Bush did not cause the economic downturn. However, I believe his policies rather than ameliorating the crisis have as a matter of fact deepened it. It is also evident that we will be paying for his follies for years to come. His answer to every problem is to cut taxes for the wealthy.
au1929 wrote:Bush did not cause the economic downturn. However, I believe his policies rather than ameliorating the crisis have as a matter of fact deepened it. It is also evident that we will be paying for his follies for years to come. His answer to every problem is to cut taxes for the wealthy.
While I disagree with your opinion on this, thank you for expressing it in a rational, reasonable, intelligent manner. You have set the bar for others in this discussion.
I believe that cutting taxes for all wage earners, as Bush has done, will inevitably drive the economy forward/upward. Whether it will do so sooner or later has a lot to do with many other factors that are out of the hands of this President as they would be no matter who held the office.
Translation, if it's good we'll claim it for Bush, if it is bad - it is because of Clinton! (all wage earners - what a joke!~)
tres
Quote: I believe that cutting taxes for all wage earners, as Bush has done, will inevitably drive the economy forward/upward.
From what I have been reading most economists do not believe in trickle down economics. It has been pretty much discredited. The entire economic team who devised this scheme is now gone. They all wanted to spend time with their families. And will do so as soon as they remove the knife in their back. His new team {historically} does not believe the concept nor do the believe in deficit spending or an unbalanced budget. In fact the great one Greenspan just stuck a pin in Bush's tax plan.
Now it remains to see what will happen with this new economic team in place.
According to some stuff I've read, even some GOP members of congress doesn't agree with GWBush's tax plan. c.i.
Yeah, but 4 Dems do - I know it is Zeller and Breaux. Does anyone know the others?
In 2000, we experienced the inevitable and normal downturn in the business cycle, sharper than usual because there had been a market bubble. But all economists (even the righties) agreed that the underlying economy was sound. What Bush has done is destroy the stability of the basic economy. His tax cuts have been completely nuts. 9/11 was a challenge but not something which would have kept us down if we had handled it better. But 9/11 didn't just knock down some buildings and kill 3,000 people, they revealed to us a depth of incompetence among those responsible for our security that most hadn't dreamed existed. Some of this was systemic, but the way Bush has handled systemic problems --some of which predate his administration (and that of his father) --has earned him even lower marks than he got at Yale. The irony is that he has a purse of $250M for his 2004 campaign. It would be interesting to see precisely where that money is coming from, and I mean precisely.
Tartarin, it should also be pointed out that Bush bad mouthed the economy up until last year sometime. The economy is psycological, and if the appointed president is bad mouthing the economy, it will take a longer and sharper dip. This guy has blown leadership from the git go!
Or, Bill, he meant to do precisely what he has done. See the new book on Karl Rove. And did you see, by any chance, Friedman's op-ed piece in today's (3/3) NY Times?
For a guy who has been very supportive of Bush, this is a new tack:
The new book on Rove:
"Behind every successful politician lies a group of fiercely loyal individuals who help make the dream of holding public office become a reality. In President George W. Bush's case, one person has always stood above the rest. His name is Karl Rove. Dubbed "the man with the plan" by the President himself, White House Senior Advisor Karl Rove helped develop the political career of George W. Bush and continues to be a guiding force within the current Bush White House. But who is Karl Rove and how did he acquire such power and influence?
Bush's Brain: How Karl Rove Made George W. Bush Presidential is the first in-depth examination of Rove's remarkable political journey, as well as a straightforward narrative of the key role he has played in George W. Bush's rise to the top. Equal parts biography and history of late twentieth-century politics, this fascinating book pieces together the puzzle of Rove's extraordinary political life through personal interviews with Rove himself as well as revealing stories from friends and foes alike. Veteran political journalists James Moore and Wayne Slater take you on a fast-paced ride that uncovers both the masterful skills and secret machinations of the President's chief political strategist. You'll gain the inside story on how Rove:
· Destroyed the careers of people who opposed his ideas and his candidates
· Planned "secret" classes to teach George W. Bush how government works
· Ran brutal yet brilliant campaigns that eventually swept Bush into the White House
· Impacted the midterm elections of 2002
· Exerts his influence in virtually every presidential decision-whether it involves steel import tariffs or extending the war on terrorism
Karl Rove is both feared and admired by Republicans and Democrats alike. In the fullness of his accomplishments, Rove has raised a new and disturbing question for American voters and their republic: Who really runs this country? In Bush's Brain: How Karl Rove Made George W. Bush Presidential, you'll enter a world of power and politics where few dare to venture-and leave with a better understanding of how much power Karl Rove really has."
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/stores/detail/-/books/0471423270/reviews/qid=1046752459/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-4214784-8356745
Bush laid it out during his campaign. And yes, Friedman's column was interesting. His approach to the subject was pretty good, too - he managed to point out a lot of places where this has actually done harm.
I spent an interesting week-end with some people involved with the money markets - Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs. And boy, are their views interesting. Nobody was cheerleading the Bush plans - as a matter of fact, conversation was steered away from any mention of Bush. Most of these people are globalists, and believe in it, and think the present policies are verging on the disastrous side, because, when all is said and done, we really do need to work with other people.
Arguments about reforming the tax structure have been going on for years. My father used to say "taxes make thieves of us all," and it's true. But the problem with all Bush plans is that the transparency is there, and, as time goes on, the arrogance and disregard for any outside his immediate class becomes more and more obvious. There are lots of particulars, but the over-all message is quite clear.
When I think of what they have accomplished in just two years. They took a growing economy and a surplus, and have managed to stop the growth, lose over two million jobs, and grow the deficit. He did come in talking gloom and doom about the economy - the purpose being to push through his grand tax plan which fell flat on its face.
When you look at the people around him - there is not the depth, experience, nor wisdom needed. His financial advisors - except for Daniels - have all been replaced - but by whom? It's like putting the unbelievable looking Sean O'Keefe as head of Nasa. His previous experience was as a budget director. This sort of symbolizes the whole approach to government.
Mama, it's my contention (as you probably know!) that we live in an increasingly complicated world for which we are increasingly badly educated. What made me come back to this was your remark about talk with globalists. There's just no way we can avoid becoming globalists -- we are part of a global community, after all. (Imagine living in Connecticut and refusing to know anything about America.) Still, there are people on all sides who are terrified at the prospect. My response is: learn more about the globe!
In the 21st C., we've made a giant leap into space and are intrigued even by the technical aspects of that leap. But we are woefully ignorant about THIS world. In order to understand and get along, we have to come to a better understanding of who we are, and that means accepting a more realistic view of American history and social character than anyone wants to teach, at least not below post-graduate level. Well, we're going to have to do it, sooner or later, unless our only relationship with the rest of the world is to be expressed entirely through WMD's!
"When I put my hand on the Bible, ...when I put my hand on the Bible, that day when they swear us in, ...when I put my hand on the Bible, I will swear to not ...to uphold the laws of the land."
--Dubya, Toledo, Oct. 27, 2000
Tartarin - it is a complicated and different world today. And yet, when I consider the people in the administration today (most of them) - I think of America firsters, of the attitudes that were prevalent years ago, and that is one of the things that worries me so about so much.
The attitude of "I'll go it alone; I don't need you" may sound bold to some, but to me it is a signal of impending doom. We do live in a global community, and that won't change, but will enlarge. And our existence will depend upon our interdependency. So globalization is the key to trade. But then, it always was - it's just that the vision of the globe was narrower.
Remember Hillary Clinton's "It Takes a Village?" And how much fun was made of that book? But it meant so much more than a lot of people thought.
Look at who made fun of it mama - would you want to be on their side?
I am happy with whom I have drawn as compatriots!
BillW, And who might they be? LOL c.i.
On the right side of course c.i., er, make that the left side, ok!
