Let’s not gloss over the 10 point dive in consumer confidence that immediately followed the 2000 election:
http://www.sca.isr.umich.edu/data-archive/mine.php?table=1
Intangibles, such as the widespread sentiment, accurate or not, that the new president was a dummy, do alter consumer habits.
A dive in consumer confidence follows any recession. Attributing that to Bush is a real stretch - especially since your ‘dive’ took three months after the election to manifest itself. Are you suggesting that everyone said, “okay, Bush is our man. No problem”, then immediately after the inauguration they went, “Waa! Bush really IS president! Now I’m scared to spend my money!”. Not likely.
The fact is, the loss of consumer confidence arrived right at the time the scope of the recession made itself clear. It also immediately followed a serious slide in the stock market, which damaged a lot of 401(k)'s and eliminated the ‘wealth effect’.
In any event, consumer confidence all by itself is not a particularly powerful indicator of economic performance - especially since it was still quite high then.
November to december (107.6->98.4) is ONE month, and right at election time too. Perfect timing for a difficult election cycle to start turning Clinton’s “soft landing” into Bush’s recession.
This subject rapidly gets too arcane to be worth dickering about much, but just as that prevents me from blaming it entirely on Bush, it prevents you from blaming it entirely on Clinton. To try to do so is, as you say, disingenuous.
Where did you get the idea that I was blaming Clinton for anything? The recession wasn’t Clinton’s fault - not even remotely. The recession was simply an overdue and necessary correction to an economic bubble. Nor am I giving Bush that much credit for the recovery. The recovery happened when inventory overstock was gone and manufacturing started to ramp up. The tax cuts helped a bit, but there would be a recovery without them.
The point is, you can’t blame Bush, for several reasons. One, the recession started before he had a chance to do anything as president. Two, the president actually has very limited powers to move the business cycle. And three, all the things that Bush did may have an expense years down the road, but there can hardly be any arguing that they have have not stimulated this economic. As I said, his pollicies are a classical Keynesian stimulus. Higher spending and lower taxes. Mortgaging the future to pay the present? Sure. But you can’t make the case that the present didn’t gain something from that bargain.
“Stimulated this economy”. Not economic…
The ads are probably inappropriate, but I don’t mind that they’re on the airwaves. If my opinion is in the minority, I shouldn’t be dictating such things. If my opinion is in the majority, then playing the ads will result in shooting oneself in the foot politically.
If they caller holler about what he didn’t do, He can holler about what he did do!!! Didn’y Clinton take credit for the economy? or dosen’t every president take credit for there accomplishments? I’ve seen the ad, it’s not distasteful at all. This situation is typical LEFTY got no where else to turnism.
One guy? No.
Well, the NBER is described by every source I can find as non-partisan, and the reason they are resisting changing the date to what their data indicate it should be is to be clearly non-partisan. So, insofar as I can prove a negative, I would say that is it.
Although, as Sam Stone points out, the recession, no matter what the date you pick, had its roots during the Clinton administration. Thus the idea that Bush caused, or could have prevented, the recession, is unsupportable. Nor, as he states, could Clinton.
I recognize the eagerness of one side to blame all the evils of the world on Bush, as well as that of the other to blame it on Slick Willy. But the data don’t support either conclusion, at least as far as the economy is concerned. Presidents don’t affect the economy nearly as much as they are credited/blamed for.
Regards,
Shodan
Very simple.
9/11 represents a real issue. It’s an inevitable symbol. Compared to gay marriage or these other MINOR issues, I want to see SECURITY brought up all the time. Hopefully in intelligent debate, but that’s a lot to wish for.
As for “tasteless,” we should stop telling other people they HAVE TO feel it’s insulting or exploitative, or telling them the CAN’T POSSIBLY OBJECT. With this philosophical/ esthetic/ emotional issue, I actually trust the voters to make up their own minds, because emotional is pretty much the only level they function at.
Indeed, though I have to say how gratifying it is to hear conservatives do a 180 on Keynsianism, which only a few years ago was a laughable heresy (I’m sure the other end of it still is, whether that is a consistent view or not). The best case you can make against Bush is that his tax cuts were the exactly wrong kind of tax cuts if what he was really doing was trying to create a stimulus: that he was a LOUSY and inept Keynsian, if that is what he was trying to be. This is actually part of a fairly powerful argument Will Saletan came up with: Bush has unwavering convictions… which fail to waver even in the face of change or clear contradictory facts.
I don’t know: there are ways to raise the issue of gay marriage in a campaign commercial that don’t involve actual footage of graphic gay sex. 
I guess people got that idea from this:
So it wasn’t Clinton’s fault, it was Clinton’s budget’s fault. That what you’re saying? Or was the mention of Clinton’s budget just a meaningless bit of misdirection?
I’m not sure whether you’re weasling here, or just don’t understand the economics well enough. If you choose not to increase interest rates, the deficit still makes itself felt through a currency devaluation. Noticed anything like that recently?
OK, OK, the currency devaluation is Clinton’s fault. Picky, picky.
Bush brought up an interesting theory today on who’s to blame for the nation’s crappy economy. It turns out that’s it’s the Free Press that’s screwed us over:
Without all those bad headlines, we’d have had 5 or 6 million new jobs by now, and everyone would be singing Bush praises, like the damned Osama Lovers should have been before the war, if they cared an iota for their country, the bastards.
bush campainging with ground zero imagery makes about as much sense as LBJ campaigning with zabruder film.
You’re misunderstanding me. I’m saying that because the recession started on Clinton’s watch, you can’t make a case that it’s Bush’s fault. That doesn’t mean it’s Clinton’s fault, either, but that there’s simply no causitive connection between the recession and George Bush. Why is this so hard to understand? I’m on record as saying that Clinton wasn’t that bad a president. I’ve never been a big Clinton basher, other than his first year in office when he tried to push socialized health care. But after that he moved more to the center, he did a pretty good job.
Domestic interest rate hikes are the usual result of long-term deficits. The devaluation of the American dollars is the result of two things - a current account deficit, and the abandoning of a strong dollar policy for sound economic reasons.
Here’s a good primer on this from the Fed: The U.S. Current Account Deficit.
Is it any better or worse that the Bush 9/11 ads didn’t even use real firemen (except of course, presumably those in the actual footage, you know, carrying the dead body, for example)?
Squandering the trauma of September 11 Of course, you know what I think. But I cannot see how this fits in well with the argument that making use of 9/11 imagery recalls with honor the struggles we went through that day. Seems like if one wanted to convey honor and respect, they would have actually gotten real fire fighters, perhaps even some who were there on 9/11. Actors? Well, that doesn’t really do it for me. Does “cheaper and quicker” balance with “honorable”?