Full Version: Republicans in the Economy
As you may all be aware of, the economy hasn't been doing so greatly in the past two years (since 9-11). The current economic problems we've been having are new to this country, mostly relating to terrorist activity and the destruction of two vitally essential buildings located in the economic center of the world.
Yet there is a type of economic problem that our country has been experiencing for years and years. This problem is due entirely to the Republican presidents occupying the office. The problem is that Republicans are for high government spending. There wouldn’t be much of a discrepancy here, except for that they are also big on tax cuts. Tax cuts, although also very good can be a destructive force when there is a Republican in office.
The president, big on spending and tax cuts, will take more and more money from the treasury that isn’t there, putting our country into great debt. This makes it the Republicans who have deteriorated our economy with our extensive national debt. Clinton, obviously a democrat, greatly improved our economy and paid for national debt during his two terms. When Bush Jr. arrived, here came once again an indebted country.
It appears though I may just be some kind of Republican bashing lunatic, but the fact is, there needs to be more democratic influence on our economy. Otherwise, we can watch our economy slowly slip away through the years because of the poor ideas of our Republican presidents.
Yet there is a type of economic problem that our country has been experiencing for years and years. This problem is due entirely to the Republican presidents occupying the office. The problem is that Republicans are for high government spending. There wouldn’t be much of a discrepancy here, except for that they are also big on tax cuts. Tax cuts, although also very good can be a destructive force when there is a Republican in office.
The president, big on spending and tax cuts, will take more and more money from the treasury that isn’t there, putting our country into great debt. This makes it the Republicans who have deteriorated our economy with our extensive national debt. Clinton, obviously a democrat, greatly improved our economy and paid for national debt during his two terms. When Bush Jr. arrived, here came once again an indebted country.
It appears though I may just be some kind of Republican bashing lunatic, but the fact is, there needs to be more democratic influence on our economy. Otherwise, we can watch our economy slowly slip away through the years because of the poor ideas of our Republican presidents.
Welcome to the forum, Super_Potato. We require that all new topics (outside the Casual Conversation forum) have a question for us to debate. Afterall, this is a debate forum.
Check your PM box in a few minutes
Closed for now.
Jaime
Check your PM box in a few minutes
Closed for now.
Jaime
Here is our question to debate:
Keep it civil & constructive. Enjoy
QUOTE
Do you believe that the Republican occupation of the office is harming the economy?"
Keep it civil & constructive. Enjoy
Question at hand - clearly, yes. Bush is increasing spending on your defence and homeland security at the same time as making tax cuts, largley using, as you did, 9-11 as the ''reason'' for both.
i.e. More defence and security are needed (I'd challenge the first but not the second - pre-9-11, domestic US airport security was an international joke) because of 9-11, which are reasonable conclusions. But not only that, the economy needs stimulation because ''the current economic problems we've been having are new to this country, mostly relating to terrorist activity and the destruction of two vitally essential buildings located in the economic center of the world.''
I'd say that the latter was a largely UNreasonable conclusion. While the US economy was certainly not helped by the events of 9-11, it was already slipping towards recession and stock-market collapse well before that, due to a classic bubble market in dotcoms and new technology stocks, and some serious and systemic financial improprieties, of which Enron is only the most infamous. Far from these problems being 'new', they are as old as market capitalism itself (right back to the South Sea Bubble of 18th century London).
In this respect, the inevitable national defecit that would be created by Bush's policies became somewhat easier for him to justify, and a lot easier for the fine upstanding leaders of American business (their almost exclusive beneficiaries) to call for, as suddenly the problems that surrounded them could easily be blamed on circumstances beyond their control, rather than their own greed and culpability.
A satirical magazine over here, Private Eye runs a column called "Warballs", which is basically a selection of clippings from corporate press releases using 9-11 as an excuse for their poor performance. Most of it is so obviously distant from anything connected to the terrible events that you can't help but laugh, even if it is a bitter and disdainful laugh that someone could be that cynical. (Famously, a junior political appointee in the UK Government suggested that September 12 would be a good day to ''bury bad news''.)
However, surely this biggest con must be the idea that America's current economic problems are all the result of the necessary steps taken after 9-11, and therefore someone else's fault (somebody, anybody, as long as it isn't Bush or his corporate pals, or even Clinton and his cronies) and not of all the unnecessary steps taken in the years running up to it by (mostly) the same people.
In the UK, our economy is still relatively well placed, even if it isn't booming. But poor performance is never the fault of anyone who really ought to claim it either - our corporate leaders always find some other reason for their failure, and still get bought out of their very lucrative contracts when they finally get the boot. Some of them even try to blame 9-11 too, which is usually just a more obviously false excuse, even though it still qualifies as the biggest single loss of British lives in a terrorist attack in our history (yes, beating every IRA bombing by a factor of two or more).
i.e. More defence and security are needed (I'd challenge the first but not the second - pre-9-11, domestic US airport security was an international joke) because of 9-11, which are reasonable conclusions. But not only that, the economy needs stimulation because ''the current economic problems we've been having are new to this country, mostly relating to terrorist activity and the destruction of two vitally essential buildings located in the economic center of the world.''
I'd say that the latter was a largely UNreasonable conclusion. While the US economy was certainly not helped by the events of 9-11, it was already slipping towards recession and stock-market collapse well before that, due to a classic bubble market in dotcoms and new technology stocks, and some serious and systemic financial improprieties, of which Enron is only the most infamous. Far from these problems being 'new', they are as old as market capitalism itself (right back to the South Sea Bubble of 18th century London).
In this respect, the inevitable national defecit that would be created by Bush's policies became somewhat easier for him to justify, and a lot easier for the fine upstanding leaders of American business (their almost exclusive beneficiaries) to call for, as suddenly the problems that surrounded them could easily be blamed on circumstances beyond their control, rather than their own greed and culpability.
A satirical magazine over here, Private Eye runs a column called "Warballs", which is basically a selection of clippings from corporate press releases using 9-11 as an excuse for their poor performance. Most of it is so obviously distant from anything connected to the terrible events that you can't help but laugh, even if it is a bitter and disdainful laugh that someone could be that cynical. (Famously, a junior political appointee in the UK Government suggested that September 12 would be a good day to ''bury bad news''.)
However, surely this biggest con must be the idea that America's current economic problems are all the result of the necessary steps taken after 9-11, and therefore someone else's fault (somebody, anybody, as long as it isn't Bush or his corporate pals, or even Clinton and his cronies) and not of all the unnecessary steps taken in the years running up to it by (mostly) the same people.
In the UK, our economy is still relatively well placed, even if it isn't booming. But poor performance is never the fault of anyone who really ought to claim it either - our corporate leaders always find some other reason for their failure, and still get bought out of their very lucrative contracts when they finally get the boot. Some of them even try to blame 9-11 too, which is usually just a more obviously false excuse, even though it still qualifies as the biggest single loss of British lives in a terrorist attack in our history (yes, beating every IRA bombing by a factor of two or more).
QUOTE(Super_Potato @ May 28 2003, 04:17 PM)
Clinton, obviously a democrat, greatly improved our economy and paid for national debt during his two terms. When Bush Jr. arrived, here came once again an indebted country.
I have to ask how you feel "Clinton improved" the economy during his terms. Not a bash on Bill mind you, but I do not feel the administration had anything to do with the booming economy, it was merely a boom due to tech stocks and the internet, telecom craze as Julian mentioned above. We all know now most of that was a mirage anyway, so it is really nothing to crow about. (again not a shot against Bill, but many supporters of his still bring up "the Clinton economy" which IMO is nothing to really be proud of.) It is the people of this country that make the economy boom, not the gov't.
On the other hand, I agree with you that tax cuts need to be pared with reductions in spending. Our budget deficit now is not out of hand when looked at as a percentage of our GDP however. That being said, we can always use a tax cut, but D.C. needs to go on the Atkins diet and lose a large amount of fat.
Okay, i'm not gonna rally as a backer for Bush because i think the U.S economy was gonna collapse back in 2000.
Oct. 1999: Is the American economy about to collapse?
In my opinion, it's a bad inheritence
Oct. 1999: Is the American economy about to collapse?
QUOTE
All indicators suggest that the stock market is significantly overvalued by about 50-60%. For example, market capitalization is 140% of the gross national product, which dwarves the previous record (81% in 1929). A lot of this overvaluation is due to weak foreign economies: Japanese & European investors flocked to Wall St because their own economies were in shamble. If those investors flee, the stock market will crash.
QUOTE
The dollar has been boosted artificially by the same factors that kept stock prices unrealistically high. A quiet sell-off of dollars has actually been going on for a while (both the euro & yen are up sharply from a year ago) & could pick up steam if the Japanese & European economies improve. But a sharp decline in the dollar would have these effects: it would increase inflation (which has been low mainly because of cheaper imports), which would push up interest rates, which would cause a sell-off of stocks, which would cause a flight of foreign investment, which would cause a decline in the dollar, which would cause... etc.
In my opinion, it's a bad inheritence
QUOTE
This makes it the Republicans who have deteriorated our economy with our extensive national debt. Clinton, obviously a democrat, greatly improved our economy and paid for national debt during his two terms. When Bush Jr. arrived, here came once again an indebted country.
I don't think I'm known at AD as a militant Clinton basher (though I didn't care for him), but what specifically did Clinton and not the republican controlled congress do for the economy?
I believe Bill was fortunate to preside over a booming economy with the rise of the dot com's, just as Bush is in office for their bust.
But having said that, I agree that both parties OVERSPEND. It's especially hypocritical when the GOP campaigns on the idea of smaller government, hence my (L) instead of ® party affiliation.
So YES, the repubs are bad for the economy....just as are the dems.
I'd like to say first of all, thanks for the responses, and second of all I'd like to specifcally respond to "stotty203" and "dontreadonme". Clinton and his administration worked to balance the budget during his terms. Because of this, the government had to borrow less money, and therefore improved interest rates a great deal.
And thus, with the heavy Republican spending rates, plus the war debts, our economy isn't doing too well underneath the Republican leadership.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.