McAuliffe: Bush's priorities 'out of whack'

I am SHOCKED that the chairman of the Democratic National Committee had negative things to say about the priorities of incumbent Republican president, George W. Bush!!!

 

So, the economy is really NOT in bad shape then?

 

Nope, the stock market plummeting is a good thing.

 

So, the economy is really NOT in bad shape then?

Actually, it's really not bad. One of the mildest recessions we've ever had is now over - projected growth for this year is around 3%. Before the mid-90's, that was considered pretty damn good. First Quarter growth was pretty solid, although that's partially due to a bad 4th Q w/ post-Sept 11th issues. Unemployment is around 6% -- before the phenomenal growth of the 90's, 5% was considered to be "full employment". There are still problems, certainly -- a big one being the financial markets (investors have lost over $2 trillion this year alone), but things are certainly better than they were last year on a nation-wide level. Other potential issues include the growing budget deficits and war uncertainties. But all isn't really too bad -- it's just our expectations are way high from the 90's.

 

I wonder if Clinton will be blamed for this recession as Reagan was blamed for the one following his tenure.

DaDakota

 

I thought Bush Sr caught the blame for that.

As for the Economy being ok . . . .well. .. it seems ok
until another Enron/Worldcom/Anderson situation
where corps are just lying about how well they are doing

Rocket River

 

Dude, you'll have to go into details for us "simple" folks.....

 

I wonder if Clinton will be blamed for this recession as Reagan was blamed for the one following his tenure.


Any blame Reagan received was because of fundamental problems created under his watch - primarily a National Debt that grew by a few trillion dollars and the S&L issues. That created a drain of around $200 Billion a year from annual budgets due to interest payments. Whether it was his fault or the Democratic Congress' can be debated, but the President is ultimately remembered for what happened on his watch.

When Clinton left office, no such situation was the case. The government-related fundamentals were sound and improving with budget surpluses and a shrinking debt. If the accounting scandals grow and have a growing economic effect, it might be possible to put some blame on him for that as many of these scandals sprung root under his watch. Like the Reagan situation, where the actual blame should go (or if government should take any) can be debated forever.

 

I absolutely detest ignorant politicians capitalizing on problems to jab at each other when they don't even understand the scenario.

As deplorable as the actions of executives of Enron, Worldcom etc were, the ignorance of "senators" in their quest for the limelight by assulting the executives with ignorant remarks and foolish comments to look good on CSPAN was a travesty.

Hearing one Senator during the Worldcom hearing when speaking to an analyst, refer to his company as Soloman Charles Smith (or something like that) instead of Soloman Smith Barney was just another example of the constant push for blame and controversy. I just hate politics sometimes.

She then proceeded to attack the auditor of Worldcom, and seemed to know nothing about the Auditing process.

The Republican party, unlike the Democratic Party, believes more in the underlying laws of economics and a free market and society. That does not mean the executives are not to blame at all, but a free market has already corrected much of the problem and now a more conformed system of accounting principles will undoubtedly correct some of the corporate malevolence that is beginning to show its face. You see today in the capital markets that ANY company with any basic questions about accounting practices gets hammered. What that means is that the financial capital markets are correcting the problem and making it disastrous for companies to play with their accounting at the risk of a financial meltdown for questionable tactics.

Reminds me of a saying by Galbraith ( a famous economist)
" Recessions find what auditors don't" how true, how true!

 

Major,

Please do not confuse the bearing of a national debt and how the cycle of an economy works. The reason for much of the prosperity through the 1990's and the technological revolution and America's significant % of it is because of Trickle Down Reagonomics. Those cuts in taxes allowed people to reinvest into the markets, technology, etc. Any changes in government policy take longer time frames to come to be.

A National Debt is not a bad thing. I don't believe in conventional democratic thinking excessive government spending. Though classical economics is against government debt, new-age Keynesian theory gives government the power to spend to push the economy during recessionary markets, and then to limit that debt and cut it back during times of prosperity.

The democratic party it seems just constantly strives to spend more and more, making the country more socialist by the second. Socialism takes away worker incentive and we all know government employees incentive to work is unparralleled


Many think that the S&L crisis was done to hurt Japanese power and economic influence in the US, and to push the US ahead in the 90'....if that was the case...it worked.

 

Please do not confuse the bearing of a national debt and how the cycle of an economy works. The reason for much of the prosperity through the 1990's and the technological revolution and America's significant % of it is because of Trickle Down Reagonomics. Those cuts in taxes allowed people to reinvest into the markets, technology, etc. Any changes in government policy take longer time frames to come to be.

This is simply <B>not true</B>. No one has any clue WHY the economy rocketed in the 90's. There are a number of legitimate theories by a number of different economic theories, ranging from 3rd world growth, to tax cuts (trickle down), to government spending, to government debt. All of these things have effects on the economy. Trickle Down economics was accompanied by billions of dollars in borrowing, much of it from foreign sources. That, in addition to the tax cuts, poured billions of extra dollars into the US Economy. The additional spending combined with the tax cuts and together, they likely helped spur the economy. Which one gets the credit -- and how much technology, 3rd world markets, free trade, etc played a part -- no one really knows, as much as they might like to claim.

Building the debt no doubt helped the economy. At some point, though, that debt takes a toll in interest payments. That's where it comes back. Although it's on a macro-economic level, it works essentially the same as borrowing in by regular people. Some is useful and allows you to improve your quality of life. Too much will come back and haunt you eventually.

A National Debt is not a bad thing. I don't believe in conventional democratic thinking excessive government spending. Though classical economics is against government debt, new-age Keynesian theory gives government the power to spend to push the economy during recessionary markets, and then to limit that debt and cut it back during times of prosperity.


A national debt is not necessarily a bad thing. An excessive one is. One that grows every year as a percentage of GDP certainly is. When 15% of your annual budget is going to pay off the debt, there's a problem there. In the simplest terms, if we had never built the current debt, we could have afforded Bush's tax cut with <I>no budget cuts and no deficits</I>. Borrowing always has a cost. If the money is spent wisely (investments in the future like education, technology, or infrastructure), it generally pays itself back. If it's used on short-term junk (pork, for example), it generally comes out to a net-loss. Unfortunately, neither party understands that both like to spend on short-term pork.

The size of government isn't as big an issue as what they are spending that money on.

The democratic party it seems just constantly strives to spend more and more, making the country more socialist by the second.

Riiiiiiight. Good propaganda talk, though.

Many think that the S&L crisis was done to hurt Japanese power and economic influence in the US, and to push the US ahead in the 90'....if that was the case...it worked.

That sounds like the logic of someone who f#$@ed up and was trying to justify it.