oh crap. was bush right?

alcimedesalcimedes
Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Quote:

Gross domestic product (GDP), the broadest measure of economic activity, grew at an 8.2 percent annual rate, the fastest pace since the first quarter of 1984, the Commerce Department reported. GDP grew at a 3.3 percent pace in the second quarter.



From CNN



the bad part is, i don't want four more years of Bush, but given what i was hearing on NPR of all places today, i think it might almost be a lock.



they were interviewing economists, all of which were saying "looks like we were wrong and Bush was right, those tax cuts really did help".



i don't consider NPR to be a bastion of republican ass kissing, so when i hear stuff like this i take it at face value.



if the economy really is turning around (and it's due to the "Bush tax cuts") can he be beaten?
«1345678

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 142
    toweltowel Posts: 1,479member
    We'll see if solid growth is sustained over several quarters, and we'll see if unemplyment drops and wages rise - in other words, if most people feel like their economy is improving. As a election topic, "the economy" is all about perception, not statistics. See how bad GHWB was beaten, even though the economy was rebounding solidly by the time the election rolled around.
  • Reply 2 of 142
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    I have to always maintain that the president has much less effect on the economy that people think. In general I think that we are taxed too much and lowering taxes is a good long term strategy but there are a lot of factors that turn the economy around in a two year time scale.
  • Reply 3 of 142
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 18,016member
    Well, there are a lot of topics here.



    First, Bush's cuts certainly had an effect. Did they do it on their own...probably not. The natural business cycle also contributed.



    Second, the overall economy is recovering rapidly. Almost all major indicators are moving upwards...even trailing ones. Remember, the job market is the last to recover.



    Third, reelection for Bush. One must realize he is not his father. His father ran for reelection in circumstances (economy wise) which were not even as good as we have it now. The economy when he ran for reelection was more like it was 6 months ago...in other words "emerging". GWB has another year, with most major economists predicting strong growth through 2004. In addiiton, GHWB broke his pledge not raise taxes, ran a lousy campaign, contended for Ross Perot and had no vision. It's just not the same. He also ran against a centrist (supposedly) Democrat.



    I've been saying for quite some time that if the economy improves, Bush wil be nearly unbeatable. This combined with the presumtive Dem nominee (Dean) coming in so far to the left doesn't hurt Bush. He also now has Medicare to point to, and all people are going to hear in the sound bytes on that is "we got a prescription drug benefit...just like I said". Complexity doesn't translate well in elections...even if the bill isn't great.



    The only thing that could be in question is if Iraq just totally disintegrates by late summer. But, with the planned transfer of authority by June Bush will be able to extricate himself from that too.
  • Reply 4 of 142
    dmband0026dmband0026 Posts: 2,345member
    For what it's worth, I believe Bush was right. This kind of economics worked for Regan, and it's working for Bush Jr now too. I'm hoping to see a sustained recovery and another four years of Bush!
  • Reply 5 of 142
    chu_bakkachu_bakka Posts: 1,793member
    Wow. Delusional.
  • Reply 6 of 142
    argentoargento Posts: 483member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by chu_bakka

    Wow. Delusional.



    You?



    Even though I hate to admit it (I would hate having four more years of Bush) he seems to have all his poop together at this point. The biggest flaw of his is Iraq which is getting worse, but there's still time for that to get better. If things keep goign his way the election won't even be close.
  • Reply 7 of 142
    sondjatasondjata Posts: 308member
    well it would appear that thingsa re improving but one has to remember that a couple of years of "gains' were basically wiped out. Mind you much of that gain was on a big balloon. Agreed that employment is a lagging indicator but I think that what is spurring the new spending is the increased productivity that businesses were forced to do with the less employees and that many of those employees will not be getting those jobs back or they will get them back but at reduced salaries. I'm also waiting to see how the outsourcing of jobs to other countries is going to affect long term employment. Also the problem with the tax cuts are:



    a) they push a deficit onto an unborn population (again).

    b) They only last as long as the tax cut results in extra cash flow for consumers as consumer spending is what keeps the US economy afloat.

    We should note that even with all these increases in indicators, personal bankruptcy is at an all time high which means that many peoples finances are a wreck. We should also note that if one has been checking your credit card offers over the last 6 months or so, the "great interest rates have gone from 2.9% to 7.9% so these banks that are holding onto the massive consumer debt is in a position to suck up more money ( which will of course get reflected as "economic growth"). Seems to be a great transfer of wealth THROUGH the hands of the middle class ( the poor don't get much credit anyway). So long as Middle class America continues to "work for the bank." I suppose the economy will continue show "improvement."
  • Reply 8 of 142
    splinemodelsplinemodel Posts: 7,311member
    what I find interesting is this notion that the government has such a great involvement in the economic issues of this country. The only really important tie in is tax, and also consider that the only tie between most americans and the goverment is taxation, a well planned tax cut is perhaps the single most effective move a politician can make in improving the economy and in gaining support.



    We still live in a more or less capitalist state. The economy is more or less independent of government so long as taxes don't get too high. To say that Clinton's policies were better for the economy than are Bush's is not only moot, but at the limits it's probably also incorrect.



    I don't see how Bush can lose, unless he manages to really mess things up with Iraq. Hell, if he runs a campaign not unlike Reagan's 1980 campaign, I might even vote for him, but that's not likely to happen.
  • Reply 9 of 142
    sondjatasondjata Posts: 308member
    well government does have a lot of influence on the economy. It does so through laws. Tax laws. Zoning laws, Enviromnetal laws, etc. for example a government can declare what is a "legal" minimum wage. one of te reasons that some jobs have gone elsewhere is because of wage laws. The countries where the jobs go to have little or no wage laws so companies can profit.



    Heck the governemt prtotection of specific types of public works and utilities and such is also of great importance. If one needs any proof of the impact of government on business just needs to take a gander at the medicare reform bill.
  • Reply 10 of 142
    buonrottobuonrotto Posts: 6,368member
    Have the second round of tax cuts even gone through yet?
  • Reply 11 of 142
    splinemodelsplinemodel Posts: 7,311member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Sondjata

    well government does have a lot of influence on the economy. It does so through laws. Tax laws. Zoning laws, Enviromnetal laws, etc. for example a government can declare what is a "legal" minimum wage. one of te reasons that some jobs have gone elsewhere is because of wage laws. The countries where the jobs go to have little or no wage laws so companies can profit.



    Heck the governemt prtotection of specific types of public works and utilities and such is also of great importance. If one needs any proof of the impact of government on business just needs to take a gander at the medicare reform bill.



    that's a nice thought, but consider that all of the New deal work, which is more extreme than any other public works I can think of, still didn't exactly end the depression. . . not even after several years.
  • Reply 12 of 142
    filmmaker2002filmmaker2002 Posts: 686member
    After 9/11, the economy had no where to go but UP! So take an economy that bottomed out, and get it back to where it was in two years and of course you'll see record growth, but the DOW still hasn't hit 10,000 yet like it was during the Clinton years....we'll see. Then again...look on the brighter side...Bush uses a Mac
  • Reply 13 of 142
    powerdocpowerdoc Posts: 8,123member
    The huge increase of the GDP lis a good new for US , and also for Europe.



    I wish it will continue, but many experts are efraid it will not, or in a much slower way.

    Cutting taxes, have a positive impact for buyers. But this positive impact could not last forever.
  • Reply 14 of 142
    baumanbauman Posts: 1,248member
    Dammit dammit dammit. This wasn't supposed to happen until this time next year!



    I don't think the world can sustain a loose cannon like Bush much longer.

    *ducks*



    \
  • Reply 15 of 142
    the placid casualthe placid casual Posts: 49member
    Well, sticking my head over the parapet from the the UK... I like Bush.



    He seemed excellent on his recent visit... genuine, in control and confident. He is unafraid to take the hard decisions, and all in all, a great leader.



    I just wish we in the UK could get rid of Blair.
  • Reply 16 of 142
    fellowshipfellowship Posts: 5,038member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by The Placid Casual

    Well, sticking my head over the parapet from the the UK... I like Bush.



    He seemed excellent on his recent visit... genuine, in control and confident. He is unafraid to take the hard decisions, and all in all, a great leader.



    I just wish we in the UK could get rid of Blair.



    Check out this Link The democrats seem to be in trouble.



    Fellows
  • Reply 17 of 142
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook

    Check out this Link The democrats seem to be in trouble.



    Fellows



    Why do you claim that you're not partisan? Dishonesty isn't nice.
  • Reply 18 of 142
    dmband0026dmband0026 Posts: 2,345member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by bunge

    Why do you claim that you're not partisan? Dishonesty isn't nice.



    He never claimed that he was, all he said was that the Dems are in trouble. Nothing about how he is happy about it, or he supports the Republicans. The post was an informative one, Fellows didn't offer his opinion, only a link.
  • Reply 19 of 142
    argentoargento Posts: 483member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by bunge

    Dishonesty isn't nice.



    This coming from you?
  • Reply 20 of 142
    the cool gutthe cool gut Posts: 1,714member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by DMBand0026

    For what it's worth, I believe Bush was right. This kind of economics worked for Regan, and it's working for Bush Jr now too. I'm hoping to see a sustained recovery and another four years of Bush!



    Let me get this straight. The economy falls through the f*cking floor, and Bush is now taking credit for 8% growth?



    That's like a stock falling from $100 to $1, then going up to $2 and the company bragging that it's stock has increased 100%



    Give me a break.
Sign In or Register to comment.