It urks me when people slam Bush for the crappy economy & blame him for it all

American Economy about to Collapse? October 1999

Look 3 sections down


Question: Was it really Bush's fault?

yeah, the economy isnt ALL bush's fault, but it is MOSTLY his fault. he has been in office since 2000, clinton only was in office for a year when the economy began to falter.

Presidents get too much credit for a good economy and too much blame for a poor one. I do not see many actions of Bush's that are recessionary in nature. The steel tariffs was a notable exception.

I tend to agree that a poor economy is not directly the fault of Bush. It is, however, his fault when he proposes federal spending beyond what the federal government can currently afford.

Actually, deficit spending is a standard Keynesian remedy for recessions. It is what got us out of the Great Depression.

Greenspan has already criticized Bush for delaying recovery by pushing the war on Iraq.

The troop deployments from Colorado Springs is expected to depress the local economy until November.

Attack is rumored to begin on February 21st.

bush may not be responsible for the economy, but it is his responsibility to help it recover, since he has taken office the economy has not rebounded at all, and is worse off then when he began.

on deficit spending: my brother did some "deficit spending" and was charged with check fraud, why are governments exempt from this? they shouldn't be allowed to spend unless they can cover it!

unabomber,

I love that question. Here's the answer:

If your brother had a guaranteed income in the form of tax revenue, he could *sell* his debt!

Treasury bonds and bills are sold by the US government. Holders of these bills and bonds collect interest. The fed budget must pay interest on these investments before anything else gets money.

Voila! The perfect scam. If you're in the right position, you can get by without paying much tax or no tax at all, plus draw interest from taxpayers.

In order for this scam to continue working, the economy has got to come back up. Why aren't the holders of our national debt worried?

Because of this: Once the war on Iraq is finished, the economy will rebound quite strongly. Why? Because of something I read today in the Colorado Springs Independent (www.csindy.com). It follows, in part--"Both sides are wrong" by John Tirman (under "Your Turn" in the Independent).

"'Regime change' is the correct answer. Regime change not because Saddam is such a nasty fellow, but because the United States wants a platform in the Arab world to discipline its monarchies, petty despots and religious cranks. It wants a wealthy country in the middle of the region that will be a model for American-led globalization."

This war will be for the economic gain of some US and foreign citizens. Mr. Tirman leaves it at this. But will this lead to benefit for many? Can the ME be transformed? I suspect that's the whole reason for sacrificing many lives in the coming months. Will the end justify the means?

In my mind, no. We are not very creative or smart if this is the only way to achieve benefit for the most.

However, I don't think our present leadership is all that smart or creative.

Did your brother sell bonds to cover the deficit spending?

ok, so it was a bad example. topic is the economy, and is it all shrubs fault, not my brother.

agree that it is not the presidents fault, I find it interesting that at least in the last few decades, since I believe Reagan that while a Republican is in office, the economy is in trouble, then when a democrat is in office the economy goes up and then once a republican is in office it goes down again. If they had a goat in office during the early to late 90's the economy would have been solid.

When talking to my ultra liberal friends they keep stating that it is the President that is directly in control of where the economy goes by his policies. My conservative friends state that in fact it is not the President, but rather the congress, which takes the presidents plan and then chops it up to a point where it is not going to do anything.

There are rises and falls in the economy, Presidents have little to do with it. But if some Arabian oil Prince sneezes, stock market plundges.

I think Clinton did a decent job as President in issues other than the economy, but I do not think that he was the reason of the success in the mid to late 90's.

Interesting fact that was spoken shortly after election night 2000. A lot of poliitical anaylsts said that if Gore had kept touting the fact that during the Clinton administration, where he was the most worthless man in America (vice president), the economy was booming. He stayed clear of saying that in any form. I think the democrats knew that the economy was going to turn sour dramatically and did not want to create the ideology that if they were elected that the economy would somehow just rectify itself.

Much like his father I think this will be Shrub's downfall in 04.

Unfortunately, Keynesian economics has led to the USG using deficit spending in good times as well as the bad. A little bit of government stimulus during say a depression might not be too bad, but to constantly go in the red is financially irresponsible.


Yes, Congress has much more influence over the economy that the president does. It is Congress, not the prez, that ultimately decides fiscal policy. The prez has very little direct influence on the economy.

If there's any single person that has the most influence over the economy though, I'd pick Alan Greenspan. Depending on how Wall Street interprets his obfuscated speeches, it can send the markets in all sorts of directions.

I disagree with this evaluation. I think it has been clearly demonstrated over the past two decades that when push comes to shove that the President wins the budget battles.

The president send the initial budget proposal to congress and holds the veto power over congress through the whole process. The president has the advantage of being one unified voice for major policy matters while congress has 535 voices split between two houses. The president has to work with congress, but Clinton decidedly won his standoff with congress several years ago.

Bush's tax cut is another good example. That was a presidential plan that became policy. While all spending measures come through congress the president holds the most power in the process.

What nobody seems to be able to stop these days is the apparently requisite pork as individual congressmen hold off until their district has been paid off with some type of project.

Well I wanted to agree with ya Eyore but I just cant.

The budget has to be presented to teh congress. Already even republican senators etc have said they dont support it fully. Thus they will not pass it and the negotiations will begin. Sure Bush can veto anything that comes out of congress but he wont.

Bush through a bunch of things into the budget as sacrificial lambs. I am sure some of you can imagine what those were. Bush knows that if he gives up these lambs Congress will pass the budget.

So truly congress holds the power over the money.

Now I do agree that prok is the biggest problem in congress today. I think line item veto is a very good idea.

GBYA

Aahz

Mmm, not fully convinced there

We seem to have a fairly equal understanding of the process with different conclusions. Your version of Bush's scheme (no negative connotation meant in this case) to get the actual budget he wants looks like leverage to me. He sends in concessions to make, meaning he has real leverage in the negotiations and he has the bully pulpit to use throughout the process.

History blows away your theories mister. Liberals who fought against the Gulf War, usual suspects like Ted Kennedy and Daschle and Gephardt were proven wrong after that war. Did the economy improve after the Gulf War? No. The economy will improve when companies stop printing felonious balance sheets, and CEO's quit raiding company profits for their personal use. How people like you can predict the way the economy will improve or not is a wonder to me. Business is best left to the honest businessman left out there not ultra-left liberals like you that wouldn't know cost of goods sold from a statement of cash flows.

HR


Yeah, I'm sure all those CEOs you mentioned are ultra-liberals... and trust me, those of us on the left are every bit as capable of understanding all sorts of complex ideas, from economics to ontology, from quantum mechanics to TS Eliot. Unlike your bereft ammunition (liberals are dumb, people like you wouldn't know blah blah blah) for debate, Authormusician and people like him are trying to address the issues. Learn a new song, HR, because while you espouse a philosophy that pretends towards personal responsibility, you end up spending a large portion of your posts either complaining about liberals or insulting liberals.

when bush was first gathering supporters for his election run he was asked various queastions about the outside world, its leaders and what not, he did not get various good marks. The WTC had already been attacked once by a "terrorist group" because it holds so much power over money something the u.s likes, it likes money.
Well anyway here he comes along with his taxs cuts and economic plan and shares it with the world at large to get elected and the "terrorist group" destroys WTC along with a few thousand humans and the bush plan goes into nothing and the u.s gets alot of problems. Now i wont say that he is the reason that these problems exist but if clinton was our president today i think the world at large might be a better place. I dont think bush knew enough about the world to be one of its super powers main leaders, i also think this reflects on alot of the problems the u.s is faceing in a broad sense.

nileriver, this makes little sense. Do you have any proof to support your claims?

(also, please use spellcheck and proper grammar, your posts are nearly impossible to understand)

Well, he went on to a national television show where he was asked various questions about world affairs. He did not do very good here, the u.s is a super power that has an effect on the world at large from people that like us to those that don’t.

I feel that he is a person that does not really care about the world outside of the u.s, and I think that this shows in how he rates things.
On his food chain the u.n or the outside world is at the bottom if not something he cares about at all.

WTC had been struck once due to its ties to the us economy, bushes plan called for spending money he did not have in hopes to make the economy better, now as a terror group this is a nice chance to reek a lot of terror.

I think this also forced the us to show its position to the world.
Being if you were part of this terror group, all of your planning goes towards hurting the u.s, and I think that bushes lack of planning to this extent gave a window of opportunity for such actions.

What show? What questions were asked? What were Mr. Bush's answers?
Please don't think I am picking on you. I am still confused as to what you are talking about.

What does this have to do with Bush and the U.S. economy?

Please clarify. I get the idea you are implying it was the US's own fault some of our fellow humans were murdered by religious zealots. Although, if your response does not tie this idea into Bush & the US economy, please start a new thread.

So he's not a geopolitical affairs geek. I assume you are referring to the Musharff question. well, i am sure there are about a few million Americans who didn't know his name either at that time

BTW: What's this have to do with Bush & the Economy? Jamie suggested starting a new thread, but i think we can put this kind of stuff at the Bush rating Thread

its not just that show but thank you for bringing it up.

And yes the u.s economy has ties to the world at large with free markets, things like oil and trade are just a few.

Most of his plan was deficet spending i believe that is what allowed him to conduct the tax cut proposal while spending big bucks on the military and others, when it is tax money that pays for it in the first place. The WTC was a tie to our free markets and some other economic structures to the extent that when it went down china closed its stock markets to allow the u.s to regain some control. This is why the building was such a prime target for various anti american groups.

I feel that his lack of knowing about the outside world and his visable plan for economic reform may be a cause or a window of opportunity for such groups to go into action.

And all the proof i need for bushs position on the rest of the world is when he talks, its the us against them idea he sponsors. I think he is an isolationist or whatever term you use to describe someone who thinks like that.

No one in this world profits by closeing them self off the the world, probally one of the main reasons the iron curtin collapsed along with the economic war the cold war became. And red chinas struggle to brake that mold, i hope our president does not destroy any chance we have for peace with them, it makes billions of dollars in trade.