Bush is ruining the economy!!!

[shifrbv]

Wars often stimulate the economy

In the past they did. But today? If we declare war tomorrow, will you be able to go down and get a good paying job building tanks like they did in WW2? Thought so.

Wars today don't stimulate the economy like they used to. We don't have the manufacturing base to provide the stimulus which makes this argument a myth. If anything, our government will be ordering most of their components from China.

 

[HamSupLo]

wars are bad for the economy in the long run. WWII helped america out of the Great Depression, but in today's economy, millions of people aren't going to work in factories to build tanks like someone just said. We are all screwed in the future by the high interest rates we'll have to pay to finance wars and that stupid tax cut by Bush.

 

[roncarter]

not Bushs fault

 

[tm37]

Originally posted by: BDawg
As I said above, Dubbya didn't help anything with his tax cuts. Therefore, he can somewhat affect the economy.

I hate to break this to you but government spending does not DRIVE the economy it stagnates it. When people spend money on goods and services THAT drives the economy.

The economy while slow isn't in recession, yes the stock market is down BUT the market was heavily inflated and while their perceived value was high the actual value was low. Throw in some Enron/WorldCom accounting scandals and people are taking their money out of the stock market and putting it into bonds and the like. The market is starting to stabilize did you really think that you would see 15-40% percent returns forever, Especially when the GPD wasn't growing at anywhere near that rate. The perceived value was high and when the dot coms started dropping like flies the dumb money that had pushed the market through the ruff jumped ship sending the market down and people are still AFRAID to invest because of shot term losses. However LONG term investments are still up If you had invested 10 years ago then you would have still had a profit. The Dow Jones HAS ALMOST TRIPLED in the last ten years, and there is no reason to think that it will not rebound again. I have a guy at work that complains he has lost SOOO much money in the market but it was money he never really had. He started buying about 15 years ago and Even with the HUGE "losses" of the last few years he is still way ahead of if he had just put the money into a simple savings account.

The economic indicators are starting to come around and companies are starting to increase stock and people are buying products again.


Perhaps when you better understand economics you may be able to discuss this intelligently but right now you are just grasping at straws to attempt to bash a politician you don't like and it would appear that your reasons for disapproval are really misguided.

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: tm37

Originally posted by: BDawg
As I said above, Dubbya didn't help anything with his tax cuts. Therefore, he can somewhat affect the economy.

I hate to break this to you but government spending does not DRIVE the economy it stagnates it. When people spend money on goods and services THAT drives the economy.

The economy while slow isn't in recession, yes the stock market is down BUT the market was heavily inflated and while their perceived value was high the actual value was low. Throw in some Enron/WorldCom accounting scandals and people are taking their money out of the stock market and putting it into bonds and the like. The market is starting to stabilize did you really think that you would see 15-40% percent returns forever, Especially when the GPD wasn't growing at anywhere near that rate. The perceived value was high and when the dot coms started dropping like flies the dumb money that had pushed the market through the ruff jumped ship sending the market down and people are still AFRAID to invest because of shot term losses. However LONG term investments are still up If you had invested 10 years ago then you would have still had a profit. The Dow Jones HAS ALMOST TRIPLED in the last ten years, and there is no reason to think that it will not rebound again. I have a guy at work that complains he has lost SOOO much money in the market but it was money he never really had. He started buying about 15 years ago and Even with the HUGE "losses" of the last few years he is still way ahead of if he had just put the money into a simple savings account.

The economic indicators are starting to come around and companies are starting to increase stock and people are buying products again.


Perhaps when you better understand economics you may be able to discuss this intelligently but right now you are just grasping at straws to attempt to bash a politician you don't like and it would appear that your reasons for disapproval are really misguided.

Bite me, my understanding of economics are fine.

Here's why Bush's tax cut didn't work. With the way people perceived the economy, they were afraid of spending money. So, they didn't spend it; most of them saved it or paid of existing debt, which does little for our economy.

What makes Bush's tax cut irresponsible is that it took money the government needed to perform it's functions. I'm all for tax cuts when they're fiscally responsible, not when there's a real risk of not being able to afford them. They're not worth it when you have to go into defecit spending to acheive them.

What's the worst is retarded conservatives like you fail to see that there are multiple approaches to economics. Many different ideas have succeeded at different times. You'd just prefer to think your ideas are paramount and no one else's matter.

 

[tcsenter]

It would probably be good for our economy if we controlled all the Jews too. Lets just invade Poland while we're at it

Hmm, I never considered that, does Poland have any spoils which would be of value to us? I mean besides enslaving the men and coveting their women. Would we even want to covet Polish women?

 

[RanDum72]

eh, the gov't has little to do with consumer confidence

The government has A LOT to do with consumer confidence. In fact it might be the biggest factor that drives consumer confidence.

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

It would probably be good for our economy if we controlled all the Jews too. Lets just invade Poland while we're at it

Hmm, I never considered that, does Poland have any spoils which would be of value to us? I mean besides enslaving the men and coveting their women. Would we even want to covet Polish women?

Apparently that's where NATO is headquarted. I thought it was Brussles, but that's where Rumsfeld met with the rest of the NATO leaders.

 

[RU482]

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

what an ass

 

[ReiAyanami]

just blame enron and worldcom. all our fault is belong to them.

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
just blame enron and worldcom. all our fault is belong to them.

But Dubbya barely even knows 'ol Ken "Kenny Boy" Lay.

 

[wQuay]

The economy has been messed up since ~1930, but Iraq and Enron aren't helpng any.

 

[tm37]

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: tm37

Originally posted by: BDawg
As I said above, Dubbya didn't help anything with his tax cuts. Therefore, he can somewhat affect the economy.

I hate to break this to you but government spending does not DRIVE the economy it stagnates it. When people spend money on goods and services THAT drives the economy.

The economy while slow isn't in recession, yes the stock market is down BUT the market was heavily inflated and while their perceived value was high the actual value was low. Throw in some Enron/WorldCom accounting scandals and people are taking their money out of the stock market and putting it into bonds and the like. The market is starting to stabilize did you really think that you would see 15-40% percent returns forever, Especially when the GPD wasn't growing at anywhere near that rate. The perceived value was high and when the dot coms started dropping like flies the dumb money that had pushed the market through the ruff jumped ship sending the market down and people are still AFRAID to invest because of shot term losses. However LONG term investments are still up If you had invested 10 years ago then you would have still had a profit. The Dow Jones HAS ALMOST TRIPLED in the last ten years, and there is no reason to think that it will not rebound again. I have a guy at work that complains he has lost SOOO much money in the market but it was money he never really had. He started buying about 15 years ago and Even with the HUGE "losses" of the last few years he is still way ahead of if he had just put the money into a simple savings account.

The economic indicators are starting to come around and companies are starting to increase stock and people are buying products again.


Perhaps when you better understand economics you may be able to discuss this intelligently but right now you are just grasping at straws to attempt to bash a politician you don't like and it would appear that your reasons for disapproval are really misguided.

Bite me, my understanding of economics are fine.

Here's why Bush's tax cut didn't work. With the way people perceived the economy, they were afraid of spending money. So, they didn't spend it; most of them saved it or paid of existing debt, which does little for our economy.

What makes Bush's tax cut irresponsible is that it took money the government needed to perform it's functions. I'm all for tax cuts when they're fiscally responsible, not when there's a real risk of not being able to afford them. They're not worth it when you have to go into defecit spending to acheive them.

What's the worst is retarded conservatives like you fail to see that there are multiple approaches to economics. Many different ideas have succeeded at different times. You'd just prefer to think your ideas are paramount and no one else's matter.

So your example of keynesian economics working long term are? The tax cuts are long term instead of a short term fix. If you are looking LONG TERM that is fiscally responsible. Yes people didn't run out and spend thoose refund checks BUT people are spending more money NOW which is driving demand for goods and services. WIth this growth of demand will come more jobs and a higher GNP. The attacks of 9/11 took alot of the wind from the sails BUT it is turning. People spending there money is the best way to get through this slowdown. GOre would have taxed us right back into the depression.

Show me a few examples of how government spending increases economic growth LONG TERM and you might have a chance but I don't think there is one.

As far as the government deficit, that is OK during slowdown as long as spending doens't skyrocket when the economy grows and revenues increase. Under Clinton/Gore revenues increased But so did spending. Government revenues are never constant and the money that government spends is not nearly asbenificail to LONG TERM growth as private investment and consumption.

FDR's new deal which raised taxes to thoose that were less affected by the economic crisis and redistributed to thoose who were more affected. WHat happened was thoose that were in a position to invest in there companies to allow themselves to grow and prosper lost that position. They couldn't invest and no new jobs were created. I could write a ten page post on why the new deal way of attacking an economic slow down is an inaffective way to deal with a SHORT TERM problem but you either don't have the desire or ability to comprehend it because you learned in sixth grade history class how the new deal saved the US. You also have been unable to SHOW how governement spending provides LONG TERM growth. It may provide for a short term band aid but it hampers the the LONG TERM business cycle.

I'll Take 100 dollars and invest it in diversified private stock and you give the government 100 dollars, call me in 15 years you will have earned about 2 % and I will have earned about 6%. Yeah the governement is much better at invest in the future.

SHOW me examples and I will continue but I am sure you will just resort to name calling. When Red does it it's make me grin because he at lease has some wit. He may be just as misguided as you but at least he is entertaining.

 

[Cheval]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: bGIveNs33

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: 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.

It would probably be good for our economy if we controlled all the Jews too. Lets just invade Poland while we're at it.

The jews never attacked us.

Didnt Israel sink a US navy ship once?

I think you're thinking of the USS Liberty where Israel attacked it and killed 34 US sailers in international waters.
http://ussliberty.org
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/documentaries/features/dead_in_the_water.shtml

There was also a documentary that I saw on the History Channel. Was really worth seeing.
http://store.aetv.com/html/catalog/vp01.jhtml?id=43132

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: rickn
while the president doesn't directly control the economy, all the warmongering going on does create an atmosphere of uncertainty, and that can effect the economy.

Yes, exactly. The US is a Consumer Economy, if consumers won't spend out of fear and uncertainty, the economy will tank. Bush didn't cause the economy to tank, but he's done nothing to boost(besides getting tough with investor shenanigans) it. Regean and Clinton had one thing in common, they made people confident in the future, Bush seems to be milking the impact of 9/11 for all it's worth. Until he(or likely the next President) can get beyond the paranoid babbling about this or that threat, the economy will stagnate.

 

[chowderhead]

Originally posted by: 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.

Here is the synposis of agruments I have heard from Republicans about recent history.
According to the Republicans:
All credit for the fall of Communism goes to Mr. Reagan. All credit for the economic boom of the 80's caused by the military buildup goes to Reagan. The quadrupling of the national debt from this spending was caused by the Democratic Congress because Reagan had no will power to veto spending bills. Reagan's tax cut did not lower revenues and should have been deeper.
Bush Senior won the war. There was no recession during his term or a mild one which was over by the time Bush lost.
Clinton's 8 years of prosperity was a technology hiccup or the result of the dividends from Reagan and Bush's Sr. policies (except for the excessive spending which was the fault of the Democrats). The increased prosperity was also due to Republicans in the house and senate forcing Clinton to decrease spending. Clinton's deflicit reduction plan of 1993 which paid down the most amount of debt in the history of this country which passed without a single Republican vote had nothing to do with lowering intrest rates and strengthing the dollar against foreign currencies.
There was a recession at the end of Clinton's last year which Bush inherited.
Bush Jr. had to pass his tax cut to keep the Congress from spending because he has no power to veto spending bills. We are running deficits and increasing the debt which affects interest rates because of the war on terrorism and not because of lower revenues and the tax cut.

It is true that the President does not control the economy but he can affect public moral and his policies do have effects on interest rates, etc which can indirectly affect markets and the broader econonmy. When Bush is sabre-rattling about going to war, that will lead to more uncertainty. Am I going to purchase that big SUV if going to War with IRAQ might double the price of gas? As a consumer, I might hold off on purchasing stuff and this would have serious implications on industries that are dependent on oil.

People say that the market was overvalued. Fine I agree. But, it still has not bottomed. It may not bottom for a while. A lot of people lost a lot of money from the decrease in valuation. 401k got hammered. Corporate corruption, mismanagement, accounting scandals.

IF Bush is not to be at fault for current state of the economy -- then I don';t see a lot that he is doing about it other than lip-service and increasing the economic situation of his Republican party by fundraising.
-eom

 

[anime]

All of you guys can debate whether or not Bush/President to be blame about this Economic downturn (Eventho I personally think he's a moron) but the reality is none of you have any clue what actually happen behind the curtain (I dont have a clue either as with majority of the Population). Big industry lobyist for support of the president/congress that almost certainly try to make things go their way. Lots of people are talking about cutting US heavy dependency on OIL.......but do you see anything being done by the goverment??-A big NO- they can talk all they want, the truth is those people in the goverment is paying back with favors from those people who put them in the goverment in the first place. The point about all of these, all we can do is making assumptions on what do and do not happened inside the goverment when they are deciding their Bills/Policies/etc....but in reality we almost have no clue other then what the media fed us....

Everyone moan and bitch about oil prices keep increasing - solution stop using those SUVs/Trucks for once!
As for Economy is like a wheel-some times you are at the lowest point but no matter what it will go up even if it's slowly moving.

 

[RobCur]

You finally realize that? if you said that a year ago our economy would had been in much better shape today then it was yesterday.
Because we all kept our mouth shut about it, nothing has changed much since. Welcome to the doomsday 2002.
Bush isn't worry because he wish to conqueror the world, so why should you?

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

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: RobCur
You finally realize that? if you said that a year ago our economy would had been in much better shape today then it was yesterday.
Because we all kept our mouth shut about it, nothing has changed much since. Welcome to the doomsday 2002.
Bush isn't worry because he wish to conqueror the world, so why should you?

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

You haven't read a single post in this thread, have you

nik

 

[Miramonti]

Its great that Bush is going to step in and force the dock workers back to work...there goes any labor vote for 2004 that he might have gotten.

 

[UDT89]

this is the stupidest thread ever created.

do you ever think that clinton caused the downfall with his sex scandal? or wait......what about the two towers taht fell.......yea its alllllll bush's fault.

the poor guy wants to crack heads, and people are crying about it. we should've done this last october when people were still pissed.

 

[HendrixFan]

I guess the heart of this debate is whether or not a President, or government in general, has any effects on the nations economy. I am of the opinion that the government plays a large role in the economy, larger than any other factor. I also believe that consumer confidence is the single most important factor to a strong economy.

What I have seen so far from Bush is that his Administration is ignoring the economy. Again, Im of the opinion that the government has a role in the economy, and I have seen next to nothing done by this Administration to help the economy. Im not just talking about things I think will help the economy, but I havent even seen anything from them that they feel will help the economy.

Bush's tax cut was a "reward". It was a thanks to "all the hard working americans", because the great economy of the 90s was "their fault" and they deserved a reward for their hard work. Thats what he told us while campaigning for President. He said the government didnt make the economy, the people did, and because they did a good job they should get money back. Of course by that rational, he blames the american people for our current economy and he should take money to punish them. After the economy slipped, he pushed the same tax cut, only under the guise of an economic booster. Given that the economy was just starting to slip, with consumer confidence just starting to fall, unemployment just starting to rise, and earnings growing at a decreased rate; the best thing to do would have been to issue a tax cut. However, the tax cut needed to be aimed at businesses, to help them hold ground and prevent layoffs. Business tax cuts are the surest way to help a sluggish economy early on. Preventing layoffs keeps unemployment under wraps, and helps consumer confidence. Bush didnt do that, he gave an enormous tax cut to the people instead, much larger than what would be remotely considered fiscally responsible.

Since his tax cut "aimed" at helping the economy, he has done nothing. He has ignored domestic issues of all sorts, including the economy for over a year now, only focusing on the war on terror. Even now, he is looking at increasing spending even more than last year, despite the fact that the sluggish economy hasnt shaken off yet, and revenues arent as large.