The problem for me is that it seems as though he *can* do precisely that. On one of the screaming head shows on Sunday morning (I *think* it was Matthews) one of the guests mentioned that national security+foreign policy=homeland security=a domestic issue. And so the question they'll be asking during the campaign is "Do you feel SAFER than you were 4 years ago?" while the democrats, most likely, will be asking "Are you better off (financially) than you were four years ago today?"
It's a no-brainer for housewives and regular joes: safety or money in the pocket.
This admin has been a domestic policy nightmare (how many jobs lost on his watch? how much has the market tanked? how many schools are in financial crisis? how many plants are closing down?), and while I appreciate the $300 I got back, I'd gladly give it back if it means that my school district wouldn't have to lay off its entire custodial staff, or that the district to the south of my town didn't have to shut down schools left and right. Or that my neighbor hadn't lost a huge chunk of her retirement. Or that I'd have a better chance of finding a good job in an academic job market where schools are having to pull jobs they've advertised and interviewed for.
Our (bad) republican governor caught much flak over this; our new (and so far just as bad) democrat governor will get his ass kicked if he doesn't do anything to help. One would hope that this kind of "local issue" trend continues at the national level.
But I don't think it will. I think we're going to get four more years of Bush.
As you said most of the things you mentioned are local issues so how could Bush be responsible for them? Bush does not control funding for your school cleaning staff or for school construction or closing.
Now the next part is my little rant so please be tolerant. Why would anyone hand over their largest or next largest asset to someone to do with as they want in hope of "making money." I go over this with people again and again. They display complete financial ignorance, get burned and then are upset that they don't even understand what happened.
Think about what a mutal fund or 401k is really. It is you (generalized, not personalized) handing over large sums of money to a stranger and saying "Please keep this safe and make more of it."
You ask them why it is safe, well it is diversified. Well what does that mean...well it means if one part of the market falls, the whole amount of money doesn't fall, just part of it. Well what if the whole market falls?.....silence....crickets....Why would you put it in a mutal fund? Well they will read up and invest my money for me since I don't have time.
You don't have time to be knowledgeable about your own money and retirement? Hello can we think of any other area of life where people can want to remain willfully ignorant and not get burned?
Well I gave it to my financial advisor....Really? How is he qualified to be a financial advisor? Did he watch a video at E.F. Hutton?
As for the economy, what goes up must come down. It never goes down as much as it went up, but we get rid of the garbage and then move on again. Almost everyone understands this and also knows that Bush sough lower income tax rates and lower interest rates. People have used these to do what they do best, which is find a way to get by and hopefully get ahead.
The economy has still been growing though only at 2-3%. Likewise unemployment has risen from like 5.5 to 5.8%.
That is about as mild a recession as I can imagine considering how over inflated the stockmarket was and how many ignorant people were dumping their money there foolishly.
If it gets back to say 4% by next year Bush and the Republcans will likely landslide.
I did read the article. I read it before this thread existed.
midwinter:
Quote:
This admin has been a domestic policy nightmare (how many jobs lost on his watch? how much has the market tanked?
Another line echoed over and over by the liberal establishment. First, what is it exactly that Bush has done domestically that you disagree with? He has done nothing to hurt the economy. Contrary to the liberal spin machine's assertions, his tax cut benefited far more people than just the "filthy rich". The $300 was also a DEMOCRATIC idea. But seriously, what specific domestic stance do you disagree with? You make it seem as if Bush is personally at fault for the closed schools you mention and so forth. That's either rhetorical nonsense....or, well, maybe you don't know any better.
Now, if Bush had raised taxes or actually CUT school funding (which he didn't by the way....he increased it DRAMATICALLY if you look at the latest budget....especially in federal reading subsidies), then maybe you would have a point. Oh, I agree he'll take the BLAME for the economy...but is he responsible? Not particularly. It's all a political football and I can't believe you can't see that. It's the same with Clinton....do you actually credit him with the economy in the late 1990's? Please. His economic success came from what exactly....raising taxes to the highest levels in history? Is that what it came from? No. It came from several things: 1) A natually rebounding business cycle from the recession 2) A booming tech sector 3) Low energy prices. All three factors changed or started to change in mid-2000. Do you dispute that? Now, we've had 9/11 and a war on top of it.
This is a purely academic argument anyway. It's not going to matter how many threads like this pop up here or anywhere else, because in the end Bush will win easily EVEN IF the economy stays like it is now....in slow growth mode. If it gets better, say to 4% growth or higher, Bush will literally be unbeatable.
Comments
Originally posted by midwinter
The problem for me is that it seems as though he *can* do precisely that. On one of the screaming head shows on Sunday morning (I *think* it was Matthews) one of the guests mentioned that national security+foreign policy=homeland security=a domestic issue. And so the question they'll be asking during the campaign is "Do you feel SAFER than you were 4 years ago?" while the democrats, most likely, will be asking "Are you better off (financially) than you were four years ago today?"
It's a no-brainer for housewives and regular joes: safety or money in the pocket.
This admin has been a domestic policy nightmare (how many jobs lost on his watch? how much has the market tanked? how many schools are in financial crisis? how many plants are closing down?), and while I appreciate the $300 I got back, I'd gladly give it back if it means that my school district wouldn't have to lay off its entire custodial staff, or that the district to the south of my town didn't have to shut down schools left and right. Or that my neighbor hadn't lost a huge chunk of her retirement. Or that I'd have a better chance of finding a good job in an academic job market where schools are having to pull jobs they've advertised and interviewed for.
Our (bad) republican governor caught much flak over this; our new (and so far just as bad) democrat governor will get his ass kicked if he doesn't do anything to help. One would hope that this kind of "local issue" trend continues at the national level.
But I don't think it will. I think we're going to get four more years of Bush.
As you said most of the things you mentioned are local issues so how could Bush be responsible for them? Bush does not control funding for your school cleaning staff or for school construction or closing.
Now the next part is my little rant so please be tolerant. Why would anyone hand over their largest or next largest asset to someone to do with as they want in hope of "making money." I go over this with people again and again. They display complete financial ignorance, get burned and then are upset that they don't even understand what happened.
Think about what a mutal fund or 401k is really. It is you (generalized, not personalized) handing over large sums of money to a stranger and saying "Please keep this safe and make more of it."
You ask them why it is safe, well it is diversified. Well what does that mean...well it means if one part of the market falls, the whole amount of money doesn't fall, just part of it. Well what if the whole market falls?.....silence....crickets....Why would you put it in a mutal fund? Well they will read up and invest my money for me since I don't have time.
You don't have time to be knowledgeable about your own money and retirement? Hello can we think of any other area of life where people can want to remain willfully ignorant and not get burned?
Well I gave it to my financial advisor....Really? How is he qualified to be a financial advisor? Did he watch a video at E.F. Hutton?
As for the economy, what goes up must come down. It never goes down as much as it went up, but we get rid of the garbage and then move on again. Almost everyone understands this and also knows that Bush sough lower income tax rates and lower interest rates. People have used these to do what they do best, which is find a way to get by and hopefully get ahead.
The economy has still been growing though only at 2-3%. Likewise unemployment has risen from like 5.5 to 5.8%.
That is about as mild a recession as I can imagine considering how over inflated the stockmarket was and how many ignorant people were dumping their money there foolishly.
If it gets back to say 4% by next year Bush and the Republcans will likely landslide.
Nick
I did read the article. I read it before this thread existed.
midwinter:
This admin has been a domestic policy nightmare (how many jobs lost on his watch? how much has the market tanked?
Another line echoed over and over by the liberal establishment. First, what is it exactly that Bush has done domestically that you disagree with? He has done nothing to hurt the economy. Contrary to the liberal spin machine's assertions, his tax cut benefited far more people than just the "filthy rich". The $300 was also a DEMOCRATIC idea. But seriously, what specific domestic stance do you disagree with? You make it seem as if Bush is personally at fault for the closed schools you mention and so forth. That's either rhetorical nonsense....or, well, maybe you don't know any better.
Now, if Bush had raised taxes or actually CUT school funding (which he didn't by the way....he increased it DRAMATICALLY if you look at the latest budget....especially in federal reading subsidies), then maybe you would have a point. Oh, I agree he'll take the BLAME for the economy...but is he responsible? Not particularly. It's all a political football and I can't believe you can't see that. It's the same with Clinton....do you actually credit him with the economy in the late 1990's? Please. His economic success came from what exactly....raising taxes to the highest levels in history? Is that what it came from? No. It came from several things: 1) A natually rebounding business cycle from the recession 2) A booming tech sector 3) Low energy prices. All three factors changed or started to change in mid-2000. Do you dispute that? Now, we've had 9/11 and a war on top of it.
This is a purely academic argument anyway. It's not going to matter how many threads like this pop up here or anywhere else, because in the end Bush will win easily EVEN IF the economy stays like it is now....in slow growth mode. If it gets better, say to 4% growth or higher, Bush will literally be unbeatable.
"If it gets back to say 4% by next year Bush and the Republcans will likely landslide."
Funny, I posted the nearly same thing above without reading your post (we must have written at the same time). I agree completely.