Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Bush inherited this economy, It's not his fault.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Robin Hood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 01:38 PM
Original message
Bush inherited this economy, It's not his fault.
Edited on Sun Sep-14-03 01:53 PM by Liberal_Guerilla
That's all we get out of this Administration, I didn't do it, Blame Clinton. When Clinton took office in 92 he inherited an economy with over 7% unemployment and a three trillion dollar deficit. In 92 we were also fresh from the gulf war and somalia, and the world trade center was also bombed during Clinton's presidency.

Not once did Clinton get up there and say "Hey, don't blame me, it's Bush/Reagan's fault, Not once. Instead, Clinton took the bull by the horns and dealt with it, and deal with it he did.

When he handed over America to the Bush's again, he gave them an America that had a surplus, an America with the lowest unemployment numbers in history. A prosperous America that was at peace and fairly admired by most of the world.

Here we are three years later and the Bush's have us back where we started from in 91. Surplus spent and deficits building, Unemployment up to 6%+(If you believe the numbers coming out of the current government, see link below*), 3 MILLION jobs LOST. The whole world hates our guts. We are at war on all fronts, and we are losing.

And the stupid boy king, and his tax cuts for the wealthy has the nerve to blame this colossal mess on Clinton and the terrorists. Clinton never blamed his father, never blamed terrorism or anything else for the state of the nation. Why? Because he knew that the state of the nation was his responsibility, and he handled that responsibility with flying colors.

BUSH IS A MISERABLE FAILURE!! And it is all his fault. Not Clinton's not the terrorist, Not the corporate crooks. In three short years he has run this country into the ground. I can't afford four more years of this dunce, I'll be homeless again, just like during his fathers presidency.

Here's a bumper sticker for you:

I can't afford Bush in o4'


*True unemployment numbers. http://www.hispanicbusiness.com/news/newsbyid.asp?id=12...


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
rfranklin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 01:45 PM
Response to Original message
1. As someone here pointed out...
Saying that the economy doesn't turn on a dime and the Chimp inherited this mess because of Clinton, you would then have to credit Carter for Reagan's economic "success." And that's one that the rightards can't deal with.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Robin Hood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #1
8. Smoke comes out of their years
When you throw back their "logic" to the Bush bots. Duck!! It's gonna blow!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 01:46 PM
Response to Original message
2. Clinton's GDP expanded - including *'s first qtr 01 - so inherited how?
A stock market downturn from a year early does not not mean recession - or even a prediction of recession since - as a predictor of recessions - the stock market has less than a 50% success rate.

Likewise the fact that a sector of the economy is hurting does not mean the overall economy is hurting - as buggy whip sales went to hell from 1900 to 1920, car sales more than made up the difference. The manufacturing sector was indeed in recession the last year of Clinton - but the economy was great and jobs were easy to find.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Code_Name_D Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 05:11 PM
Response to Reply #2
18. Like wise, a market recovery doesn't express a strong economy.
A stock market downturn from a year early does not not mean recession - or even a prediction of recession since - as a predictor of recessions - the stock market has less than a 50% success rate.

You are correct. However, there is an unspoken truth here. And that truth is that the markets have vary little to do with the economy. The markets are no more able to proedict resecion or "recovery" than Parcheesi dice. The function of an economy is to meet the physical needs of the population, this means food, water, shelter, fuel, & transportation. Money is just a facilitator to distribute these recourses to the people who need them.

The problem here is that the administration thinks that the market place IS the end all and be all of the economy. Oh sure, they are quick to dismiss the markets as "a predictor or recession," when the markets are down. But when they get a string of up days in the market, they start dancing in the streets singing "happy days are here again," and crowing about the coming recovery.

Likewise the fact that a sector of the economy is hurting does not mean the overall economy is hurting - as buggy whip sales went to hell from 1900 to 1920, car sales more than made up the difference.

One sector, yes. But when nearly all sectors are in decline of unstable, this paints a vary different story. And the hand full of sectors that are up, such as defense and military applications, are up only because of massive influxes of cash. How can failure even be possible such massive infusions of capital? Other up sectors, such as real-estate, show signs of being grossly inflated as a result of speculation, creating a bubble. But many sectors of the economy are already laid low when their perspective bubbles burst. And bubble speculation IS a good clear indicator of a down turn in that sector. The problem is that bubble can be hard to spot at times, but mostly because every one want to invest without looking over their shoulder.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 01:48 PM
Response to Original message
3. Well stated.
Worth forwarding to the Repukes who pull the "Clinton's fault" wildcard.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Robin Hood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 02:05 PM
Response to Reply #3
9. Hey, knock your self out.
If you want to copy/paste and mass mail this bad boy, I say, please do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Brucey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 01:48 PM
Response to Original message
4. Repugs are amazing...
hypocritical monsters keep pulling fallacious reasoning, which unfortunately resonates with much of the public. Dems need to use innoculation: figure out what his spin is going to be, then let the public know he's going to say it and what's wrong with it before he says it. Works great... people will ignore him if they are innoculated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Robin Hood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 02:07 PM
Response to Reply #4
10. The only reason that it resonates is...
That's all the public hears. The reich wing has a media echo chamber that comes straight from the white house and the leaders of the GOP. This is all that the people are getting. That's all they know.

The repubs have dominated the propaganda war. And that's because Newt Gongrich and his "Contract on America" opened the flood gates for this sort of media domination.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Brucey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #10
17. Agreed, see the recent Paul Krugman article in the
New York Times magazine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AmandaRuth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 01:50 PM
Response to Original message
5. yes it is his fault
part of the ecomonic problems stem from 911 and he certainly was negligent (if not completely at fault) on that now, wasn't he.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Robin Hood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Absofreakinlutely.
Whether he LIHOP or MIHOP, it does not matter anymore. The fact is that it happened on his watch and he sat there reading a freaking children's goat book while his Rome burned.

He "Surrounded" himself with the best people, because after all, If you're an idiot, all you have to do is surround yourself with what you think to be the best people and all is good. Well, we see where that dumb ass theory got us.

Anyway... It happened on his watch, and he was caught sleeping. It is his fault, it is his presidency.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. 911 "Part" of the problem sizes at $100 billion - not a big part of
the Bush problem if we limit the discussion to economic loss. But we also should throw in that number the cost of increasing homeland security - but we find that this cost is minimal - indeed Bush is underfunding this as he throws money at military industrial companies via a swollen Pentagon budget - swollen - IMHO - well beyond where is should and where it would be if we had gone with "intrusive inspections via the UN in Iraq" the way the world wanted us to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amber dog democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 08:56 PM
Response to Reply #5
20. happened on his watch
He ought to be held accountable.
Just wonder how bad things have to get before this happens.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 09:39 PM
Response to Reply #5
24. yes- W's fault. Gore warned against blowing the surplus...
...Gore said we might need the surplus if there was ever an emergency...in stead of saving the surplus like Gore would have done,Bush gave massive tax-cuts to the top %1...

Looks like Gore was 100% correct while Bush/media was wrong- leaving America totally economically unprepared fr 9/11...

The economic woes were not caused so much by 9/11 as they were by Bush's careless emptying of the treasury...- if Bush had been fiscally conservative and not blown the surplus, we would have had more money on hand to cover for 9/11...

9/11 is the catch-all Bush/media excuse for everything that they screw up...

we could have been more fiscally prepared for 9/11- but thanks to Bush/media, all we get is excuses.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
penndragon69 Donating Member (409 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 02:17 PM
Response to Original message
11. Bush inherited this economy...from the Republicans.
It may not make sense to some people, but the president does not have that much influence on the economy. The prez can create a bill or program but it then goes through the commitee grinder and what comes out is the result of congresional engineering.

Remember "92" when the repugnicans took over the house and senate. Once they had the power, they began to manipulate the laws and legislation to favor the rich and corporate elitists. By the end of Clinton's impeachment fiasco ( a republican purgery trap ) the legislation that was created and passed by the repugnican Uber majority had started to take effect. The end results of their legislation resulted in the economic crash of america that we enjoy today.

Bush sucks...he is an elitist chump and only does what his Corporate managers tell him to do. He must be defeated for the security of America.

Who's the best Democrate for the job? I say that it's Howard Dean, the other candidates have a proven record of not being electable, some may be well qualified and would make a good presidents, they have no chance of beating Bush Co.

"Vote Skuld for President"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Robin Hood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 02:26 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. Hello and welocme to DU.
While that is mostly correct. I also want to add that in 94' Gore cast the tie breaking vote in the Senate that finally got us out of trickle down economics and into the Clinton/Gore "fair and balnced" economic plan.

After Gore had cast his vote, Trent Lott and Bob Dole came out warning the public that this new non piss on economic structure would send this country into an economic nightmare. They even went as far as saying "Don't blame the Republicans for the mess these guys have created. Of course during the 2000 election, the repubes blamed the good economy on Geourge Bush Senior.

But yes, the de-regulation that Newt and his contract on America is what lead to the corporate crookery that we have witnessed. Clinton tried six times to close the loop holes that newt opened up but was unable to. He tried six times!!

And that is why we have the corporate crookery that we have had today beacause of Newt Gingrich and Company.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 09:27 PM
Response to Reply #11
23. "candidates have a proven record of not being electable"???
Edited on Sun Sep-14-03 09:28 PM by Dr Fate
Im not sure that is correct-Kerry & Kusinich has been elected how many times? Gephart? Graham? Theve all won many elections! Holy Joe even won the VP in 2000! Clark has never even ran!

Bill Clinton lost an election for govrnor once- so that is not always a 100% accurate indicator anyway...

Dean is a great Candidate, as are many of them, but there is no record of our DEM candiates not being electable...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackSwift Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 02:36 PM
Response to Original message
13. The economy was fine
until it looked like Bush would win in summer 2000 when he was 17 points up. It then softened. By October Cheney was saying how shitty the economy would be, and by March 2001 we were in recession. Had Gore been elected, he wouldn't have screwed up the economy leading to our current 3 year economic dip that is continuing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nikia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 02:39 PM
Response to Original message
14. He has had plenty of time to correct it
That assumes that the statement is correct. The economy has been bad for his entire presidency. It got very bad after 9-11. Everything he has done since then has only impeded the economy. I also believe that unemployment is much higher. We have a few part time temps (not by choice) at our company who often come in on less than an hour's notice (like if someone is sick). Some of them have been strung along this way for almost a year. I suppose that they are counted as employed. The other thing about this is that temp agencies around here used to find full time jobs for people if not immediately, within a couple of weeks. I think that a lot of people are taking jobs which they are overqualified for such as low wage restaurant and grocery jobs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calimary Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 09:21 PM
Response to Reply #14
21. EXACTLY!!!
It's been almost three years now. There's been time enough to do SOMETHING. To make SOME improvement. But everything is trending downward. Except for unemployment. THAT'S going up.

I wonder who the adults are who were supposed to be back in charge. And WHERE they are. And where the honor and integrity both are, also. They sure aren't in evidence much, with these people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
meti57b Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 02:42 PM
Response to Original message
15. I've always felt 9/11 would not have happened if bush were not in office.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThoughtCriminal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 02:43 PM
Response to Original message
16. Never gave Carter a break
President Carter got handed stagflation from Nixon/Ford, but got all the blame from repubs.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SammyWinstonJack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 06:36 PM
Response to Original message
19. Yeah but...........
The adults are in charge now, doncha know? :argh:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mandyky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 09:24 PM
Response to Original message
22. Dumbya and crew could not admit to a mistake if
their lives depended on it. Much easier to blame every one and everything else!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Jul 29th 2014, 01:43 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC