 

[Calabrio]

The President usually has little that he can do to directly affect the economy.

I can't think of anything else that hasn't happened during his Presidency that could seriously hurt the economy. Natural disasters, high fuel prices, terrorist attacks, and all the white collar crime that took place in the 90s came to the surface. Fortunately, Bush cut taxes during his first term, had it not been for that decision, we would almost certainly be deep in a long recession right now.

But despite all this growth has been high. Unemployment has been historically low.

So,the only fair criticism of Bush and economy is that he hasn't worked hard enough to reduce government spending on wasteful social programs.

 

[Pepsi2185]

Agree but yet i dont. Bush has something to do with the economy buts its not as deep as some would like to think. But the economy has barely kept up with inflation and stayed shaky and lukewarm. I think there are a lot more factors to play in the economy over what bush can do. But I do not think that he is helping with some of the decisions that he makes. I can do into this deeper but i am TIRED, ill check back tomorrow.

 

[Vitas]

It appears there are no complaints about Bush's handling of the economy.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

I prefer to let the facts speak for themselves.........

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

If I had the graphics handy, they'd show that the downturn of the welfare rolls started during the Clinton years.

So much for "Reaganomics" and "trickle-down economy" and the general theory that tax cuts for the rich = benefits for all americans, as well as the rhetoric about how republicans are responsible for cutting "spending on wasteful social programs" and that doing so results in a better economy. All that is is a stinking pile of :bsflag:

Historical facts show that Republicans are FISCALLY IRRESPONSIBLE, the only way they can hope to create a sense of a "healty economy" is to borrow, borrow, borrow and run up the national debt.

 

[RB3]

If I had the graphics handy, they'd show that the downturn of the welfare rolls started during the Clinton years.


Of course it did. The Republican congress passed welfare reform and Clinton had to sign it, because a veto would have been overridden. Clinton then slammed it (as at the Dem convention) or boasted of passing it, depending on which side of his mouth he was talking out of that day.

 

[Calabrio]

If I had the graphics handy, they'd show that the downturn of the welfare rolls started during the Clinton years.

Yeah...want to know why?

WELFARE REFORM. A Republican initiative that Clinton vetoed several times before the political writing was on the wall. Eventually, reluctantly passed it. So, in case you forgot, welfare reform was the result of the 1994 Republican control of Congress.

So much for "Reaganomics" and "trickle-down economy" and the general theory that tax cuts for the rich = benefits for all americans, as well as the rhetoric about how republicans are responsible for cutting "spending on wasteful social programs" and that doing so results in a better economy. All that is is a stinking pile of bs

Again, you're speaking out your tailpipe. You're statement is just wrong.
Supply-Side Economics benefits all Americans, and if you don't want to believe me, looking at John F. Kennedy. He supported tax-cuts to stimulate the economy as well.

But what is your greater point. You recognize that welfare numbers dropped. Seeing as how you didn't recognize the major reason behind it, what did you intend to attribute it to? What Clinton action do you intend to attribute it to?

And that's not to even mention the moral and principled reasons for opposing high taxes. But practically speaking, tax cuts benefit the entire economy, and everytime they've been passed it has resulted in increased federal revenue collected.

 

[Vitas]

I prefer to let the facts speak for themselves.........

Johnny, bottom line, what do you (or anyone else) see in those charts?

 

[TheDude]

What is everyone's opinion?

The economy is crap at the moment, but the repub's blame Clinton still, go figure. When a democrate gets elected next and (it wil be a democrate the right will make sure of a easy left side win) the economy will slowly pick itself up, but you wont see any republicans (at least not here) giving credit to the left.

I should of really said 'If the economy picks itself up' Maybe we can give the rich more tax breaks and hope they trickle down to us I guess, at least those of us that are poor. Damn it! We need Reagan back in office and another cold war.

 

[Vitas]

The economy is crap at the moment

Do you see that as Bush's fault?

Just curious, how do you think we are going to pull ourselves out of the highest deficeit in American history now thanks to our glorious and accountant savvy leader? If the Democratic approach is 'Stupid beyond belief' as you say. Do tell us, I am willing to accept a great idea no matter what side of the fence it comes from.

Let's bring your comment from another thread into this "Bush, and the Economy" thread. Do you see anything different about the usual business cycle this time around?

 

[TheDude]

Do you see that as Bush's fault?



Let's bring your comment from another thread into this "Bush, and the Economy" thread. Do you see anything different about the usual business cycle this time around?

You're answering my questions by asking me a question and not answering mine.

 

[Vitas]

You're answering my questions by asking me a question and not answering mine.

I don't see that. Do you see the economy as being Bush's fault?

What are your questions that you would like answered by me? I will be most glad to accommodate you.

 

[Vitas]

We need to hear from Barry2952 and RaVenEyes to make this a thread.

You have your opinions. State them.

 

[raVeneyes]

Johnny, bottom line, what do you (or anyone else) see in those charts?

I don't know Vitas...they do seem to show a trend, though many economists would say it's the trend of the normal business cycle, it seems they follow the leadership in a very specific pattern of economic cooling during conservative administrations and economic heat during liberal administrations. This may just be a by-product of economic players following the leadership of the country, or it may be an actual effect of the economic policies, but the economy being as big as it is I tend to lean towards the former.

Do I think the current economy is Bush's fault? Only in so much as he's a poor leader and listening to the wrong advice.

 

[TheDude]

I don't see that. Do you see the economy as being Bush's fault?

What are your questions that you would like answered by me? I will be most glad to accommodate you.

Bush's fault? Yes, he is a terrible leader and terrible leader's make terrible decision's. True, it can't be 100% his fault, but better decision making would lead to less of a loss on an economic down-cycle. Is anyone really surprized about this? Several companies he managed before his political career went bankrupt.

"If the Democratic approach is 'Stupid beyond belief' as you say. Do tell us, I am willing to accept a great idea no matter what side of the fence it comes from."

That question, like I said, I'll listen to any great idea no matter where it comes from. If it's good, it's good.

 

[fossten]

The problem isn't with supply-side economics. The theory itself is sound. The problem lies with Dems and Repubs alike in that our Congressmen LOVE pork. They don't act fiscally responsible and live within their means. That attitude serves to thwart supply-side economics in the long run.

Reagan saw some results with supply-side, but the liberal congress spent and spent so the economy never caught up with the debt. What has to happen is that leaders from both sides of the aisle need to cut wasteful projects and pork-barrel spending. That $220 million bridge for the 50-person Alaskan town would be a good start, but the whole Transportation Bill that Bush just signed that Congress pushed through was so pork-laden it oinked.

Personally, I'm fed up with our spend-happy leaders and I have even written a letter to my staunch Repub Congresswoman and expressed my displeasure with her lack of leadership on this issue. She's on the Appropriations Committee, so she's responsible.

 

[barry2952]

Well said. Can't dispute a word of it.

 

[Vitas]

Well said. Can't dispute a word of it.

So you are not mad at Bush, you are mad at Congress? Weren't you blaming Bush about the Economy all along?

 

[raVeneyes]

So you are not mad at Bush, you are mad at Congress? Weren't you blaming Bush about the Economy all along?

Well he *is* the party's leader...congress as well...

 

[barry2952]

Let's see Vitas. The last time I asked you to respond to something you told me you'd respond when you got divine inspiration. The time before that you told me to go back to the drawing board. I dont think I'll be responding to any of your posts.

 

[TheDude]

Let's see Vitas. The last time I asked you to respond to something you told me you'd respond when you got divine inspiration. The time before that you told me to go back to the drawing board. I dont think I'll be responding to any of your posts.

I'm still waiting for my response to his 'Democratic approach is stupid beyond belief." If he has a sound idea, lets hear it.

 

[Vitas]

... very specific pattern of economic cooling during conservative administrations and economic heat during liberal administrations...

Not true. Reagan engineered the foundations for the biggest Economic boom in our history. Note the multi-decade breakout that occurred in 1986 (actually the breakout trendline dates back to the early 1800's), coincident with the time that Gorbachev announced glasnost.

 

[Vitas]

The Nasdaq stock market crashed in March 2000. The implosion of the Economy was underway well before Bush took office. Deficits are inevitable in a crashed economy. Blaming Bush for them is absurd. In a crashed economy, you have to deficit spend to at least keep the economy treading water until the effects of the bubble and crash are completely over. After the 1929 crash that process took 8-10 years, or more.

Bush had the courage to insist on tax cuts, accelerated depreciation schedules for investment in new equipment, and investment in new workers. If it were not for these initiatives, we would be standing in breadlines. There is no question that Bush deserves complete respect for his handling of the Economy under extremely adverse circumstances.

 

[raVeneyes]

Not true. Reagan engineered the foundations for the biggest Economic boom in our history. Note the multi-decade breakout that occurred in 1986 (actually the breakout trendline dates back to the early 1800's), coincident with the time that Gorbachev announced glasnost.

There's a few small problems with your graphic here:

This graph only takes in to account the Dow Jones industrial average, which is pretty much useless pre New Deal, and still not very useful until after the end of WWII.

The trend line drawn on the graph does not indicate what it is, but I'm willing to bet it is an averaging trend line. To show a more realistic trend the trend line should be drawn along the line of inflation so that it shows true growth/depreciation.

The vertical scale of the graph is not constant.

-----------------------------------

Similar graphs were used to argue that there was no recession at the end of the first Bush administration, they have all been held out to not represent reality well.