To add to this poll: I am defining an economic recovery as a increase in GDP, large drop in unemployment, and all markets having large gains.

Now this may seem like an asinine question. Why would anyone not want to see our economy have a turn around right now? The reason I am asking is because if we did have a significant economic recovery, it would help Bush tremendously in the 2004 election.

Who would ever answer no to a question like this? That's like asking if you would like your perfectly healthy leg seavered. The answer is always 'no'.

Incendently from an economics persepctive recovery is GDP only.

I cant believe you might think that people would rather have a poor economy than George W. as president. Even if you dont like him or hate him you cant say you want a recession.

Ahhh. Don't be so quick to assume..

Take a look at this story from California where Democrats debated trying to extend the budget crisis to try and pass a tax increase.

So your suggesting that we should prolong suffering of the unemployed 6% (roughly more than 15 million) just so we can discredit the Republican party?

You are misreading me. I am saying there are those out there that would not want a positive turn around(as illustrated by my link).

Debates on how much to compromise on the budget is a bit different than hoping there's no recovery in the economy at large. Anyway, by the same logic that a turn around nationally would help Bush, a CA budget solution or turnaround would have taken the wind out of the recall effort and helped the Dems. I don't think a few CA state Assembly Dems discussing what might help or hurt movement toward a balanced budget is exactly a smoking gun that many are hoping the national economy stays in the gutter.

Heck yes!

Beats a sharp stick in the eye any day. I have heard it said that Democrats would love to have the economy continuing in its present malaise so that the political fortunes of the President and the Republicans would be impaired. I suppose that there may be people like that out there-but what kind of people would they be? I don't think that most mainstream Dems think this way. The President is providing plenty of ammunition to attack his policies without our having to wish for the infirmities of the National economy to continue.

Trying to see how many Marxist revolutionaries there are in the crowd? Ummmm, economic good times equals good thing and improved society (with a good healthy dose of democratic socialism of course) Sign me up for more rather than less.

Well, jeez, if the president and republican lawmakers suddenly became competent I would vote for them anyway, because that is what it would take for an economic recovery. Pragmatism is always the best way to run a goverment, and the people currently in charge don't have a clue. So the economic recovery would only happen due to a miracle of sudden competence, so I vote yes!

It's sad that party politics and the economic health and stability of our nation have to so intertwined. Just another reason I am so frustrated with politicians in general...

Of course I'd like to see an economic recovery now.

I want to see the economy recover ASAP, whether it benefits Bush or not. The country needs to get out of this recession now.

If I am not mistaken the U.S. is not technically in a recession. That term is very specific: a period where the economy shrinks instead of expanding.

This is not to say that there is no downturn though. The American economy is going through a sort of jobless expansion where wealth is being created and economic activity is growing, but it is a sort of top down growth that doesn't penetrate the lower levels of the economy.

Right on. It strikes me as funny to think that whoever is sitting in the white house somehow controls the economy. It brings a picture to mind of GWB sitting before a big control panel pushing buttons and pulling levers.

Of course government policy has an impact on the economy, but it is one of many factors in a system far too complex for anyone to "manage". And in most cases, the effects of government action lag significantly behind the actions themselves, so cause and effect is extremely hard, if not impossible to demonstrate.

Yet, we routinely hear supposedly serious people talk about "how Bush is running the economy", etc. Argh.

No, Bush can't run the economy. But he can pay some attention to what is causing people to be out of work. Or at least pretend to... It seems the defense industries are booming, though.

Maybe it's not a recession. There are just a lot of people without jobs who really want to work. Industries are shutting down here and moving their operations out of the country.

How are jobless people supposed to continue to pay for goods and services?

Of course this economic downturn needs to end, the sooner the better, regardless of which politicians benefit from it.

Yes,I would love to see an economic recovery but I am afraid it will be a jobless recovery.

Yes, the companies are doing better because of increase in employee productivity.
But increased employee productivity is another name for upper management cutting jobs and forcing the people left to do more

The fortune 500 company I work for is in the process of cutting 100s of jobs. Guess where the cuts are coming from? The people at the low end. There is not one job being cut from middle management and upper management.

You are probably asking why is he boring me with these facts. Just an illustration of what the REPUBLICAN PARTY and KING GEORGE II advocate. Remember the trickle down theory from the great actor PRESIDENT REAGAN. It sure worked didn't it!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I registered a null vote due to the loaded question.

Economic recovery is poorly defined in economics. Just because corporations are making money (and that is also under question right now--creative accounting, you know) doesn't mean the economy is actually recovering.

So GDP is up. whoopee, and so is massive outsourcing of US jobs to foreign nationals. I was pointed to a site that does this with systems administration! Is nothing sacred? But the freelance writing biz is up, and I doubt this can ever be outsourced overseas to people working English as a second language

If we define economic recovery as being tied to the unemployment rate, then I'd say the original question has meaning. If just to GDP, then no. Too many hidden factors like outsourcing.

As far as the premise goes, all politicians wish ill winds on opposition incumbents. As pointed out, Repubs took advantage of a bad economy in California. No party is clean of this tactic.

I get the intent, though. Would Demos purposefully hurt economic recovery to gain power? You know, by raising taxes?

GHWB raised taxes, yet economic recovery happened in the 1990s. Rather strongly, I might add. So the intent of the question doesn't make sense. Raising taxes doesn't necessarily mean hurting the economy and vise versa.

But I know this is a cherished Republican ideal, whether it is true or not.

I answered "yes" to what has to be one of the most loaded questions I've ever seen presented on America's Debate. It's like asking if you love your son or your daughter more.

Way to go, Sleeper.

Why should it come to any surprise that political parties say one thing and mean another? Of course a return to the relative economic good times of the Clinton Administration would be welcome. Maybe when we elect a Democratic President next year we will get one.

But if it happens under Bush's watch and reassures his reelection, I won't cry in my beer about it. If Bush's economic policies bring about a decrease in unemployment, an increase in real wages and creates jobs as he hopes they will then he probably should get the credit and be handily reelected.

Of course, my Daddy always says, "Hope in one hand and crap in the other and see which fills up first."

for the Demcrats to win the next election, america basically has to fail. the iraq situation has to become a disaster of epic proportions, the economy has to go into recession and double digit unemployment etc etc would help also.

I like seeing the economy do well under any administration. The ship does have to sink to get Bush out. Is that happening? not hardly.

I voted yes, but I can see a valid rationale for voting no. Let's say that someone believed the Bush administration's policies guaranteed long-term economic stagnation or outright failure. That person might wish to see Bush voted out even if that meant delaying a temporary economic recovery. That's not hating Bush; that's just doing what Americans really hate to do - thinking ahead.

I do happen to believe that our trade and military policies are the equivalent of junk food - momentarily satisfying but ultimately unhealthy. Were a similar question asked in one of those domains I might well vote to forego the immediate gratification. However, when it comes to the domestic economy I don't happen to believe Bush's policies are quite disastrous enough to justify such a vote.

I voted yes... and am quite surprised someone voted a "no"! I have friends that have been unemployed for more than a year -- educated experts, not bums!
I myself lost my job and had to move and work 1,400 miles from were I used to be!

And the economy will get better.. because the price of oil will go down in 2004, and the price of energy affects the immediate economy. And yes, Bush will get the credit and millions of voters with 2 weeks worth of memory will totally forget the last three years of misery and vote for him...

Unless Bin Ladin and his pirates do something real nasty -- and none of us want that I hope! But then the People would feel it is not patriotic to vote against the President while he's fighting a war... so they'll vote for him anyway.

I just hope the recovery is permanent... thou' I know better...