Bush is ruining the economy!!!

[PsychoAndy]

Originally posted by: fluxquantum
wow..a flame war...LOL.

I wouldnt call it a flame war as it's an ATTEMPT to raise economic awareness.

-PAB

 

[Rainsford]

Short answer: No

Long answer: As you learn in econ classes (I'm guessing you've never taken any), the current president has very little to do with current economic trends. The economy in a free market system is extremely complex, and trying to boil it down to "it's this guy's fault" is simplistic thinking at its worst. I can't even begin to explain how little control the president has over the economy during his term. However, as you pointed out, part of his job is to make it better. And I'm sure he's working on it. The fact that it is not getting better does not mean he's doing a bad job. There are many things even the president can't control, he doesn't have a magic wand or anything.

Your question is just more Bush bashing in any case. Why don't you come back when you have a reasonable argument backed up by actual knowledge?

 

[PsychoAndy]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Short answer: No

Long answer: As you learn in econ classes (I'm guessing you've never taken any), the current president has very little to do with current economic trends. The economy in a free market system is extremely complex, and trying to boil it down to "it's this guy's fault" is simplistic thinking at its worst. I can't even begin to explain how little control the president has over the economy during his term. However, as you pointed out, part of his job is to make it better. And I'm sure he's working on it. The fact that it is not getting better does not mean he's doing a bad job. There are many things even the president can't control, he doesn't have a magic wand or anything.

Your question is just more Bush bashing in any case. Why don't you come back when you have a reasonable argument backed up by actual knowledge?

Which has been reiterated several times already. Thank you for actually resembling intellect. What Moron #1 fails to understand is that although the President has the ability to set discretionary spending and fiscal policy, the economy is a morass of gargantuan factors that seems incomprehensible, similar to the U.S. Government, just on a smaller scale. Bush setting budget spending, taxes, and other items seems pale in comparison to the core fundamentals of supply, demand, et al. Consumer confidence has an impact. So does the news. So does Kozlowski, WorldCom and Enron. There are so many factors out there, the mere thought of thinking them all up is giving me a headache already.

Moron #1 fails to understand the complexity of the economy, its idiosyncracies, and its operation for that matter. Besides that, M1 seems so gung ho on leaning on leadership for a solution, he cant even come up with a creative solution to the problem himself. Hi, Pot? This is the kettle calling....

-PAB

 

[RanDum72]

I heard this before. The economy has been going down because of the Clinton administration. If Bush losses the next election to a Democrat and the economy goes up after a couple of years, credit it to Bush, right? Typical Republican argument. Reagan had two terms yet it culminated in stock market crash eerily similar to the one we have now. Bush Sr. had another run, yet the economy wasn't much better. Then Clinton had two terms, the economy improves dramatically and credit goes to Reagan and Bush Sr.? BS. Now, they blame Clinton for the present situation. The economy WAS slowing down during the last year of Clinton's term but it was nowhere as bad as it was painted to be. The one thing you cannot really predict is the finicky nature of the stock market and the free-market system in general because all of these are based on human decisions which are half based on figures and half based on gut instinct. When a change in power is unavoidable, there will always be a period of slowdown just to see whats going on. BUsh Jr. rally didn't help things at all when one of the first things that come out of his mouth about the economy was it was 'bad'. That really set the tone for things to come and just made a jittery stock market worse. They have recently have tried to more 'positive' about it, saying the economy 'wan't too bad at all' but its too late. I don't believe there isn't anything a Presdient can do to improve the economy because of 'market forces'. The President has to set the tone, he has to set policy as to give a positive outlook and feeling among the population. But see, thats the problem when policy is about 'trickle down economics'. NOTHING is going to trickle down to the bottom-feeder workers when there are too many greedy people on top who doesn't care about anything but themselves. So far, policy has been lacking and the tone has been negative.

 

[Czar]

What a leader of a country should do when the economy starts to go down is spend money on the infastructure.

Everyone here should read this http://www.adamsmith.org/smith/won-intro.htm

 

[tcsenter]

The economy has been going down because of the Clinton administration. If Bush losses the next election to a Democrat and the economy goes up after a couple of years, credit it to Bush, right? Typical Republican argument.

Actually, its a typical POLITICAL argument to which no side can be credited because they both engage in such rhetoric equally. Look at current Democratic attempts to place blame on Bush for the economy.

Clinton is no more responsible for the current condition than Bush is. What Democrats have described as 'Bush blaming Clinton' is not finger-pointing at all on Bush's part. He is merely defending himself by telling the inescapable truth; the crazed speculative bullmarket began to collapse before he took office and the conditions which lead to that collapse occured "during" (but not because of) the Clinton era. That is not blaming Clinton for what happened, it is merely relating a time line of the events. Bush has repeatedly said in no uncertain terms that he does not blame Clinton at all for what happened. But leave it to political opponents to misconstrue and misrepresent the words and statements of their political rivals.

But, if there are people who simply MUST blame a president for the current economic condition, there is no basis in fact or logic to blame Bush since there was no way that any force in the universe could prevent the collapse of a purely speculative market that had been building for several years. However, it could have been prevented from getting to that point in the first place, starting around 1993 or 1994.

 

[kherman]

Originally posted by: TranceNation
Ever since Bush was elected the economy has gone down ever further!
Anybody else feel this way?

Historically, whenever a new president takes office, the economy suffers for 2 years. Not always, buyt it is very common.

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: PsychoAndy
I'm going to play devils advocate.

In that case, what would YOU do as president to help the economy?

Lets watch the smoke billow now.

-PAB

Well, I personally wouldn't have given a tax cut the economy couldn't handle. I mean one of the driving factors in the economy was the lack of a federal defecit. We turned the biggest surplus in history to a huge defecit; just because Dubbya had to have a tax cut.

I think even with 9/11, we wouldn't have a deficit if it wasn't for that tax cut. And now they want to make it permanent. It f'd up the budget enough when we had extra money.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Bush did not wreck the economy
Clinton did not create a dramatic economic upswing

Same for the previous Bush, Regan etc. They might have had some small effect, but in the long run the economy will cycle.

Presidents do make good punching bags though. Part of their function. Always better if we have someone we can beat up on.

 

[jjones]

Presidents, whether Rep or Dem, have next to nothing to do with the economy. If one man were able to pull the strings of the nations economy, it would be a scary world indeed. Fortunately the economy is built upon a variety of factors with one single man or event able to have only a limited effect upon it. The most powerful man effecting the economy is the Fed Chairman, not the President.

Edit: BTW, TranceNation, try learning a little something about economics before spewing off at the mouth about the President. I know it's convenient and people like to criticize him for being an idiot but you've managed to surpass him in this regard.

 

[AU Tiger]

Originally posted by: Viper GTS
The economic downturn was predicted throughout the latter half of Clinton's second term.

Bush had nothing to do with it, and if you believe he did you're an absolute idiot.

Viper GTS

My thoughts exactly.

 

[tcsenter]

The most powerful man effecting the economy is the Fed Chairman, not the President.

And that man tried to warn of an overly agressive bullmarket, twice, in the early 1990s. But, even the most powerful man in the US economy and monetary policy is no match for a million intoxicated and overzealous investors.

 

[transluko]

bush hasn't done anything. he's a puppet for the thinkers to play with.

 

[jjones]

Originally posted by: transluko
bush hasn't done anything. he's a puppet for the thinkers to play with.

Well, it's good to know you won't be playing.

 

[transluko]

Originally posted by: jjones

Well, it's good to know you won't be playing.

Lemme in coach, i'm ready.

 

[rchiu]

Bush is not helping the Economy by waging his own personal Iraqi war either. With all the uncertainty, the stock market is tanking, fuel price is going up, and company are not buying or hiring. You guys think that has nothing to do with bad Economy??

 

[BoberFett]

TranceNation, you're a farking moron.

Why're you all being so nice to the little tard?

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: rchiu
Bush is not helping the Economy by waging his own personal Iraqi war either. With all the uncertainty, the stock market is tanking, fuel price is going up, and company are not buying or hiring. You guys think that has nothing to do with bad Economy??

History teaches us that wars improve the economy. Get a clue.

 

[Goldfish]

The Crazy republicans will always find a way to blame the last Democratic President. Then when a Democrat is elected in 04 and blame is put on Bush, they will argue that Democrats can't shift the blame like that.

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: rchiu
Bush is not helping the Economy by waging his own personal Iraqi war either. With all the uncertainty, the stock market is tanking, fuel price is going up, and company are not buying or hiring. You guys think that has nothing to do with bad Economy??

History teaches us that wars improve the economy. Get a clue.

Just like with Vietnam. Oh, wait.

Wars often do help the economy by stimulation production. But does that mean we should start wars just for the heck of it? I think George Orwell was against it.

 

[josphII]

Originally posted by: rchiu
Bush is not helping the Economy by waging his own personal Iraqi war either. With all the uncertainty, the stock market is tanking, fuel price is going up, and company are not buying or hiring. You guys think that has nothing to do with bad Economy??

thats just a flat out lie. the possible war with iraq has bipartisan support for the most part, the stock market is still at historically high levels, fuel prices are certainly NOT high (compare them with 2-3 years ago), are companies ARE highering (just because your an idiot and cant find a job doesnt mean shlt).

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: rchiu
Bush is not helping the Economy by waging his own personal Iraqi war either. With all the uncertainty, the stock market is tanking, fuel price is going up, and company are not buying or hiring. You guys think that has nothing to do with bad Economy??

History teaches us that wars improve the economy. Get a clue.

[/quote]
Wars are waged by the Government, the government buys weaponry made in their own country therefor filling the economy with money. There are obviosly other ways of doing that than going to war.

 

[tcsenter]

Wars often do help the economy by stimulation production. But does that mean we should start wars just for the heck of it? I think George Orwell was against it.

Screw that socialist freak, he was an author of FICTION and spent an inordinate amount of his life dwelling on FANTASY. We want to kill people and break things, its good for our economy, and its good for my wallet at the gas pump if we make Iraq a US outpost.

 

[bGIveNs33]

I think a good way to give the economy a little jump start would be to give the capital gains tax a cut.

-Billy

 

[wyvrn]

The economic downturn was predicted throughout the latter half of Clinton's second term.

Bush had nothing to do with it, and if you believe he did you're an absolute idiot.