Everything clear yet, ElvisL1ves? It seems that most of the people in this thread understood right off the bat.
My thoughts:
1.) If the economy tanks, GWB will lose to a halfway decent opponent. Republicans who whine “But he didn’t have anything to do with the economy” should remember the fate of Herbert Hoover. His policies didn’t cause the Great Depression and the Crash of '29, but he sure as hell took the blame.
IMO, Bush isn’t to blame for the current mess as the dot-commers and 9/11 would have happened regardless. However, correct economic analysis doesn’t matter to people who have lost jobs and homes. Bush would be well-advised to pay more attention to the economy and at least give the impression he cares about the little guy as much as the GOP fatcats.
2.) If the Iraquis wage a skillful guerilla war and it appears we could be in for Nam 2, then Bush may be out. I think it’s too early to tell whether the administration’s attempt for a quick knockout has failed or not. Despite the rantings of the neo-conservatives, it’s my opinion that a lot of middle-class people who were willing to support a “precise war” are going to turn against it if large numbers of middle-class white boys and girls start coming home in body bags.
3.) Much depends on what al-Qaeda does. I don’t know what impact another severe domestic incident will have on the country and its economy, but I think another 9/11 will see this country will go so crazy no one can predict what will happen. I don’t know if my fellow Dopers saw a recent AP story, but in Morgan County, Ind., the FBI is looking for two men in a white SUV with red and blue lights mounted in the grill. Seems they are accused of trying to hijack a fuel truck, and there are suspicions that the men were terrorists.
4.) The Dems would be well-advised, IMO, to stop counting on Bush’s self-immolation and start trying to find a decent candidate and a way to rally their faithful. I think voter apathy as much as anything contributed to the GOP’s 2002 success.
We live in interesting times as the Chinese would say.
Wow. The leading economic indicators were able, months in advance, to guess the outcome of the closest election in U.S. history. I need to ask some of those business leaders about next week’s lotto numbers.
Blaming Bush for starting the recession is silly. Blaming him for failing to fix it makes more sense.
In any event, the war does not doom Bush’s chances for re-election. There is no way Hussein can win. Winning a war is no guarantee of Bush’s re-election, but it’s certainly not a guarantee of defeat either.
Besides, given how close the election was, one could just as easily surmise that the economy collapsed because people were afraid that Gore would win!
Still care to defend that theory o**f yours, ElvisL1ves?
So let me make sure I’m getting what you’re saying:
[list=1][li] The president is responsible for the economic downturns that are in force during his presidency, and President Clinton was not responsible for the economic downturn that began during his presidency.[/list=1][/li]
So Bush is at fault for the current recession that began during Clinton’s tenure.
Yeah, I get it. :rolleyes:
Republican (not necessary TRUE conservative) logic:
-
The recession of the early 80’s was the fault of Jimmy Carter and the democratically controlled congress. Period.
-
The 1982 - 1990 boom was specifically due to Ronald Reagan and the 2 years the republicans controlled the Senate. No credit to the House of Representatives at all (even though they spent less money every year than president Reagan requested - IOW, they created a smaller deficit than President Regan wanted.)
-
The 1990-1992 recession was solely the fault of the democratically controlled congress - certainly not the fault of either President Reagan or Bush.
-
The 1992-2000 boom was due to the policies of President Reagan and Bush - at least until 1995 when the Republican revolution class was sworn in. Then, they get the credit. The only thing we can be sure of is that it had nothing to do with (bleeeeeech!)…President Clinton…until…
-
The 2000- present recession is totally the fault of President Clinton and can in no way be laid at the feet of the republican controlled congress or (hallelujah!) George Bush.
Please tell me no one REALLY believes this?
Amazing. To say that your Resident has made a mess of international relations with his mad dash to war, would be a huge understatement – whether this Administration will be able to regain the goodwill of its own traditional former allies, is up in the air, but doubtful considering their track record of blunders and arrogance. As for the rest of the world, resentment for the US is running an all time high, much diplomacy needed. Not bombs.
Clearly, whatever the end result of the Iraq conflict, we’re going to be living in some of the most defining moments of the new century. Will the US remain the world’s sole hyperpower, or having just witnessed the perils that go with said power, will the EU, Russia, China, or a combination of all three, decide to counter the American dominance? What about the blowback likely to occur for the events that just happened? Any concerns?
I sincerely hope none of you think that all of the above is of no relevance when choosing your next President – because it is precisely because of the current one that they have become such life defining issues for all of us. And I do mean all of us, American or not.
So please, when voting in 2004 do think of the rest of the world. As we’ve just seen, the POTUS is infinitely more powerful than a butterfly flapping its wigs in South America. And you know what the latter can do.
:eek:
And no, butterflies really don’t have wigs in South America 
What I see. A weakening dollar, which can be directly blamed on huge deficit spending and a gradual pullout of foreign investment from America due to geopolitical concerns. This can be pinned directly on Bush and no one else.
A more uncertain world, filled with enemies of our own creation: North Korea and Iran were on the paths to reconciliation before our current president. There will be greater anti-Americanism around the world, less support for our policies, and a murmur of “American imperialism” any time we want to do anything. This extends beyond Iraq – Bush has poisoned the well on so many levels that it is hard to keep track: the ICC, Kyoto, several different UN meetings, Israel/Palestine, etc.
Less personal freedoms, which may be unavoidable from 9/11. But there will be greater corporate freedoms, and greater corporate access to government, which in no way is related to 9/11.
Less environmental protections, in part due to the hands-off approach of Bush, and in part due to the direct appointment of pro-business anti-environmentalists in government. Add to this the crumbling of ethics as conflict-of-interest abounds between the current regime and the Oil Industry.
Other disconcerting things such as a bloated military/industrial complex (say Crusader, say NMD, say Stealth Bomber), no progress on health care, faith based programs becoming a necessary part of governance, the intrusion of religion into all things American, the corporatization of mass media, etc.
Any Democrat would have to be a fool not to attack hard on at least some of these points. There is a significant amount of Americans who are very concerned about these things. Remember that more of us voted for Gore than Bush, and even more yet lodged a vote with Nader. Many Nader votes were protest votes. That ain’t gonna happen again, I feel. After 4 years of this shit, any protest votes will be firmly put back into the Democratic side, especially if the candidate cuts nicely to the left on things like the role of corporations in the government and campaign finance reform and the environment.
I hope Bush doesn’t have a chance.
Let me actually say “The Republicans” for some of the times that I said “Bush.” Like for ICC and Kyoto.
It began in the last quarter of the Clinton Administration. We’re now into the ninth quarter of the Bush Administration. Yes, after more than 2 years, he now has responsibility for it.
When, if ever, is the cutoff point in your considered view - is it simply that all economic problems are Democratic problems, and all gains are Republican victories?
Please don’t use smilies, rolleyes or otherwise, until you grasp their meaning, kiddo.
Danimal, JThunder, your grasp of sarcasm has a great deal of development work left. You might, however, consider that financial markets are based on future expectations more than present circumstances - if the near-term future of the economy looks good for companies, then stocks are considered a good investment and their prices will go up, money comes into the companies, they make more stuff and hire more people etc. If the government looks like its going into deficit, then Treasury notes become more attractive, investors move money from private-sector instruments into surer government notes, and the reduced capital helps create recession.
Compare to the events of late 2000 to investors’ expectations, if you will.
Folks arguing about whether Bush is responsible for the recession are missing teh point, I think. This thread isn’t about whether he DESERVES to win; it’s about whether he will.
When something bad occurs in a country, nobody appreciates a leader who says, “But it’s not my fault!” Whether or not it’s their fault is immaterial when it comes time for counting the votes.
That said, while the economy was slowing when Clinton was still in office, skillful economic wrangling might have forestalled our current situation. Skillful economic wrangling != huge tax cuts for the wealthy, alienating the rest of the world, deficit spending, and embroiling the country in a costly and unnecessary war.
Whether or not it’s his fault is immaterial. But it’s his fault.
Daniel
Daniel
I don’t understand you. Do you mean that I have failed to grasp your use of sarcasm, or that my own use of it was inadequate?
If I failed to grasp your sarcasm, then all apologies, but it seems to me that you are continuing to offer market anticipation of Bush’s election as a sincere explanation of the start of the recession.
If it is my own use of sarcasm that you are criticizing, then you may have a point, so I will state the below point straight despite almost overwhelming temptation to use sarcasm.
The investors before the election had no way of anticipating the events of late 2000. They had no way of anticipating Bush’s or Gore’s election. They most certainly had no way of anticipating the vast increase in federal military and homeland security spending that followed September 11, 2001 which have meant a big-time return to deficit spending.
The effort to blame the start of the recession on the anticipation of Bush’s election is quite reminiscent of the less reasonable brand of Libertarians’ effort to blame the start of the Great Depression on the market’s uncanny ability to foresee the Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930. The two arguments are equally meritless.
"They most certainly had no way of anticipating the vast increase in federal military and homeland security spending that followed September 11, 2001 which have meant a big-time return to deficit spending.
"
No cite handy because my source is a previous Krugman column, now in the Times’s pay-per-view archive. I’m pretty sure though that the lion’s share of the “big-time return to deficit spending” is due to Bush’s big-time taxcuts for the rich.