Bush Approval rating at 68%

[Timber Loftis]

Sorry, I just see a definite economic trend. During Clinton's president-elect period, the economy Bush Sr. had struggled with for 4 years turned up. During Bush's president-elect period, it turned back down. When it first happened I said, "Great, Bush Sr. finally got it fixed - but not in time to help him in the election." Now, I see it differently.

Clinton behaved like a perfect economic actor, IMHO. He turned a blind eye to corporate greed, promised everything was great, spent a lot, but also insisted on a balanced budget. We bought it, and rode the technology bubble for all it was worth, and we were all a bit richer. And yes, I realize I'm justifying some irresponsibly means with this good result. But, during his presidency, for the first time in 50 years, America finally operated in the black for a change, at least for a moment.

Reaganomics and trickle-down are laughable - absolutely. Reagan overspent on the military - remember the $6 Billion attempt at a stealth bomber that couldn't make it off the ground? There was, again IMHO, a very justifiable result on such ludicrous defense spending - we won the cold war in the only peacable way. So, I don't fault him too much for it. It was a genius result that may well not have been intended by Reagan - sorta like how Pulp Fiction is way better than Tarentino could have intended, no matter what his ego says.

But, all that aside, over time you must admit: Reagon, high unemployment and poverty; Bush Sr., high unemployment, poverty, and recession; Clinton, lower employment, still high poverty, boom economy; Bush Jr., high unemployment, poverty, and recession.

Quite simply, I don't care what patch of sand we go make war on. If President Bush wants my vote, he has a short while to do something positive with the economy.

Originally posted by Attalus: Actually, it was beginning to tank during Clinton's last year.

Well according to the numbers that were put out by the Budget people, it actually started tanking a year earlier, remember all those companies that went bust were misreporting their earnings. Clintons Administration (Im sure he had no part in it) cooked the books to keep things from looking so bad.

[Sazerac]

Now this is what gets me. Presidents always get blamed for a "bad economy" or praised for a "good economy", when in fact the economy is virtually independent of their actions. They can help "nudge" it with their policies (which are largely influenced by Congress as well, thank you), but being responsible for the entire movement of the economy? They might as well be responsible for the movement of the tides in the ocean.

Economies go through CYCLES, people. It's practically a natural law. You have a period of expansion, then a period of contraction, then a period of re-expansion, and, hopefully, every time it happens, it grows a little bit. Executive policy may help dictate how much that growth is, or help ameliorate some of the negative impacts of a recession, but that growth period and that recession period IS going to occur.

Herbert Hoover was a poor schmuck who just happened into office right when the stock market crashed in 1929. At any other time in history, he probably would have been a fairly capable president. Clinton just so happened to "luck out" in that his term was during a period of economic growth. Bush, unfortunately, seems to have drawn the "recession" card, and will be unfairly blamed for that, just like all presidents who have had terms during periods of economic recession have had to shoulder that blame.

-Sazerac

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Sorry, I just see a definite economic trend. During Clinton's president-elect period, the economy Bush Sr. had struggled with for 4 years turned up. During Bush's president-elect period, it turned back down. When it first happened I said, "Great, Bush Sr. finally got it fixed - but not in time to help him in the election." Now, I see it differently. Clinton behaved like a perfect economic actor, IMHO. He turned a blind eye to corporate greed, promised everything was great, spent a lot, but also insisted on a balanced budget. We bought it, and rode the technology bubble for all it was worth, and we were all a bit richer. And yes, I realize I'm justifying some irresponsibly means with this good result. But, during his presidency, for the first time in 50 years, America finally operated in the black for a change, at least for a moment. Reaganomics and trickle-down are laughable - absolutely. Reagan overspent on the military - remember the $6 Billion attempt at a stealth bomber that couldn't make it off the ground? There was, again IMHO, a very justifiable result on such ludicrous defense spending - we won the cold war in the only peacable way. So, I don't fault him too much for it. It was a genius result that may well not have been intended by Reagan - sorta like how Pulp Fiction is way better than Tarentino could have intended, no matter what his ego says. You ignore the fact that Reagans "trickle down" theory double the revenue generated during the 80's. Just because congress spent more than the increase in revenue you cant say that it failed. And for your information the budget for the mid 80's on defense was only 14% of the national budget. NOT an unreasonable price to break the back of the Soviet Union which is exactly what it did. But, all that aside, over time you must admit: Reagon, high unemployment and poverty; Bush Sr., high unemployment, poverty, and recession; Clinton, lower employment, still high poverty, boom economy; Bush Jr., high unemployment, poverty, and recession. High unemployment? where? 4.5% of the total working age population 2% of which is completely unemployable...doesnt sound so bad to me. Now 10% that would be bad. Quite simply, I don't care what patch of sand we go make war on. If President Bush wants my vote, he has a short while to do something positive with the economy.

All of that being said, I still think the office of President has less to do with the economy than does congress and the Federal Reserve.

Saz really hits the real issue. Economies are cyclical in nature. And I will debate anyone who says our economy is in the tank, they do forget what a bad economy is, (ask Jimmy Carter)

[Charean]

JD and Magik -

By rampant unemployment, I mean that everyone I know is being touched by it. If they are laid off, they are having to spend a long time finding work. The jobs just aren't there anymore. Companies are folding. Those who have jobs right now are worried about being "downsized." NO ONE is comfortable with thier employment.

In my corner of the world, it is rampant.

[ 11-13-2002, 10:22 AM: Message edited by: Charean ]

Originally posted by Charean: JD and Magik - By rampant unemployment, I mean that everyone I know is being touched by it. If they are laid off, they are having to spend a long time finding work. The jobs just aren't there anymore. Companies are folding. Those who have jobs right now are worried about being "downsized." NO ONE is comfortable with thier employment. In my corner of the world, it is rampant.

Well Texas did have quite a large percentage of tech sector jobs, which ...are some of the ones being hit hardest.

[Sazerac]

That is PRECISELY it, MagiK. It was the Tech sector here that has been hit the hardest. I also wouldn't put the DFW Metroplex's economy in the toilet either, unless you consider a 12.5% growth rate "in the toilet". Housing starts are rampant in this area. Real estate is flourishing around here, as is the banking and medical industries. So, the tech sector may be down a bit, but that's not what the entire DFW economy is based on. Now, if all one is trained in is "tech"...oh well!

Oh, and tech WILL be back up again, too. It's still recovering from the dot-com bust of 2000, as well as the wake of all the telecom financial scandals of this year.

-Sazerac

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Sazerac: Now this is what gets me. Presidents always get blamed for a "bad economy" or praised for a "good economy", when in fact the economy is virtually independent of their actions. They can help "nudge" it with their policies (which are largely influenced by Congress as well, thank you), but being responsible for the entire movement of the economy? They might as well be responsible for the movement of the tides in the ocean. Economies go through CYCLES, people. It's practically a natural law. -Sazerac

Realistically, I realize the logical truth of this, Sazerac. But, even if that is the case, I still would hang the economy on the President for the same reason I attribute a little bit of the reason I won a trial to my tie, or a baseball game to my socks. Superstition.

But, for empiracal evidence, my life has simply been filled with Republican presidents and bad economies. Dunno how to get over this. I simply haven't lived long enough to personally "know" the trends you mention, which my history book certainly support.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Sazerac: . . . Real estate is flourishing around here, as is the banking and medical industries. . . . Oh, and tech WILL be back up again, too. It's still recovering from the dot-com bust of 2000, as well as the wake of all the telecom financial scandals of this year. -Sazerac

Yes, tech will be back, but we've said this how many times. Me for at least 3 years - since I first noticed real brick-and-mortar businesses coming back to tech stocks and really "using" the internet to do more than prop up imaginary worth and hide complete lack of profits. When?? Sorry - that was rhetorical - It's frustrating.

But, the housing sector is a bubble that's about to burst. And looking around at record construction where I live, it's going to be one big splash in the economy.