Full Version: Bush-preferred on economy, not the war
We are all familiar with the stereotype that Republicans are better than democrats at foreign affairs and that democrats for the most, are preferred to handle domestic problems. I'm not stating that these are concrete facts, so please don't take issue with this statement, it's a popular concept(no matter how good or bad you think it is) and it's one that has been around for a long time. According to a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll, a majority of Americans now believe that Bush is doing better at managing the economy than the war! 
Questions to debate:
1.)Is "the stereotype" still true despite what the poll says?
2.)How should the Kerry campaign react to this?
3.)What economic events would lead you to conclude that the president is doing a good job on the economy?
4.)What events prove that the public(at least in this poll) are mistaken about the status of the war?**Just a side note, I know that it's tempting to just write a one sentence response and be done with it. I do it too, mainly out of laziness. Please provide hyperlinks and evidence that backs up your view on this. I definitely want to hear from you in regards to question #1 and #4. The latter can be argued to be a media exposure issue, but the net is awfully big, and the good news awfully sparse. Enlighten us if you will!
Questions to debate:
1.)Is "the stereotype" still true despite what the poll says?
2.)How should the Kerry campaign react to this?
3.)What economic events would lead you to conclude that the president is doing a good job on the economy?
4.)What events prove that the public(at least in this poll) are mistaken about the status of the war?**Just a side note, I know that it's tempting to just write a one sentence response and be done with it. I do it too, mainly out of laziness. Please provide hyperlinks and evidence that backs up your view on this. I definitely want to hear from you in regards to question #1 and #4. The latter can be argued to be a media exposure issue, but the net is awfully big, and the good news awfully sparse. Enlighten us if you will!
1. Republicans will always argue that they have had successes with the domestic economy with tax cuts and controlling government growth. The democrats will argue just the opposite. So, the stereotype is true.. depending on which side of the fence you are on.
2. Kerry should stop down trodding the growth of the current economy. Instead he should take a stance of “we are doing good, but we could be doing better” approach. It is always the smartest path to look forward instead of pointing to the past. If Kerry wants to win this he has got to stop talking as if things are so bad and instead focus on how to make things even better.
3. More Tax decreases. That is about the only thing a President can do to effect the economy. Everything else is private sector controlled or influenced. Depending on which side of the fence you reside, Tax increase equals more money for the government to increase social spending, yet on the other side, less taxes can also increase government funds to increase social spending.
4. I don’t think anything can change the public’s view on anything. I have seen arguments on both sides about this war and all of them rely on semantics. A good example is the current debate on the al-Q-Iraq ties. One side says there are no ties between the two that constituted an invasion and removal of a nation’s leader(s). The other side says there was sufficient ties and stands with the administration’s claims/reports that there were.
It all boils down to points of view and delivery of said points. One side will have to deliver their points of view better than the other one. The media will help deliver those views, some will skew it (or spin it) some wont. Only time will tell.
2. Kerry should stop down trodding the growth of the current economy. Instead he should take a stance of “we are doing good, but we could be doing better” approach. It is always the smartest path to look forward instead of pointing to the past. If Kerry wants to win this he has got to stop talking as if things are so bad and instead focus on how to make things even better.
3. More Tax decreases. That is about the only thing a President can do to effect the economy. Everything else is private sector controlled or influenced. Depending on which side of the fence you reside, Tax increase equals more money for the government to increase social spending, yet on the other side, less taxes can also increase government funds to increase social spending.
4. I don’t think anything can change the public’s view on anything. I have seen arguments on both sides about this war and all of them rely on semantics. A good example is the current debate on the al-Q-Iraq ties. One side says there are no ties between the two that constituted an invasion and removal of a nation’s leader(s). The other side says there was sufficient ties and stands with the administration’s claims/reports that there were.
It all boils down to points of view and delivery of said points. One side will have to deliver their points of view better than the other one. The media will help deliver those views, some will skew it (or spin it) some wont. Only time will tell.
1.)Is "the stereotype" still true despite what the poll says?
I don't think so, it might have been true at one point, but it hasn't held true for the past decade or so.
Clinton, our most recent Democrat, had a good record both domestically and abroad. Domestically we saw the best economy on record (if you credit him as people typically do credit the president, I personally don't), the deficit was greatly reduced, much environmental legislation was passed. However, you can just as easily say he screwed up welfare with his "welfare reform". In the foreign policy arena, he was a champion of human rights and the first president to really take a stand on terrorism (even though he didn't go nearly far enough). He passed NAFTA and made more progress than any other US president with middle east peace (which was reversed when he left office).
Note: I'm not defending Clinton here, or saying he was the best president we ever had. Far from that actually, I believe he made just as many mistakes as he did things right. But it disproves the stereotype.
Bush, on the other hand has done nothing of note domestically although he often gets credit for the recovery of the economy. He has focused primarily on foreign policy (and he didn't really have a choice). I thought he was moving in the right direction with Afghanistan and supported him. Once he went after Iraq, I changed my mind and we all know what a disaster that has been.
In today's world, I don't think that Republicans and Democrats are all that different. There was a much bigger polarization in previous decades.
2.)How should the Kerry campaign react to this?
Kerry needs to stop harping on the economy. The economy was always a weak issue and it is too risky -- if you talk about it early in the campaign and it improves you are left without a position.
Kerry still stands to score some points with both blue and white collar workers with his stance on outsourcing. President Bush supports the practice and Kerry does not. Kerry believes it may be necessary but we should at the very least stop giving corporations tax breaks for doing it and do a better job of retraining workers.
3.)What economic events would lead you to conclude that the president is doing a good job on the economy?
I really don't think Bush has anything to do with the economy, or any president for that matter. The Federal Reserve (i.e. Greenspan) is who I would credit for the improvements we have had in the economy. Interest rates have been at record lows for years and we are finally starting to see the results of that policy. The low rates have caused people to invest, buy homes, spend, etc.
Secondly, corporations have finally learned their lessons from the dot com crash and venture capital firms have opened their wallets again. Startups must now actually prove they have a plan to make money to get investment dollars from VC firms. This has begun the healing for that industry.
4.)What events prove that the public(at least in this poll) are mistaken about the status of the war?**
I don't think the public is mistaken about the war at all in this poll. There have been numerous debates here on AD discussing various issues concerning the war. What it really comes down to is do you believe that the end justifies the means or not.
If you believe the end justifies the means, then the war in Iraq is going well -- We captured Saddam, killed his sons and Iraq is taking steps toward forming a new government.
If you do not believe the end justifies the means, then you have a lot of problems with the justification of the war in the first place, the policy shift that this war represents and the treatment of prisoners in Abu Gharib which appears (but is not yet proven) to have been policy.
I think most Americans fall into this second category philosophically, the end does not justify the means, especially if the means involve lying and deceit. These Americans would not do something they felt was morally wrong, just to achieve a goal.
I don't think so, it might have been true at one point, but it hasn't held true for the past decade or so.
Clinton, our most recent Democrat, had a good record both domestically and abroad. Domestically we saw the best economy on record (if you credit him as people typically do credit the president, I personally don't), the deficit was greatly reduced, much environmental legislation was passed. However, you can just as easily say he screwed up welfare with his "welfare reform". In the foreign policy arena, he was a champion of human rights and the first president to really take a stand on terrorism (even though he didn't go nearly far enough). He passed NAFTA and made more progress than any other US president with middle east peace (which was reversed when he left office).
Note: I'm not defending Clinton here, or saying he was the best president we ever had. Far from that actually, I believe he made just as many mistakes as he did things right. But it disproves the stereotype.
Bush, on the other hand has done nothing of note domestically although he often gets credit for the recovery of the economy. He has focused primarily on foreign policy (and he didn't really have a choice). I thought he was moving in the right direction with Afghanistan and supported him. Once he went after Iraq, I changed my mind and we all know what a disaster that has been.
In today's world, I don't think that Republicans and Democrats are all that different. There was a much bigger polarization in previous decades.
2.)How should the Kerry campaign react to this?
Kerry needs to stop harping on the economy. The economy was always a weak issue and it is too risky -- if you talk about it early in the campaign and it improves you are left without a position.
Kerry still stands to score some points with both blue and white collar workers with his stance on outsourcing. President Bush supports the practice and Kerry does not. Kerry believes it may be necessary but we should at the very least stop giving corporations tax breaks for doing it and do a better job of retraining workers.
3.)What economic events would lead you to conclude that the president is doing a good job on the economy?
I really don't think Bush has anything to do with the economy, or any president for that matter. The Federal Reserve (i.e. Greenspan) is who I would credit for the improvements we have had in the economy. Interest rates have been at record lows for years and we are finally starting to see the results of that policy. The low rates have caused people to invest, buy homes, spend, etc.
Secondly, corporations have finally learned their lessons from the dot com crash and venture capital firms have opened their wallets again. Startups must now actually prove they have a plan to make money to get investment dollars from VC firms. This has begun the healing for that industry.
4.)What events prove that the public(at least in this poll) are mistaken about the status of the war?**
I don't think the public is mistaken about the war at all in this poll. There have been numerous debates here on AD discussing various issues concerning the war. What it really comes down to is do you believe that the end justifies the means or not.
If you believe the end justifies the means, then the war in Iraq is going well -- We captured Saddam, killed his sons and Iraq is taking steps toward forming a new government.
If you do not believe the end justifies the means, then you have a lot of problems with the justification of the war in the first place, the policy shift that this war represents and the treatment of prisoners in Abu Gharib which appears (but is not yet proven) to have been policy.
I think most Americans fall into this second category philosophically, the end does not justify the means, especially if the means involve lying and deceit. These Americans would not do something they felt was morally wrong, just to achieve a goal.
QUOTE(Cube Jockey @ Jun 22 2004, 11:23 AM)
If you believe the end justifies the means, then the war in Iraq is going well -- We captured Saddam, killed his sons and Iraq is taking steps toward forming a new government.
I guess I would like to see a more broad discussion of what is necessarily going "right" in Iraq. I'd like to know progress in terms of the infrastructure, economy, as well as labor. We hear vague things about the above mentioned "going well" but no statistics or anything of substance. I just see the debate on the pro side of this as being lacking, just a flawed opinion-not necessarily god's truth.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.