Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Economy: How is Dubya doing?


gchwood

What do you think of the new site?  

63 members have voted

  1. 1. What do you think of the new site?

    • Amazing
      30
    • Cool
      24
    • Could be better
      5
    • A letdown
      5

This poll is closed to new votes


Recommended Posts

I'll bite on this. I voted for a good job, but the one thing neither supporters nor detractors seem to understand is the President is not solely responsible for the economy! There are many many factors involved but it is easier to blame or praise whoever is sitting in office for the good or bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll bite on this. I voted for a good job, but the one thing neither supporters nor detractors seem to understand is the President is not solely responsible for the economy! There are many many factors involved but it is easier to blame or praise whoever is sitting in office for the good or bad.

The Iraq war is entirely significant to the economy and we have barely even begun to pay for it. Republicans are all about saying that low taxes=good economy. The next President, Democrat or Republican, will have no choice but to raise taxes to account for this deficit and war. We are enjoying putting off our debt right now, but the deficit is real, and we will pay for it sooner or later. Lowering taxes and starting an unjustified war is hugely irresponsible even if he us able to put off payment until after his Presidency is over.

Not to mention the $20 billion dollars Bush is spending annually for a missile defense system that does not work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Economy is in good shape right now. There are issues up for debate - the lower average wages, the replacement of high paying jobs with lower paying ones etc etc. Overall however I think his application of expansionary fiscal policy in resonse to a recession at the start of his Presidency was the right thing to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Iraq war is entirely significant to the economy and we have barely even begun to pay for it. Republicans are all about saying that low taxes=good economy. The next President, Democrat or Republican, will have no choice but to raise taxes to account for this deficit and war. We are enjoying putting off our debt right now, but the deficit is real, and we will pay for it sooner or later. Lowering taxes and starting an unjustified war is hugely irresponsible even if he us able to put off payment until after his Presidency is over.

Not to mention the $20 billion dollars Bush is spending annually for a missile defense system that does not work.

I feel this will fall on deaf ears, but here I go. The entire Congress had to vote to invade Iraq(which they did). Any money that is "spent" by the President has to be approved by Congress. This all supports my initial point that the President isn't the only factor in the health of the economy.

(And no, I don't want to get into an argument about pre-war intelligence, or anything else that has been discussed ad nauseum on this board, just take the point at face value)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel this will fall on deaf ears, but here I go. The entire Congress had to vote to invade Iraq(which they did). Any money that is "spent" by the President has to be approved by Congress. This all supports my initial point that the President isn't the only factor in the health of the economy.

(And no, I don't want to get into an argument about pre-war intelligence, or anything else that has been discussed ad nauseum on this board, just take the point at face value)

I think your point is very valid, as do most I'm guessing. However, fairly or unfairly, Bush is going to get the main of the praise or blame. Two reasons for it: He's the headman and the buck stops there. He is the Republican President presiding over a Republican Senate and Republican House. The Republican agenda has been by and large the only one getting voice or action over the past five years. And they are so much in bed that he has never needed to issue a veto and rarely has even threatened to.

So, if you think the economy is doing well he will get the lionshare of the praise and if it is doing poorly than he will get the prepoderance of the blame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Liberals on this board will say that Bush sucks.

Conservatives on this board will say that Bush is great.

Why even post the thread?

:laugh:

At least a few of us do realize that the economy is cyclical and usually president's have very little to do with a big upturn or downturn

As far as my business personally, it is doing just fine

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel this will fall on deaf ears, but here I go. The entire Congress had to vote to invade Iraq(which they did). Any money that is "spent" by the President has to be approved by Congress. This all supports my initial point that the President isn't the only factor in the health of the economy.

(And no, I don't want to get into an argument about pre-war intelligence, or anything else that has been discussed ad nauseum on this board, just take the point at face value)

That's a good point but the Republican-controlled congress of the first term was very obedient to Bush. Had he taken a different approach it's likely they would have gone along with it.

Not to mention, congress was lead to believe by the Bush adminstration, that this war would pay for itself. As with any beaurocratic endeavor, the costs have ballooned.

I didn't mean to sound all negative. Bush has done an OK job on the economy, I just think we are procrastinating our dues and compounding that with additional tax cuts for the rich. 2% across the board would have been great.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:laugh:

At least a few of us do realize that the economy is cyclical and usually president's have very little to do with a big upturn or downturn

As far as my business personally, it is doing just fine

Idisagree. Economies are cyclical, up to that point you are correct. Fiscal policy however does play a major role in how big a downturn or an upturn you get. For example - increasing taxes during a slow economic period will make a bad situation worse. Or - reducing the tax write off on a new home can crash the housing market.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Idisagree. Economies are cyclical, up to that point you are correct. Fiscal policy however does play a major role in how big a downturn or an upturn you get. For example - increasing taxes during a slow economic period will make a bad situation worse. Or - reducing the tax write off on a new home can crash the housing market.

That is a good point, but I do think fiscal policy is only part of the picture. There is of course monetary policy as well as other outside factors (such as 9/11, or the oil embargo of the 1970s) A lot of factors the president simply cannot control

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you factor in the Economic Disaster of 9/11 (of which certain segments are still reeling), Our economic outlook is amazingly good.

And while Bush and Congress deserve some credit, the praise should fall mostly on the Fed. Reserve. Their low rates allowed housing to boom and pull us out of the "recession".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is a good point, but I do think fiscal policy is only part of the picture. There is of course monetary policy as well as other outside factors (such as 9/11, or the oil embargo of the 1970s) A lot of factors the president simply cannot control
There is certainly no denying that. Some factors, especially those like oil, are completely out of the control of government. We all know (or should) what happened when they capped gas prices in the past (there were shortages).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is a good point, but I do think fiscal policy is only part of the picture. There is of course monetary policy as well as other outside factors (such as 9/11, or the oil embargo of the 1970s) A lot of factors the president simply cannot control

A president may not be able to control certain events which may or may not effect our economy but he can control his response to said event. His response can effect the economy almost as much as the event itself.

Despite the feelings on how the government controlled the Katrina incedent. Pres. Bush, I beleive, handled the potential economic downturn (for the nation, not just for the Gulf Coast) very well and pretty much prevented it, by properly provinding aid to displaced residents, who now are getting on with there lives and are productive members of society elsewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Economy is in good shape right now. There are issues up for debate - the lower average wages, the replacement of high paying jobs with lower paying ones etc etc. Overall however I think his application of expansionary fiscal policy in resonse to a recession at the start of his Presidency was the right thing to do.

What he said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The median household income rose for 2005 over 2004 4.4% that puts it at about $46,000. This is as good if not better than it was in 2000. Obliviously the number dipped during the recession that insued after the Septeber 11th attacks, but it has risen back up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The median household income rose for 2005 over 2004 4.4% that puts it at about $46,000. This is as good if not better than it was in 2000. Obliviously the number dipped during the recession that insued after the Septeber 11th attacks, but it has risen back up.

One thing is for certain: It ain't minimum wage workers bringing up that average.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In terms of maximizing number of employed: he's done well

In terms of raising median standard of living during an economic boom: not sure but my guess from most of what I've seen is poor.

In terms of making sure that our children have a good standard of living: fair- that one may be shocking from a liberal like me. I hate the debt he is leaving. I think it's irresponcible in the extreme to continue expansionary government spending policies and tax breaks in non recession times. The debt will have to be repaid.

The reason I am not as down on that aspect is because I think there is a chance we come out of the middle east with new long term allies that may have resources we need going into the future. Either that or he will alienate them to the point where we are forced to look at other ways of getting energy (which we should be doing anyway so as to be on the crest of the next economic wave). What's more, I think he's done a fair job of encouraging our workforce to get skills that will be useful in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate the debt he is leaving. I think it's irresponcible in the extreme to continue expansionary government spending policies and tax breaks in non recession times. The debt will have to be repaid.

You mean deficit?

The debt has been there since the 17-1800s and more than likely will never be repaid (SS, which is part of the debt, will never be paid off).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...