Bush and the Economy

[pennypinch]

This is always a fun topic. And I'm sure it'll bring those from both sides out of the woodwork and into, well, the fire.

I have no real problem with Bush's inability to pronounce words correctly. I find it funny, but ultimately, it doesn't do a WHOLE lot to his ability to perform his job. Hey, sometimes it's kind of...quaint.

What I do have a problem with is his new and troubling tack towards the economy. Now, I'm all for a tax cut. Hell, who isn't? Lookit, I know myself I can spend my money a hell of a lot better and more efficiently than the government.

The problem I have is the way Bush is funnelling money right back into his cronies' pockets. What happened to the new economy? He seems to be intent to returning energy, defense, and all the rest of the dinosaurs back to prominence. Further, it's becoming increasingly clear that, while those new tech companies drove the economy, maybe Slippery Dick did have something to do with keeping the economy going: he didn't fuck it up, 'cept maybe towards the end. The Republicans are having to sheepishly admit that good public policy is needed to steer this ship away from the shoals, a direct contrast to "hell, it takes care of itself."

So my question is this: what the hell is he doing? Sure, all those tech and internet companies are leading the charge to the bottom, but he sure isn't helping, what with all this recession talk.

His policies thus far have shown he's not really into uniting the country at all; that was his overarching campaign theme, and so far, it's been a general fallacy.

[jase71]

I think he wants to play up the economy problems right now as much as possible, and make things painful in the short run, so that when they get better, he can take the credit.

The economy is, at the core, fairly sound right now. The markets have tanked, and a lot of money has been lost, but inflation is in check, interest rates are ok, we're not losing tons of jobs. The foundation is there for a return to a decent economy.

By playing up the bad economy now, Bush can try to pass most of it off as Clinton's problems that he inherited, not problems Bush has created. (regardless of whether that's true or not).

Then, when things turn around, Bush can claim the credit for "fixing" the economy. (again, whether it's true or not)

Bush, I think, knows that the economy is generally sound, and is going to turn around for the better. By creating adversity now, he sets himself up as the hero later.

He also insulates himself if the economy DOESN'T turn around, because he can say "The economy sucked when I took office, it's not my fault!". That won't entirely work if things are still rough in a year, but it'll keep some of his core supporters closer to home for longer than they otherwise might stick around.

It doesn't even really matter who's to blame for the downturn. Basically, by badmouthing the economy now, he's just trying to avoid the blame for anything, and pin it on the Democrats. He's weaseling, just in case someone tries to pin it on him. He's more focused on blame and credit than he is on fixing the problems.

[pennypinch]

Originally posted by jase71
I think he wants to play up the economy problems right now as much as possible, and make things painful in the short run, so that when they get better, he can take the credit.

The economy is, at the core, fairly sound right now. The markets have tanked, and a lot of money has been lost, but inflation is in check, interest rates are ok, we're not losing tons of jobs. The foundation is there for a return to a decent economy.

By playing up the bad economy now, Bush can try to pass most of it off as Clinton's problems that he inherited, not problems Bush has created. (regardless of whether that's true or not).

Then, when things turn around, Bush can claim the credit for "fixing" the economy. (again, whether it's true or not)

Bush, I think, knows that the economy is generally sound, and is going to turn around for the better. By creating adversity now, he sets himself up as the hero later.

He also insulates himself if the economy DOESN'T turn around, because he can say "The economy sucked when I took office, it's not my fault!". That won't entirely work if things are still rough in a year, but it'll keep some of his core supporters closer to home for longer than they otherwise might stick around.

It doesn't even really matter who's to blame for the downturn. Basically, by badmouthing the economy now, he's just trying to avoid the blame for anything, and pin it on the Democrats. He's weaseling, just in case someone tries to pin it on him. He's more focused on blame and credit than he is on fixing the problems.

Interesting take.

The weird thing is no-one's comparing this to Reagan's heyday, which was alright in the short run, but clearly set Bush the Olde to do nothing but fail. I'm all for maintaining the military, but expanding it when any forseeable threats can be managed with the existing military? And I thought the "go inside so you can breate fresh air" era in the 60's had taught us that, while ecological legislation was a pain in the ass, it was a neccessary pain in the ass.

I've read a couple of pertinent articles on Salon. I'm sure they'll be branded pinko commie BS by someone one on this board, but they seem to make common sense to me. Bush's lining the pockets of those that lined his. While I certainly wouldn't expect otherwise from the other guys, at least they were a little more subtle about it. Lookit, I can understand winning, and the associated gush of "wow, we gotta make whole all those people that kept pumping us with money the last 8 years." But c'mon: have some taste and class about it. These actions in the last two months are clearly set to appease the right, and no-one but the right. It's damaging to politics in general; yet another career politician going back on his campaign promises to "unite".

[jase71]

Bush and his crew have been pretty careful about framing this tax cut as just a tax cut and a boost for the economy, and NOT an economic theory, like "trickle down" or "supply side" economics.

There's enough evidence around about the damage of Reagan's tax cuts that I don't think Bush wants to delve too deeply into it. I think he'd just as soon avoid any comparisons.

Even David Stockman, Reagan's budget advisor, has long since come out and admitted that the Reagan tax cuts were merely a disguise for a huge tax cut for the rich.

Now, why Democrats aren't playing this whole thing up as Voodoo Economics 2, I don't know. Bush's tax cut is more of the same trickle down garbage that failed the first time.

The problem is, it's hard to tell people that THIS tax cut is wrong. Mostly because people perceive that as being the same as "ANY tax cut is wrong". And rather than appear against tax cuts, most Democrats are just keeping their mouths shut. It's too hard to differentiate your position in 15 second sound bites, so they stay quiet.

Frankly, this is prime material to show the weaknesses of Bush's positions on the issue, and it's being wasted...

[Apex]

One thing to keep in mind when talking about the economy. Because of the size of the US economy, most analysts put the inertia at roughly 8 years. Meaning, for most policy changes, the bulk of the reward/consequences will be reaped roughly 8 years after implementation.

[jase71]

Originally posted by Apex
One thing to keep in mind when talking about the economy. Because of the size of the US economy, most analysts put the inertia at roughly 8 years. Meaning, for most policy changes, the bulk of the reward/consequences will be reaped roughly 8 years after implementation.

I think this would vary greatly depending on the policy change in question.

For example, Reagan had to sign some huge tax INCREASES only a year or two after his big cuts, because the cuts were too deep, and the impact was already being seen. Regardless of whether you liked or disliked Reagan's cuts and policies, the results were apparent much quicker than 8 years...

We also don't wait 8 years to see the impact of Greenspan's rate hikes/drops from the Fed. There are almost immediate impacts, as well as some that take longer to play out.

I can see 8 years for subtle policy changes... or for gentle nudges in one direction or the other. But changes as sweeping as those Bush is proposing (and the ones Reagan implemented) will have major effects fairly quickly...

[fakesurfers]

Also, keep in mind that Bush's budget assumptions assume a 3.2% growth rate this year. Thats the dirty little secret no one talks about. If it was flat the first half of the year so it would have to grow at 6.4% ( a pretty steep increase) to make that rate. That's the shifting sand that his whole budget is built on.

So on one hand he says the economy is in the crapper to try to push Voodoo2, on the other he says that things are swell so he can pretend everything will be ok with his budget. Let's see: tax cuts, big increase in military spending, flat social spending with a few targeted inceases for window dressing; sounds familiar. It's what the elder Bush campaigned against in 1980. Trickle down or voo doo economics.

He's just another 2-faced politician.

[katmai]

I don't trust him or his cronies. They're slowly, surgically, and quietly, undoing ALOT of what has been accomplished over the last 8 years.

Bad business that.

[OC]

I don't trust the guy either. This is from his acceptance speech: "A new administration is an opportunity for change and a new direction," Bush said. "That is the promise I have made and the promise I will keep -- to give America a fresh start."

What was so bad that we need "change and a new direction"? What is so bad that we need a "fresh start"? Until very recently (with the economy turning sour) things were pretty damn good in this country. Record low unemployment, crime levels that continue to drop from year to year, etc. What was so bad? That's one thing he's never brought up. He told us he wants to bolster the military (when we already have the strongest military in the world by far), he wants this huge tax cut (which I for one have mixed feelings about - more in a second), and he wanted to restore digintiy to the Oval Office. I'm sorry, starting his term with several lies and turnarounds is not my idea of "dignity".

Here's a snippet from an article I found: "The Bush administration has decided to severely scale back a popular Clinton-era program that has put tens of thousands of new police officers on the streets" - Bush said in an interview last year that he believed hiring police officers should be largely a local concern. "I view that as focus-group politics that breaches the role of what the federal government should do." - the upcoming budget proposal would likely provide less than a quarter of the $228 million funded in the current budget for hiring municipal police officers. http://www.latimes.com/print/asectio...000027315.html

This is part of why I have mixed feelings about this tax cut. It's obvious that he's going to curtail several programs, some of which have direct impact on peace and prosperity in this country. (Do any of you think we need FEWER cops? And what will we get when we have fewer cops? Higher crime maybe?) I would much rather this program (and others) be left in place since it means my quality of life will be higher (and I consider the safety of my neighborhood to be part of my quality of life.) Talk about a fresh start - let's bring back some crime, shall we?

-o

[zenbooty]

Originally posted by overclocked
Do any of you think we need FEWER cops? And what will we get when we have fewer cops? Higher crime maybe

I certainly do. Cops are at worst corrupt, brutish thugs who abuse their power and authority for the benefit of themselves or the mobs who pay them off. At best they are implements of control for the white aristocracy to protect them from the angry, subjugated have-nots who have to struggle to exist in this country. The first step in fighting crime is educating everyone on their 2nd amendment rights, and encouraging urban and suburban neighbors to once again come together as communities and cooperate and work together to protect their communities. The second part of reducing crime is getting rid of the cops and any other authority from afar that is not directly affected by crime in that area. Self-protection is natural, and humans tend to be quite good at it when they have to. But protecting others is rarely a successful ploy, all too often becoming more of a protection racket than a policy. Corruption is just too easy when the people sworn to protect an area don't even live there.

[jase71]

NO kidding...

What has he accomplished so far?

He's rolled back OSHA regulations regarding repetitive stress injuries on the job. So if you get a repetitive stress injury, tough luck. They put someone else in the job. If they get a repetitive stress injury, tough luck. They put someone else in the job. No longer is a company responsible for changing a job that repeatedly injures workers.

He's waffled and backed off on his greenhouse gasses promises. Not that this surprises me. Dubya's the guy who essentially let industry in Texas police it's own emissions.

And his tax cut panders to the rich. No bones about it.
The numbers don't lie.

Oh, and he's suggested an increased role for nuclear power in solving the energy problems. Quite a suggestion given that it roughly coincided with the anniversary for Three Mile Island.

Fresh new start for CORPORATE America, maybe... but not for America.

[OC]

Well said, jase 71. Another thing I'm concerned about is how the US is starting to look on the world stage. Frankly, Dubya is embarrassing. Look at these headlines and snippets from around the world:

President George W Bush, polluter of the free world - Barely two months into his tenure, George Bush is already building himself a legacy as the pollution president. The man, sometimes known as the Toxic Texan, who casually opined during last year's election campaign that scientists had yet to make a compelling case for global warming, is proving true to his word. http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...sp?story=63697

Bush Backs Out - The rest of the world, including the (Irish) Government, has reacted with justifiable anger and outrage to the announcement that President George W. Bush has rejected the Kyoto Protocol on climate change, which commits signatory States to reduce their emissions of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming. Since the United States is responsible for at least 25 per cent of worldwide emissions, with only four per cent of world population, the decision appears to confirm a pattern of arrogant unilateralism in the emerging Bush foreign policy. http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/opi.../0330/edi2.htm

It's Payback Time for Bush Contributors - ...the gang in power is out to pillage and rape the environment with an abandon not witnessed since the days when strip-mining was in vogue. The principle seems to be that what's good for a company that gave money to the Bush campaign is good for the country. As a Los Angeles Times front-page headline put it: "With Bush, Happy Days Here Again for Business Lobby." - The Times quoted big business lobbyists claiming they were frozen out during the Clinton years of "over-regulation." Strange, isn't it, that the economic boom that benefited so many of them was hardly stifled by those same regulations. But public interest be damned as lobbyists enjoy a rapid string of successes, from wiping out workplace safety rules to freeing mine owners from having to post bonds to ensure they will clean up their messes.http://www.latimes.com/news/comment/...000026255.html

Oh, and did you know that oil companies gave Dubya nine times more money than they gave Gore? Dubya is in their back pocket, no two ways about it.

-o

[jase71]

Well, since we're quoting, I like this one:


"To conceal the real impact of his legislation, Mr. Bush and his budget also used fancifully low estimates of spending... Then there is the little matter of Social Security and Medicare. The Bush budget assumes that their reserves can be diverted for other uses instead of being there for the baby boomers as they retire... For some ideologoues the deception in presenting the tax plan is unimportant.

<snipped section>

They are not satisfied by the fact that federal spending as a share of gross domestic product has shrunk about 20 percent in the last decade."

-- New York Times, p. A13 3/10/01

[OC]

What do you think the impact of all this reduced spending will be? Will states try to pick it up? All I see this budget accomplishing is reducing the size of the federal government, but with no suggested alternatives for the programs that will be cut or curtailed. That sounds like abandonment to me, not leadership. I know it's not the job of the federal government to fix all our problems, but Dubya is going to leave a lot of people high and dry.

I hope that some state governors will band together to provide some leadership in the areas that Dubya is abandoning.

-o

[jase71]

Reduced spending?

I haven't seen any of that yet... and I don't expect to, if you look at the totals when all is said and done.

Bush has talked about cuts, but he's also talked about increases, and I would suspect that the increases will more than overshadow the cuts. It's too early to tell, and I could be wrong about that, but history is on my side...

Reagan's tax cuts were only practical if the government made massive spending cuts to account for them. But they didn't. They made some social spending cuts, but made HUGE increases on defense spending. And this was during the time when Reagan was president, and the Republicans controlled the Senate, from '81-86. Reagan promised to have the budget balanced by 1984, but he never came close. Deficits doubled and might even have tripled. He never even PROPOSED a balanced budget to Congress, much less got one passed.

I can't see that things will be very different this time around. Bush hasn't given me any reason to believe they'll be different. I hear the same rhetoric as I did back then...