I am now the last thing from a Bush supporter, but to make a dirtect correlation between any leader and a specific economic indicator is, at best, marshy ground. There may very well be a connection...just as there may very well be some validity to tarot cards...but on both we are left with imperfect data analysis methods, and as such making a definitive conclusion is shaky ground. My limited understanding of economics suggests that we need a greater range of data, and a longer period in order to make anything approcahing definitive conclusions about the effect this administration has had on the economy.
Agreed. Anyone who has studied economics for more than 2.5 minutes should know that. The funny thing is that the American public MUST realize this and still blames the President. If things don't change quickly, this sets up Bush II for a replay of the election his pop had to run.
MacB, Not to mention the fact that our economic problems were either exacerbated or directly caused by 9-11. I don't understand why Bush is getting so much of the blame. He is an idiot, sure, but this is not all his fault and it cannot be argued with any certainty that Gore would have salvaged the economy already.
What makes you think he didn't? For that matter, what would it make a difference if he DID? If he lives in Texas it wouldn't have mattered much would it...
Pretty soon we will see stories that crime rates hit 9 year high. This will then be used to justify more private prison growth which the Carlyle Group and Bush campiagn contributors will have the market cornered on. Oh don't for get that another proposed solutio will be that there is not enough money flowing to Christian faith based initiatives to rehabilitate the incarcerated.
Did Bush personally cause this trainwreck? No, but his administration sure had a BIG part of it. I don't think you realize how far-reaching our federal government is. It sneezes, and the entire world scrambles for a Kleenex. The economy is definitely cyclical -- but it's not randomly cyclical. It's based on more factors that can be listed in a Rockets BBS. It comes down to this: (capitalistic) economies strive when there is confidence in the future. You can blame partisanship or whatever Rush and O'Reilly tells you to blame, but the fact is that NOBODY -- not stockbrokers, not consumers, not sellers -- has any confidence in this moron.
Did Bush personally cause this trainwreck? No, but his administration sure had a BIG part of it. I don't think you realize how far-reaching our federal government is. It sneezes, and the entire world scrambles for a Kleenex. The economy is definitely cyclical -- but it's not randomly cyclical. It's based on more factors that can be listed in a Rockets BBS, every one of which the Bush Administration plays a part. It comes down to this: (capitalistic) economies strive when there is confidence in the future. You can blame partisanship or whatever Rush and O'Reilly tells you to blame, but the fact is that NOBODY -- not stockbrokers, not consumers, not sellers -- has any confidence in this moron.
Crime rates have a strange tendency to mimic the direction of unemployment rates. Re-read my original post.
Today's unemployment rate might reflect layoffs in industries such as dot.coms, airlines and other travel related markets, tele-communications, financial services, etc. To say those layoffs have to do with efficiency is ludicrous, it has to do with a sluggish economy, and I'm not blaming Bush, but it has nothing to do with efficiency, except if you mean, with lower sales revenue, you might have to make cuts.
Bush is as responsible for this as Clinton was responsible for the boom in the 90's...meaning...neither of the 2 had any important effect on either of these economic events. Sorry guys but we are still suffering from the effects of the bubble economy that developed world wide and there isn't much any president can do about it except tell people to not speculate as much. Everything will start to get better soon enough since Japan is recovering, China is expanding fast, and America is more oriented towards the massive economic growth potential in Asia under Bush. You guys can rip Bush all you like, but in my opinion he has done some smart things by reorienting the international economic focus from Europe to Asia. As Asia grows so will the American economy, but it doesn't happen overnight especially after the economy is recovering from one of the worst economic bubbles ever. Just be thankful we aren't Japan and that we do have a centralized fed that can help guide the economy somewhat. The president doesn't do much to guide the economy. Actually now that I think about it this president did do something positive for guiding the economy when he cut the dividend taxes and capital gains taxes. Investment is what expands the economy and taxing it is just stupid. I forgot Greenspan's exact words but it was something to the effect of taxing investment is stupid and counterproductive. He is right.
My god, if we all had a nickel for every time the Wizard of Wall Street here has predicted a recovery, there'd actually be one. Too bad there's no search so I can't find last year's boasts.
Normally I would agree with the folks that say a President can't have a direct effect on the economy, but the President does set the tone for many of the investors and the public. And in this case, we're talking a major change in our basic economics. With the tax cuts, no real response to the corporate scandals, and the incredible intrusion of corporations into public business, Bush does carry blame. According to his own folks, we are on pace for a $44,000,000,000,000 debt. If that's not a number that would stop the economy dead in its tracks, I don't know what is. Somebody can check my figures, but I think we were hovering around $3 trillion during Reagan and maybe up to $5.5 trillion when Bush II took office. To go from that to $44 trillion is an astounding jump and it is all related to the tax cuts and policies pursued by Bush. And don't blame it on the war or terrorism: the money spent on war and homeland security does not come close to touching the deficit amounts we'll be running over the next ten years. For instance, the complete Homeland Security projected appropriations for 2004 is $41.3 billion, an increase of 0.8 percent from 2003. All defense related programs come to $399.2 billion for 2004, or a 5.3 percent increase over 2003. Our debt is rising significantly faster than either of these two budget items. When Bush took office, we had a projected 10 year surplus of $5.6 trillion dollars, roughly equal to the debt at the time of Bush's inaugeration. Less than three years later, we're running deficits somewhere between $400 and $500 billion a year with conservative estimates of an increase in the debt by $4 trillion over the corresponding ten year period. Play it anyway you want, but the fact is this administration has created at least a $10 trillion drop in our national debt outlook in less than three years. Again, conservative estimates look for debt as percentage of GDP to reach 44 percent by 2013. If the $44 trillion level is reached, it would be the equivalent of four years of U.S. economic output or more than 94 percent of all U.S. household assets. http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/ And I close with a 4th of July quote from Tom: "Unless the mass retains sufficient control over those entrusted with the powers of their government, these will be perverted to their own oppression, and to the perpetuation of wealth and power in the individuals and their families selected for the trust." Thomas Jefferson, 1812.
