Charlie Reese has an article It's The Economy, Stupid in which he says President Bush should focus more on the dismal US (and world) economy and less on the WAT.

What do you think? Do you agree or disagree?

Does WAT = WAR? Sorry, I don't know what a WAT is otherwise heh heh

Bush is doing everything he can, and should, do for the economy. Nothing.

The last thing the economy needs is gov't assistance. Let it work the bugs out on it's own. It always has and it always will. History shows us that gov't interference hinders, not helps, the economy.

--cheers

WAT = War against terrorism?

Just my guess...

Really, when it comes to the economy, what exactly does the President do? He doesn't have much power.

Sure, he can negotiate on our behalf for foreign trade, but he can't manipulate the stock market, he can't cut or raise taxes, and he can't force companies to hire employees.

Most of the economic issues fall into the lap of the Congress. They pass the budget. They pass tax law. They influence the economy.

Presidents are held responsible or given credit for the economy during their term, even though they have little to do with the factors that lead up to it.

I think he should focus on the war on terrorism, as he doesn't seem to be doing much else.

Mike

*moving topic to Domestic Policy...

Herbet Hoover felt that the ups and downs of the business cycle
were natural phenomena that should not be tampered with.
And what happened? We got Hoovervills popping up all over.

I admit, the circumstances are not the same now as then,
but it's something to think about. I worry about the loss of
jobs causing a depression as in the 30's. A bad time, I was there.

The Pres. is doing what he can for the economy. As Mike said, it is up to congress to get a budget to him. He has invoked the Taft-Hartley law. That was not an easy step to take.
Hoover raised interest rates. That made things much worse in an economic
downturn. He was considered quite a liberal in his day. Roosevelt had supported him.
Another FYI I found interesting in a book by William Manchester is that the term Depression was coined by Hoover because it sounded less frightening than "Panic or crisis"
Kiplinger in his book states that " If our study of business cycles has taught us anything, it is that every excess is self-correcting."
Concerning job losses one must consider that unemployment though just having gone down is at about normal. People are still working, and they are earning more. (I am not referring to CEO's) Some of the recent earnings news is much than the stock market expected, and we will have to wait and see what it does. It is very skittish right now because of more than I can go into here.
At any rate, I think the President should definitely concentrate on the War with Iraq, but by the same token he must look to the finances of the country also. We need production. That creates jobs. No one seems to know what to do exactly. Perhaps cutting capital gains would help. These are the pople with the money to create the jobs.

Right, WAT is War Against Terrorism.

As for my personal views on what the president should focus on...

It's not the President's responsibility to look after the financial welfare of America. That's the responsibility of Congress.

US Constitution Section 8
Clause 1:
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"
Clause 3:
"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"

The Prez is the Commander in Chief. He's not the Chief Financial Officer. It's his duty to oversee the military, not the economy.

Also forgot to mention that inflation is under control.

Mouse. Hoover was a Republican, Roosevelt argued that the depression stemmed from US econ.
underlaying flaws, aggravated by Republican polocies during the 1920.

OUTLINE OF AMER. HISTORY, WAR PROSPERITY , DEPRESSION

Hoover is no longer blamed for causing the depression, but he is faulted for perpetuating it, and for
failing to relieve Americans' pain and suffering through federal relief.
Hoover's unbending commitment to "trickle down" economics,
rather than activist government intervention in the economy, held firm at the worst possible time and
doomed his presidency and the fortunes of millions. He is remembered as a tragic failure.

Call it "panic and crisis" or call it The Great Depression. It was a horrible time. Worse for some than others.

I know, I was there. I remember bread and milk for supper.
This should probably be on another thread so I won't say anymore.

R was a Republican?? Duh!
Yes he was. That is why it struck me to find he was supported by Roosevelt and considered Liberal. This is backed up in several books. You are probably right in saying this should be elsewhere.

[QUOTE=MOUSE,Oct 18 2002, 07:59 AM]R was a Republican?? Duh!



If you're referring to Roosevelt, I've heard him called a lot of things

but NEVER a Republican.

Madtown

I don't know why my post read that way. The first word wasHOOVER.It apprears only the last letter came through.
Also, please you do not have a lock on depression memories so please don't take the moral high ground with me. At least you had milk! Some of us just had rice!!!!!!!!
Oh yes, I remember

Mouse.

I am afraid we have gotten off to a bad start. I apologize if my posts seem
condescending or, as if I was taking the moral high ground. Somtimes the
wrong message is sent unintentionally.

I am a life long Democrat and obviously you are a Republican. Also, I am a great
admirer of FDR. I think we could have an interesting exchange of ideas and opinions
if we let go of the sarcasm etc.

I"m looking forward to reading more about HH and FDR and having more
"conversations" with you about them and the economy. I don't think that Dems are
always right or that Repubs are always wrong.

Yes, we were fortunate to always have milk. My grandparents were farmers and kept us
supplied with milk.

Madtown

Mike, do you mean that Bush's tax rebate was not his idea?
Doesn't a president have to be aware what shape the economy
is in and maybe give Congress a little nudge?

If the president has no power over the economy and congress
isn't doing a darn thing, not even passing a budget...then
who is responsible? We just let things go to the dogs?

MT

Ever since Roosevelt took on the Great Depression, presidents have been assumed to be economic stewards. When the economy fails, voters punish them. This assumes a great deal about what the responsibilities of Washington are, and it's a set of responsibilities Roosevelt laid on the shoulders of all future presidents.

E.J. Dionne Jr.
Washington Post Staff Writer

I read Dionne Jr. at least 3 times a week in our local paper. He is an extremely liberal writer so I am not at all surprised by his statements. I disagree with it though.

Yes, the tax cut was President Bush's idea. But he cannot do it alone. It has to be done by the House and Senate.
He, at least has a plan. You guessed it...more tax cuts. Why on earth should married people pay a penalty in taxes just for being married? Talk about hypocritical. They are frowned upon for living together without marriage and yet penalized when the do marry. Make sense of that. The plans Sen Breaux (who by the way is a Dem.) and Senators Lieberman & McCain have for SS are good, but Daschle stays in the way along with Byrd the biggest porker for his state that ever was.
So far the Democrats have not come out with a plan and the latest polls show there is not much difference in the way the voting public feel about either party when it comes to running the economy.

why not give us a target on this so we can read the whole thing?

Gee Mouse, I think it would be complicated. I went into several links reading about that grand old guy.

I guess I'm just not as talented on the computer as you are. I'm going to keep on posting my own way

MT

Well if you find posting links for what Dionne has to say a problem .....YOU DO HAVE A PROBLEM

Mouse

I don't see how you can disagree that Roosevelt was the first president to take on the economy the way he did. I believe he had to convince congress to make some changes so he could implement his programs.

People always throw those terms around...extremely liberal, gung ho liberal.

I agree about the married folks. Also, Byrd always manages to get a great plenty for his state.

MT

Sorry I was so short. Actually, I just think it is a good idea to give a target so that people can read the whole article and not just a part of it. In my opinion it gives it more weight. Very often things are taken out of context and/or different people will have a varying views of what is written. It is easy to do this by giving the paper or www of where you see it. I am sure you know how to "cut and paste". If not I would be happy to send you a note explaining as I think it would be valuable information for you.
I couldn't spend enough time to locate the article you were referring to,but you might enjoy this link.
[URL=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/opinion/columns/dionneej/]

It is simple..I disagree. He took on congress and created a mess.
I do not "throw terms around" like liberal and I have never used the term Gung ho anything!
You seem to dish it out,but get very personal when someone disagres with you.

[FONT=Arial][SIZE=1] Remind me, has Bush ever said anything other then ambiguous gobbledygook? He wants to leave no children behind? How? Destroying the public school system? Bush shouldn't focus on anything! That seems to work. Maybe another war will help him win our hearts once again. Bush is walking way too softly and carrying a really, really big stick!

k I'll remind you. President Bush has said something other than ambiguous Gobbledygook. He is intelligent, has good programs, is a good leader, enjoys popularity with the INFORMED American People, and in general is just a good guy. It isn't necessary for him to win our hearts once again. He didn't lose many if any. For every one he lost he picked up another, maybe two. He is the best thing to happen to the school system since its inception!

The reason Bush is so popular is he is a Cheerleader for America. He should be the Principal of our collective American High School.

Bush is "intelligent"? Has "good programs"?? Is "a good leader"??? He's "the best thing to happen to the school system since its inception"?!?!? Okay, someone here's posting from an extremely unlikely parallel universe. I have to come down on the side of "ambiguous gobbledegook" on this one. But, then, I'm only going by the evidence.


Okay... back to the topic:

While I'd rather not get embroiled in the Madtown-Mouse fued, I agree with the Dionne sentiment that, since FDR, "presidents have been assumed to be economic stewards" - for better or worse. When the economy fails, voters do punish them - and, I might add, when it succeeds, they reward them, by and large. Granted, it is (and should be) up to Congress to legislate taxes and pass budgets, but recent presidents (and this one, sadly, is no exception) do tend to set the agenda and - especially when they are supported by partisanship - often see their economic policies dominating those tax decisions and budgets. That being the case, President Bush should not utter one more word about the economy for the rest of his tenure in office.

If Bush were capable of (or interested in) pulling back from his war-mongering, I would suggest that Defense (rather than Offense) should be his primary focus. As he is clearly not interested in peace - or, for that matter, addressing the causes of terrorism in any way whatsoever - he should also steer well clear of his duties as Commander in Chief. Education? No. The environment? Definitely not. Health care? Social security? Agriculture? Welfare? Foreign policy in general? No. No! No!! No!!! Aaaagh!!! Frankly, like Rancid, I don't personally feel that George W Bush should put emphasis on much of anything.

Maybe he should just spend the next two years trying real hard to figure out how to swallow a pretzel without threatening - horrors! - to put Dick Cheney behind the desk in the Oval Office. That would be good - and possibly the best thing he could do to protect US citizens. At least Bush is just a marionette - and far preferable to one of his most dangerous puppeteers.

Why is Bush giving Israel $4 billion dollars in aid when it could be better spent on Americans and their well being??.

Regards..Alan

The $4 billion dollars should not have been taken away from Americans initially.

jjirout

We know that Bush would like to say this!

Bush: The reason we give so much money to the Israelis is so we can push those falafel eaters back to the Euphrates River without doing ourselves!

(If he can pronounce falafel and Euphrates) (or knows what they are)

Why do YOU care?

It is obvious you don't like Bush and think he is ignorant. OK, that's fine, your choice. I think Bush has done a lot of good things so far, and I disagree some things he's done as well. His tax cut was good, we need more tax cuts. The democrat notion that the way to help the economy is to repeal the tax cut is the most ignorant thing I have ever heard. Also, Bush is at least trying to do something to fix Social Security. He is not planning to "privatize" the whole thing like the DNC lies about, but rather allow younger workers, like myself, to invest maybe 2-3% in an outside fund or bond that would pay a higher return. What is wrong with that? Also, Bush is for school vouchers, which I think is a good idea. If people have a right to choose where their kids go to school then it is obvious that they are going to pick a better school, and other schools are going to have to improve. I agree with him getting tough on Saddam Hussein. Saddam has been in violation of every term he agreed to after the Gulf War, he shoots at NATO fighters on a weekly basis, and he may be developing nuclear and chemical weapons. So because Bush gets the UN to get its head of its you know what and start enforcing the terms he agreed to you think he is a war monger? I have to disagree. What do you propose be done about Saddam? For every single person that says Bush is a war monger and just wants to go to war with Iraq, I have not heard one of them make other suggestions as to what should be done. However, I do disagree with many provisions of the new Homeland Security Bill, for one, we do not need another huge government agency to make this country safer. Also, the latest idea to create a giant databse about all Americans is scarily similar to the novel 1984, and should not even be considered. We have fought 2 World wars and many others without the need for something like that, and we don't need it now.

I think that President Bush is doing as much as he possibly can. It is a lot to cope with. After all we found that our country is very vulnerable and I think that we would all agree that the terrorism problem needs to be dealt with. As some have stated the President really does not have much to do with the economy. They control inflation that is true but regulating that can only do so much. Ultimately we the people control the economy. If we dont buy the economy goes down if we do it goes up. We control it. If you want to change the shape of our economy you will have to convince people to have faith in the Market again. No one knows how to predict what the market will do. It is a game of chance you win some you lose some. But if people dont play the trading game we wont know what is gonna happend because there will be no economy for anything to happen in.

Bush promised to get the people that attacked us. If that were all he were doing don't you think everyone would support him? I do not like the path he has taken us down as an aggressive, greedy, global threat. We have always done this in varying degree's but we have never tried to justify an offensive attack before. To do it now, with a flimsy excuse that doesn't hold up to scrutiny is plain wrong. American's are not as risk of being attacked by Iraq, neither directly or indirectly. But we are still being attacked by terrorists with the help of those that Bush calls 'our good friends.'

This does not mean we should go and bomb those nations next. Bombs do not work for every situation. They will only make things worse in THIS situation as well.

Yet, we pour all of our money into our military and the military of Isreal so that we can fight people who have no way to defend themselves.

We push our morals on others arbitrarily. We pick and choose which crimes we want to ignore and which ones we want to be indignant about.

We don't stand by any of our values for freedom. We do the opposite of what we preach. For instance, we say leaders should be elected by their people, but if we don't like who they elect we cause conflict and arm their enemies.

We have no right to do this. Bush is not responsible by himself or for past mistakes. But he has a responsibility to consider them and to lessen the threat. Every action he has taken has only increased it and oppressed others. This is not simply a party disagreement. It's a human one and it's more important than our current economy. Which, Btw, is only made to suffer by these acts. All of this has far reaching consequenses that our children and their children will be impacted by for years to come.

Actually if you are suggesting that our economy is suffering because of the war on terror I would have to disagree with you. The economy was already on the way down before Sep. 11th, and the attacks just gave it a boost. Bush just happend to be the President at the time so he gets blamed for the bad economy because he is the easiest to put the blame on right? Well the past few weeks the economy has been going up, stocks are up as a whole and we are begining to stableize again. And another note, in the past when there has been war the economy always goes down at first but then there has always been an economy boom. So for this reason I think that Bush should stay focused on the terror issue and the economy will work itself out.

Bush has limited the pay raises of hundreds of thousands of Federal workers across the nation because of the "National Emergency." I wonder if this "National Emergency" is going to delay Bush's tax cut for rich people: he's got billions of our tax-payer dollars to spend on that.

In this time of "National Emergency" how we can afford to eliminate the estate tax, a move that benefits only the richest people in the country including his family, Dick Cheney's family and all of his administration and thier friends.

MT

As ususal MT has only half facts..if that. The ones who are hurt and hurt badly by the inheritance tax is small business and farmers. Farmer are really hurt, and not many will survive. People like Dick Cheny know a thousand ways to "get around" paying inheritance tax. It is the small guy that can't afford to do that.
The rest of the "rich" and taxes is just more of your rhetoric. It goes on and on .....................