I hope Bush's "moral values" pulls this economy together and Bush figures out how to pay for his promises. He has set some lofty goals, but has not actually figured out how he is going to reach those goals.
What exactly did Bush do to dampen the economy? Our economic recession started during the Clinton administration, was greatly enhanced by 9/11, and we are fighting wars in two country's. Unemployment is virtually the same as when Clinton was re elected. I own my own business and we had our best year ever this year. For God sakes how many of you are eating out of a trash can. Ever talk to the WWII people? Hell, they went through WWII, the great depression and still built a great country. Today if some lettece eating, government sponging, stay at home until they're 35, free college education having, deadbeat lowlife parasite doesn't get enough coin for his double latte', he's crying in his empy cup about the economy. If half the hippie cabbage smoking bum's would depart their butt cheeks from the credit card purchased sofa and go contribute something, maybe the rest of us could spend OUR money instead of the government stealing it to give to some germ to squander. To tell the truth, I doubt that any president can effect the economy the way some think they can. Our economy is big, and complex. I think presidents are given to much credit for a good economy, and to much criticism for a lackluster one. The next time a homeless person reaches out their hand and ask for money, put a card from job service in the hand.
I don't know what stock market you are in Muley 69, but I can assure you that this economy is NOT as good as the markets were under Clinton. Sure, some business especially those associated with security have done great, but many many more have not. I also disagree about a President having much to do about the economy. The President can and does do A LOT regarding the economy. We shall see what the next four years bring, but on economy, I give Bush a C minus for the last four years. I know I have not made much in my investments.
Alaska: the economy goes in cycle that quite frankly are reasonably predictable and cross presidentail administrations. Secondly, the economy does not respond instantly. It takes a long time, years, for the economy to respond to tinkering. This is a big complex machine that reacts slowly. Just because somebody is president doesn't mean that the economy is a reflection of their administration, it rarely is. Why is it that everyone is so willing to blame the pres and give a free pass to congress, the commerce department, and major corporations etc? Come on, use your head. Coaches don't fumble footballs, players do.
I am trying to remember how much money my father made in his investments during WWII.
Most people do not know or some don't want to hear about the so-called boom days under Clinton. Alan Greenspan saw right away that the stock market was growing at a pace that was sure to come crashing down in a big hurry. But before you go critizing Mr. Greenspan hear the rest of it. Anyone could tell, and I'm talking too about investors, stock brokers and accountants, that on paper people were making millions selling and buying stock in "dot com" companies, many of which didn't actually exist. A feeding frenzy began.
You see you can't invest wisely (key word) in something that is difficult to put a hand on. Greenspan saw this and vowed that he would put an end to the "dot com" stock market boom before it destroyed us all.
Well, it kicked in just prior to Mr. Bush being elected and the rest is history so they say.
Then war broke out and not too many people expect to have to make any kind of financial sacrifices for that.
I find it interesting how all of us put things into our own perspective. Some make statements saying the economy isn't very good because their investments haven't done well or haven't made as much money as they thought or wanted to and others have lost a job because a hurricane blew through Florida and destroyed their business.
Get a grip! Did we carry a surplus budget during previous wars? Are you upset with Mr. Bush and his handling of the economy because you only made $50, $500, $5000, $50,000 last year. Geez, suck it up! Better days are ahead.
I'll end with one last question - which is something my writing teacher told me I should never do. Who does control or jobs and economy?
__________________
If you give a politician an enema you can easily hide them in a bread box.
In times of crisis many go back to the foundation, for us that foundation is our moral values. Thank God enough people in enough states voted that way.
As far as the economy, it was good throughout much of the 1990's thanks to the foundation laid by Reagan. It faltered a bit in the early 1990's, & this faltering was played up by the old media to defeat the first President Bush. In 1994 there was another hiccup in the economy because of the largest tax increase in history. After the Republicans took over congress, much of these tax mistakes were corrected & the economy chugged along with the technological & internet boom, along with the buildup to Y2K. Late 1999, the tech bubble began to burst & this was exacerbated by the passing of Y2K. The economy was beginning a recession during 2000, & this was greatly exacerbated by the terrorist strike of 9-11. President Bush has made positive changes in the economy, mainly the tax cuts & credits for those who pay. The economy has made a great comeback & I certainly hope that President Bush continues to do the things he can to help the economy - tax cuts & credits, streamlining regulation, & the like. I hope during the second term we can lessen our dependence on foreign oil, lower fuel costs will not hurt one bit!
I am not going to get inot this with you, because it sounds like you have your mind made up. But suffice it to say that the markets and economics in general are a big hobby of mine. Cerianly Bush got some bad breaks, but that is part of life. He has been so-so in handling the problems. I really am not a big supply-side kind of guy. I am like the first President Bush who still consider it mostly vodoo economics. It has some applications, but I for one am not convinced that it is the sole answer. Actually, I am pretty certain that it is not, and that under our current economic conditions, supply-side economics is not getting us out the problem. I am a Keynesian type of guy myself.
Kenotn,
To take a rather Emmaul Kantian view of this. If I do not guage the economy by my own experiences, whose shall I measure it by? Bill Gates? Jim Carey's? Eli Mannings? You are damned right I am gonna be upset with President Bush if my investments don't start producing. He has had four years now, and now he gets four more. We shall see what the next years bring, but if they don't go well, who the hell should I blame? John Kerry?
As for your question, in THIS economic senario, we operate undre Say's Law, which says that supply always dictates demand. Under this process, the belief is that the producer will produce an item and price will fluctuate to a level where it will sell. Under Say's s Law (supply-side), huge price differences MUST ocurr. Also, monetary availability matters a lot. We do not like deflation, which has to ocurr under Say's Law, so we instead control monetary policy via the prime lending rate. Alan Greenspan has enormous power and weilds it every month.
Say's law DOES NOT apply to all things, if markets are your hobby you should know this. ANd Say's law does not even remotely apply to the Oil increases, it is exploding demand from CHINA, not lack of supply. Also if your investments are not making a "quick buck" for you, you should know, the stock market is for the long term. You need to learn a few applications and not believe in theory.
As for the roaring 90's, when is everyone gonna wake up and smell the fraud. The "economic boom" up until 1999 was clearly speculation. All the gains where almost entirely on companies that were NOT SHOWING PROFIT, another lack of application to your Say's law. IT was NO supply, and demand was an illusion. When you sell a "market dynamic" like Enron, or "upside position" with the dot comers, there is NO PRODUCT. SO no demand, no supply.
The 1990's Boom was an illusion. YOU may not be supply side economics or a trickle down theorists, but those 2 work and work quite well.
Liberals' lack of understanding: Moral Values
