See what the other side thinks... http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/474ndwvi.asp I don't think anti-war is a winner for the dems - compared to Viet Nam there is no draft (the biggie), far fewer body bags, and a clearly defined dictator who had messed with us (and his own people much worse). The bar is HIGH in this country for the citizens to embrace critique of military actions - meaning, it has to be an obvious misuse like VN - this isn't. But domestically, jobs still lagging and lagging woefully, an adminstration concerned with parochial interests, subsidies and special tax breaks, versus sound market economic policy - giveaways to everyone, most recently this medicare prescription drug fraud. They are extremely reluctant to do a few things that need to be done to bring both justice AND enhance them PR wise - like prosecuting CEO fraud and recouping all they can for the shareholders they ripped-off. The AG of NY, not the US, is leading the charge in this. Still questionable dem candidates, imo.
The stats look good now - to economists, not workers. Still, while I expect job growth, for an overall presidency, it will be really, really low.
True, but I would expect you to be one of the first to understand that while the President has a hand in the economy, the most control over the economy is held by the Federal Open Market Committee...and the board of Governors of the Fed. Bush, Clinton, and Bush Sr. all had their hands in the economy with tax cuts, etc....but the majority of the economy is controlled by Alan Greenspan and company. Economic figures are constantly being revised and the most recent revision has the economy going sour far earlier than they predicted... But I am not going to sit here and blame that on Clinton. The economy goes in cycles. The FOMC tries to control and keep the economy from over heating or from getting to bad, but for the most part, the economy goes in huge cylces....
I've got a job. I haven't been out of work for even one day since 6/15/67. And if I didn't have a job it would be my fault. Not any administration's.
That's true, except that the Fed has had a loose money position for a while now - they tighten up once in a while when they smell inflation, but that's been the exception. On the other hand, they have to finance this deficit - and how do you do it? Sell securities which tightens things back up. And I think bush bears a good bit of responsibility in that regard. As for Bush, I think he has made some errors - he was really late to the altar on CEO corruption, eg (he held on to Harvey Pitt, who was an absolute apologist for chicanery, for way too long, eg) - but it's largely not his fault- just looking at the politics and the pres bears the burden of the economy
I think they have had a lose position on money because they know that Open Market Purchases and Open Market Sales cannot completely pull the country out of a recession. Since around 1980 when Paul Vocker regained confidence from the public with his fight against inflation, the Fed has done its best to keep he economy from bottoming out, but IMO, that's as far as it goes. The President has policies he can send forward to help, but the predicting the economy and trying to control the economy isn't an easy task. Look at the FOMC. Their Septemeber meeting( I believe), they were still "biased towards further economic stress." Little did they know that the jobless claims were on their way down, the recession figures would soon be revised, and that total unemployment was on its way down... There is a story I like to tell when debating this issue.Bill Clinton held a summit, a meeting of sorts in Little Rock, Arkansas. They were meeting there to discuss the economy. They wondered what they could do to stop the stumbling economy. All the top economic minds were there, democrat and republican alike. Out of all of Mr. Clinton's trusted economic advisors, the only person who he paid any attention or merit to was Alan Greenspan, a republican. The Fed, at that time, lowered the Federal Funds Rate to an almost all time low of 3%. With the computer revolution and the cut in heathcare costs, the economy soared. In 2001, because of 9/11, the economy waddled back down.. My point is that with heathcare cuts and tax cuts, the President can have a small hand in the economy. But the real power resides in a New Yorker by the name of Alan Greenspan...
My other point is that George Bush could do little to stop the train wreck that was our economy. It was overheating big time. The Fed tried to curtail that with a high Federal Funds Rate target( raising it from 3% to about 6.5%), but that did little. Bush tried with his tax cuts and his reform plan and it seems that may have helped a little, but not as much as the Reagan tax cuts in the mid 80's.....My main, main point here is that no matter who was sitting in the oval office(Gore, Bush, McCain, or Howard Dean) would have done a damn thing to stop it...
The economy is a tough thing - you call it "overheated" - well, what does that suggest - inflation. Yet, inflation has been stable (price stability has been the number 1 goal of the Fed under Voelker and Greenspan and they've succeeded). Yet, we didn't see inflation - we saw an immediate recession. I think expectations had the most to do with it, and perception and expectations often begets reality in the economy. I think people knew in their hearts that the market was overvalued and were walking on eggshells - at the first sign of a bear, people pulled out - couple that with the timing of the CEO malfeasance, the bogus financials of so many companies and the market tanked and companies pulled back investment as they regathered themselves. The correction was much larger than it should have been, but that's they way they often work. I was virtually out of the market by October 1996 - now I lost out on a lot of gains and was kicking my self for a while, but all in all, I came out okay I suppose. I've been back in for a year (slowly) and will hold steady for a while and see what happens.
When I said "overheated," when I meant was overvalued. And while Vocker did fight inflation and beat it with record high interest rates, Greenspan has done the opposite...I think Greenspan has used the Federal Funds Rate target to try and curtail spending and bring the economy down to a working level...
