It looks like we are entering recession. It didn’t take long for Bush to screw up the economy. He is ready to put the US government back into debt. He is proposing to open national parks for oil exploration. He is easing pollution controls. Talk about taking a step backwards. Can we endure four years of this? Why is there such a lack of future vision by the Republicans? Do they not care for their children and grandchildren who have to live with the mess created today?
The drop in the stock market is a clear sign that investors are nervous about the future. IMHO that nervousness can be tied to Bush’s actions so far.
Until things look brighter, I’m putting my money in CDs. Like his old man, I doubt George Junior is going to get a second term. Four years to go, I’m counting down.
Why I think the slowing economy has not been caused by President Bush:
The Federal Reserve guys raised interest rates too much under President Clinton’s administration. Blame Mr. Greenspan for a mistake, and for not telling us what the hell is going on. By the time interest rates were dropped, it was too little too late.
Mr. Clinton has some responsibility for our tanking economy for basically ignoring his Presidential duties during the last year of his term (Mr. Clinton spent too much time abroad from the United States and not paying attention to what Mr. Greenspan and his guys were doing. Mr. Clinton also spent too much time raising money for his Presidential Library).
ALL people are taxed too much. This would not be so bad if the government used our money responsibly instead of wasting it or having it stolen. The heavy tax burden makes it difficult for many people to save money (people also spend too much money); therefore, many people do not have enough money saved for retirement, so they hope to strike it rich in the stock market.
…many people who invest in the stock market without understanding what they are doing. In addition, many people who place their money in stocks use money they cannot afford to lose. So, when Mr. Bush warns people that he believes the economy is slowing down, many people panic and sell their stocks trying to salvage as much money as they can. Treat the stock market like gambling: only use money you can afford to lose.
I would like some views as why people think the tanking economy is Mr. Bush’s fault. Did my post reak too much of partisan politics? Just so everyone knows, I’m not a Democrat or a Republican.
How is it possible that investors became nervous about Bush being president a full year ago when the stock market began it’s downward slide?
If your logic is that the stock market is tied to the presidents performance on a daily basis (which is silly in my opinion), then I assume you’re jumping for joy to see the last gentleman leave. True?
I’m about as opposed to Bush’s presidency as a man can be, but even I must admit that you really can’t blame him for the economic downturn. Of course, one can fault him for insisting on tax cuts that were based on large surplus projections which may or may not (probably the latter) materialize while at the same time pushing for increased spending (yes, I know the Democrats are pushing for increased spending too – not my point). I think NatLamp made the point rather well: http://www.nationallampoon.com/article1defaultpar.html
Isn’t it interesting how quickly we turn on someone. Greenspan was probably responsible for the greatest period of economic growth and prosperity for a long time. After two months of Bush in the office and the stock market drops, and Greenspan gets the blame.
I agree Clinton may have ignored his presidential duties during the last year. Still the stock market tanked after two months of Bush.
Agree with you here. Government waste has to be paid for by hardworking people.
So Bush got the panic started. Cleared the stock market of speculators. Perhaps he could have handled this a bit better. He is supposed to be the leader of the greatest economy in the world. Shouldn’t he have selected his words better?
FYI, I’m not partisan either. I think both parties are equally crooked. I am at a loss as to how these people are able to dupe 250 million people into thinking the US is a democracy.
By the way, welcome the SDMB. I noticed this was your first post.
According to news reports Bush has been talking down the economy, making it appear worse than it is. That is not how a US president should act.
In order to back up my point, I did a quick check on CNN and came up with two articles on this. True one is an editorial and the other is Democrat accusation, but the fact is still there. When the President tells you things are looking bad, people tend to react.
Well, if you’re going to give the guy all the credit when things are going well, he’s going to get the blame when they aren’t. I’d say that it’s certainly possible to criticise Greenspan for planning more for the short term than the long-term. However, I generally try to refrain from second-guessing Federal Reserve policy, as I really don’t understand it all that well.
So the market fell. I seem to recall that it did that a few times over the past couple years. I remember one day where the NASDAQ dropped by 20% or something. To hold any President to an expectation of continued and unbroken stock market performance is unrealistic.
It could be argued that Bush’s pronouncements exacerbated a downturn in the stock market by making people panic. However, much money and effort is spent by investors to try to evaluate what the stock market is doing and attempt to predict what it will do. I doubt these investors will simply say “well, the President says that it’s pretty bad, he must be right” if their analysis indicates otherwise.
And I suppose that the new bankruptcy law or the tax cut bill are completely natural phenomena. Whether you agree with anything he does, you really can’t deny that he’s done stuff.
I’m not a Bush supporter by any stretch of the imagination.
However, I don’t think the stock market plunge can be correctly attributed to him.
Jack you quoted an editorial and a Democrat’s opinion being quoted. Neither, IMHO, should be called ‘facts’. When the partisan crowd around here quoted columnists who quoted party reps, I didn’t count those as facts either.
Now, I will be right with you with his initiatives to limit abortion, to have fetuses declared as persons under the law, to give public dollars to ‘faith based charities’, and a whole lotta other things, but the stock market really reacts to a long list of things, most of which took place a while ago. (except for individual spurts which can be temporarily spiked with either good news or bad news).
Just how should a US President act? I think I’d prefer to be told straight out what’s wrong with the nation than be reassured that nothing’s wrong when any fool can tell the market’s tanking. The current slump’s been in the making for the last six months or so; are you suggesting Bush should ignore it?
So if you’re saying “Bush should stick to talking nicey-nice about the economy” then I disagree. If, on the other hand, you’re saying “The only reason Bush isn’t talking nicey-nice about the economy is because he thinks assuming this stance will allow him to ram through his tax cut”, then I couldn’t agree with you more.
I don’t think we can ignore what’s going on in the rest of the world either when we consider our economy. There has been some slow-down in the economies of other countries lately as well which in turn impacts the U.S.
can’t blame bush for the dot.com bubble burst. it was just a matter of time. wouldn’t blame greenspan either. the government can’t manage an economy this complicated. they just believe they can. why everybody else does, i don’t know.
just wonder how long it will take them to give us a soviet union type meltdown.
And, umm, Jack? Quotes like, “It didn’t take long for Bush to screw up the economy. He is ready to put the US government back into debt,” make it very difficult for me to believe this one: “FYI, I’m not partisan either.” Especially since, you blame Bush for a downturn that actually began about a year ago.
Please tell me exactly what Bush has done to “screw up the economy.” Propose a tax cut? I think this has been his only economic act of significance. And finally, the U.S. government has been in debt for years; it’s been a very long time since the gov’t has actually been in the black. How is Bush going to put us “back into debt?”
That’s a link to the Dow performance for the last 2 years. You will notice that the current activity is well within normal bounds. http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=^IXIC&d=2y
And that’s the Nasdaq for the last 2 years. It looks to me like the current bubble burst well before Jan 21st.
You may also recall the infamous “irrational exuburence” speech by Greespan. I can’t remember if that was back in '96 or '97.
The bottom line is that the tech bubble was just that, a bubble. There was no substance, and it was just waiting to burst.
I find it interesting that you are of the opinion that the leader of the country should ignore the current state of the economy. Is it really possible that you want the President to lie to us? I see why you like Clinton so much.
Maybe constant proclamations announcing more growth, new innovations and newly discovered potential for the united workers of America should be released every week regardless of the situation.
Get real, economies have cycles, live with it.
No, investing in companies that continually lose money is smart as long as the President tells everybody that the economy is doing well. :rolleyes:
From the graphs, it looks as if the NASDAQ has been on a fairly constant downward slope for months (since about October), which I’d attribute to the lack of substance in dot coms, and some panic spreading. The NYSE drop recently probably is more closely related to the poor NASDAQ performance than anything Bush has said.
Yeah you did show your lack of understanding right there:). Greenspan raised interest rates to prevent the dot coms from getting out of hand. Lowering them would have been planning for the short term. He was just trying to prevent a major crash like we have had before.
He’s failed badly at inspiring confidence in the wisdom of his economic policies. For example, his “go fish” response towards California’s energy problems seems to ignore the large effect the CA economy has on the rest of the country. There are lots of other examples where Bush has failed to respond correctly, or at least with the appearance of moderation to a variety of situations. The end result is a decreasing confidence in the correctness Bush’s actions. Since the stock market is mostly a confidence game, it makes sense that a lack of confidence in the presidents economic policies could be the underlying cause of the recent sharp decline share prices.
Of course if Gore had been allowed to take office we would have gotten that nice soft landing everyone was hoping for.
NiceGuyJack:
Thanks for the welcome to the message board.
Squink:
It is difficult to inspire confidence when so many people insist that Mr. Bush has a subpar intelligence. Ask yourself how many times throughout the day you have heard someone refer to the president’s inferior intellect. Calling the president “stupid” or “moronic” is a personal attack. If the name calling was followed up with concrete proof, then labelling him such would be appropriate. I have never met the man, so I will give the guy a break until he actually does something obviously moronic. I believe that poor speaking and communication skills are not, by themselves, evidence of stupidity.
More comments:
Bush is guilty, like all politicians, of spinning the state of the economy to suit himself and his political party. As to the electricity problem in California (I live in Santa Barbara, CA), it’s our own damn fault for not building more powerplants. It’s not Mr. Bush’s responsibility to bail us out of our own incompetence. We in California are paying for it now, until we form an adequate energy policy.
The stock market has been rediculously overvalued for years. If anything, this correction (not a recession yet IMHO) is a healthy sign. The market is returning to reasonable, stable levels where it should be.
Mr. Bush had nothing to do with it.
When markets become overvalued, they begin to lose that value. When markets become immensely overvalued too quickly, they lose value quickly. Economies and markets have cycles, and there is nothing particularly dangerous about what is happening now. (Unless you were an idiot and put all your money in high risk stocks.)
You certainly could blame Mr. Greenspan. It’s unclear why he kept interest rates as high as he did; the Fed doesn’t seem to really be accountable to anybody. People have speculated that Greenspan purposefully “sabotaged” the markets by failing to lower interest rates in order to bring them down to a stable level.