As I was reading the financial news today about the Dow breaking 9k I have to wonder about the Dems. As far as I can tell, the main 2004 strategy was going to be to harp on the economy (Bush creates massive deficits, Bush hates poor people but loves billionaires) If the economy improves over the next year, I think the Dems are in trouble. Of course the “base” will always vote for their party on both sides, but what about the undecided folks?
If you’re a hardcore dem/lefty, be honest. Do you really want the economy to improve before Dec. 2004? If it does, do you think the eventual democrat candidate can win?
And the Republicans were free of such thougts in 1999? I doubt it. But it is pretty disgusting that so many on both sides of the aisle put politics above the good of the country.
And you’re right on one thing, though. The Dems better get a better strategy in place if they want to win in '04. If the economy tanks, it might work, but that’s awefully risky.
As a Democrat, I believe my party doesn’t stand a chance if the economy rebounds prior to the election. That being said, I am confident that Bush is unelectable because of the effect of his economic policies on the economy. Of course, I would love to proven wrong; my loyalty to the Democrats is not stronger than my loyalty to my wallet. Just because I oppose the current administration doesn’t mean I hope the economy stays in the tank for the next 18 months. Do you remember Ronald Reagan’s campaign slogan against Jimmy Carter? “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?” Does that mean Reagan and the Republicans wanted the economy to remain moribund in 1980?
I don’t think I’m a “hardcore” leftist, so your question may not apply to me, but I’ll answer it anyway.
I’d love it if the economy were to settle into a stable turn around tomorrow. Considering the fact that co-workers and friends are getting laid off all around me, while my wife is looking for work and I’m having a hard time getting the mortgage payment in on time… yeah, I’d like to see it improve. For me, and for everyone in the country. Self-interest has no politics.
As to whether a leftist candidate can win in the face of an improving economy… I think they still can, but they have to take a strong stand, and it has to be the right candidate. I’m not sure who that is right now, but honestly, I’m glad Gore isn’t trying again. The left can focus on other issues as well (the war and its cost, for example), and there are plenty of examples of fiscal irresposibility they can point to from the first half of Bush’s term.
Now, there’s a question here that isn’t being asked… does the Bush Administration have what it takes to turn the economy around in a year and a half? Given the example they’ve set since they came into office, I’d say not… they favor expensive tax cuts and lots of spending, neither of which has had positive effect. It doesn’t stop them from trying again, but whether it’s going to cause substantive, lasting improvement is doubtful at best. I’d like to see it turn around, but I’m doing my best to cover my family through tough times anyway, because I don’t have high hopes that it will do so anytime soon.
Well, as a pretty hardcore leftie and fairly loyal Democrat, I’d have to say YES. I wish the economy turned around tomorrow. As party loyal as I might be, I have to work for a living, and as far as I know, so do most of my pinko leftie pals. My political voice does not mean much if there is no food on the table. The reason I disagree with Bush’s policies in the first place is because I think that they hurt people, not just because he’s a Republican.
Do I hope the economy turns around soon? Yes. Do I think it will happen? No. I could be wrong…but I doubt it.
There isn’t time prior to the elections to have a substantial enough turn around. Economics and politics what they are, they just can’t work that fast. Bush missed a chance to look like a hero to the Middle class and getting more bang for his tax cutting buck. I wholeheartidly agree with Warren Buffet’s statement that $1,000 to 310,000 families will get the economy going faster $310,000,000 to Mr. Buffet. I think Bush missed an amazing opportunity due to his wealth-skewed ideology. When Buffet and Greenspan both say you are wrong, you should listen, or try some different spin.
The one positive going for him is that the Dems have put forth nobody of note so far. Look for a mud flinging campaign early on by the Dems, since they aren’t fielding that great of a field of candidated, and simply since Bush has provided them with such an ample supply of mud to sling.
They economy may very well begin to show signs of a bounce back by the election, but the standard “are you better off than 4 years ago” argument will come back as “no” or “only marginally” for the vast majority of the undecideds. It will take until manufacturing and merchandise stockpiles are depleted to a point that require new hiring and any semblance of reinvestment. That will take longer than a year and a half.
I’d hate to see the economy get any worse than it is now. But if Bush gets another 4 years, the long-term damage his fiscal irresponsibility will do will far outweigh the consequences of another 17 months of economic doldrums, IMHO at least. (Half-trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see is a pretty fearsome proposition. The idea that that’s somehow an OK thing - the lesser of evils - if it keeps Federal spending in check has to be the most bonzo economic idea that’s ever gone mainstream.)
So I’ll come out and say it: if a year and a half of the economy staying right where it is, is what it takes to get Bush out of there, our children and their children will agree that that was the lesser of evils.
I am a leftist Democrat. Well, okay, more centrist. Well, okay, I’m registered Independent, but that’s not the point!
I do want the economy to get better. I want a raise and a bonus. I want to stop worrying that if I lose my job I won’t be able to get another one for a long time, that I might lose my home.
But I also don’t want rich people getting one godd*** dime of a tax cut. Hell, I’d get some money out of this tax cut plan, but I would give it up so long as the cut went entirely to the poorest segment of the population, rather than overwhelmingly to the richest. How can people actually support this policy? I almost lose it completely when I think of people actually saying “Yes, those rich folks do need a tax cut. If the rich had more money, I think the economy would turn around.” HOW STUPID ARE WE? God!
Speaking as a centrist with moderately left leanings, I find the OP a bit offensive, or perhaps merely ill-considered. The implication that one would prefer to have fellow citizens suffer so that a political goal may be reached equates the Dem’s with Leninist theology: provoking brutal oppression is good because it furthers the Revolution. A concept, need I say, I regard with loathing.
The whole point of being on the conservative wing of the extreme left is precisely because we believe that we can make the US a better place. Otherwise, why bother?
Admittedly, one has occasional jolts of schadenfruede (German for “neener-neener”) when ones political enemies take a belly-flop off the high dive into the deep shit. But that’s just good clean fun.
It would be possible for a Dem with a strong personality to win votes by harping on a recovering economy if they could successfully argue that its despite instead of because of Bush’s tax cuts.
Key words and phrases are “strong personality” and “successfully argue”, which Clinton could have probably pulled off, but the current crop of Dem candidates might have trouble with.
I’m like all the other “leftists” that have posted so far - I have bills. I have student loans. Damn straight I want the economy to rebound! But I don’t think it’s going to miraculously spring back to normal in a year and a half, so I don’t think it’s going to really affect the election.
Hell yes I want the economy to come back. I’d rather suffer through a Bush presidency and be able to pay off my student loans than be under a Democrat and still have the economy suck.
Oh, and I don’t mean I’m SUFFERING under Bush, it’s just an expression, lest anyone think I’m starting a Bush bashing thread.
But the economy isn’t the main reason I don’t like Bush in the first place.
I’m pretty left leaning, and hope it recovers quickly regardless.
GWB will be out of office in 5 years no matter what, but those bankruptcies can screw you up for a decade. Dems care about losing their house, and they’d rather not have to pick between unemployment or taking a pay cut for doing the same work.
I don’t think the quick recover will happen though. IMO this economic slump is pretty much the direct result of the IT/internet bubble, and you aren’t going to see another driving force like that any time soon.
[Editorial Fairytale]
Once upon a time, there was this (oddly charismatic) idiot Jack who started giving his seminars on Making Money from Home Using Magic BEANS! (no cow needed) [sup]TM[/sup]. Suddenly half the kingdom’s under-the-bedstead money was invested in magic beans, most of which were actually just regular old lima beans died purple and sprinkled with glitter.
Next thing you know everyone in the neighborhood is was trying to dig out from a coupla tons of giant beanstalky thing that fell down out of nowhere. Not to mention the bottom fell out of the bean market, dude, you couldn’t GIVE those beans away!
And that bastard Jack, he started the whole magic bean fad, willfully concealed the existance of easily-pissed- off homicidal giants, and still nipped out with all the damn eggs.
Some of the peasant thought it was some sort of Royal curse (those royals, with their Scandals and Pretenders and unpredictable bouts of gibbering Idiocy).
But that was just the glitter talking.
And they all still had to eat beans for quite some time anyway.
It’s quite simple. If you want to win an election against an incumbent, you need to convince people that you could do a better job. The only way to do that is to point to existing problems and blame the guy in office. Democrats do it, Republicans do it. And I’ll bet back when the first election happened, Og said, “No vote for Tibor! He make cave collapse, because it collapse when Tibor Chief!”
No Democrats don’t WANT the economy to fail. But that’s not going to stop them from pointing at the weak economy and blaming Bush. And if Gore had been elected, the Republicans would be doing the same thing.
When it comes to elections the stock market is not the economy.
The economy to most people is keeping the job one has and not being afraid one will be laid off. The economy is getting a job if you don’t have one before the unemployment insurance runs. The economy is having enough money to pay the bills no matter what your job status.
As Sam Stone says, “*f you want to win an election against an incumbent, you need to convince people that you could do a better job.” Bush now has three tax cuts to his name, with the first two having “failed.” If the current tax cut fails to stimulate the economy, and the Democrats take full advantage of that, Bush will be hard-pressed to win re-election.
One way the Democrats could address this are the budget deficits and spending. They would need to stress how Reagan’s military defict spending failed, how Bush I’s voodo economic failed, and Clinton’s budget surpluses worked. Now we have Buss II creating massive deficts, giving back massive tax cuts at the same time (with two of the three so far having failed to do anything). It really makes no difference on the minute accuracy of such a claim (as the Dopers here do all the time). Perception is a key.
Of course, the uncertainties of Afghanistan, Iraq, terrorism and the Middle East could change everything overnight for both parties. The party that puts the best spin on the unknowns and manages to convince the electorate they can juggle domestic and foreign issues better will win.
Yet at the end of the day, “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?” as stated by Fear Itself should not be dismissed.
Gore Was elected. And if he had been allowed to take office, the economy would be well on the way to recovery by now.
Bush didn’t cause the recession. But he sure as hell as made a point of pushing for policies that don’t help, and some are actively harmful. (permanant deficits) He deserves to be blamed for a lack of recovery.
But I don’t think that will be what swings the election. Bush’s presidency will be ended by the total fuck-up in Iraq. The economy will just be a sideshow in the next election.
I want the economy to be a spectular failure, to make Bush look bad.
I sincerely believe that preventing the long term damage to civil liberties that will happen if Bush gets another 4 years is worth another two years of a bad economy.
You realize, of course, that you are free to give your portion of the tax cut to the poor. No one is stopping you.
Also, lots of people who are not now “rich” plan to be or at least hope to be someday. Perhaps they realize that pitting the rich against the poor is a lousy way to set up a tax code. That we’re not a static society and the more you can keep of your own money the more incentive there is to work.
BTW, I’m not sure what your definition of the “poorest” segment of our society is, but with the bottom 50% of tax payers paying about 4% of the income taxes paid, squeezing any kind of tax cut into, say, the lowest 10% earners would be pretty darned easy to finance. It might not cost a thing!
I care less about hope and more about eating dinner tommorow. Those with enough money for hopes can do all the hopeing they want (not that hoping to get rich does much good when you never got a shot at an decent education or a decent set of parents to raise you up). Meanwhile, I’m more concerned about what people need.
**
Now thats a good one. I don’t need even more incentive to work. What I need is a freaking job. Do you think the sky-high unemployment rate is caused by a bunch of people too lazy to work? Considering that just a few years ago, people were apparently willing to work their asses off, their must have been some vast cultural change causeing extreme lazyness recently. or it could be that THERE ARE NO JOBS.
oh, maybe thats just the fault of HR personel that are too lazy and unmotivated to do the hiring…or something…
The high unemployment rate has little if anything to do with who is in the whitehouse. If you want to tap the wisdom of this board, go back and read the threads dedicated specifically to how much influence the president has on the economy. In your area of the country, high unemployment is caused by too much speculation that the internet boom would continue forever. But I’m sure you don’t need anyone to tell you that.
You asked how anyone could support the tax cut. I gave you a good response and you rant on about not having a job. That’s unforturnate. But some people are able to look beyond the need of the moment when thinking about tax policy.
