Eloquent arguement Rolex. I don't agree with your conclusions.
Originally posted by Rolex
For all the talk about being pro-business, you'd think the Republicans would have some straightforward, simple-to-point to economic accomplishments. But they don't.
I would argue that broader world events had a much greater impact on this than any sitting president, but since you adress that later, so shall I.
Recession is essentially a Republican-led phenomenon and relatively rare when Democrats are in the White House. The data all show this. It's not something that's really debateable. There is simply no way to slice the economic figures to show that Republican presidents don't kill growth.
There are many ways to slice the data to show that Democrats are better at managing the economy. Here's one:
Average annual GDP growth
Bush 43: 2.52%
Clinton: 3.62%
Reagan/Bush: 2.71%
Carter: 3.33%
Nixon/Ford 3.02%
Johnson 5.30%
Without exception in the past half century, growth has slowed when a Republican took over from a Democrat and speeded up when a Democrat took over from a Republican.[/B]
How about looking at these in terms of world conflict? In the past 50 years, Democrats have been on the scene for the start of every major American conflict and Republicans were there at the end of it.
Cold War: Roosevelt (D) to Regan (R)
Korean 'War': Truman (D) to Eisenhower (R)
Vietnam 'War': Kennedy (D) to Nixon (R)
You could even argue that the first blows on Americans in the war on terror occurred during Clinton's (D) watch. Who will end it? and how much will it cost? I would argue that a sitting American President has only a marginal immediate impact on the economy. If that's the case, then you should look to wider causes for economic growth.
Some claim that the Bush recession isn't really Bush's fault. They throw out budget timelines, after effects of previous administrations and even say it is just a case of bad luck - you know, 9-11 and everything. But all these happened on his watch. The captain of any ship with such bad luck would be relieved of duty in the blink of an eye.[/B]
I think you'll find that as far as those arguements are concerned, most people who bring them up in the defense of the current President do so as failures of the last President. Luck only seems to be mentioned in the rebuttal. Sometimes a captain of a ship is brought on to whip it back into shape.
Stock prices have nothing whatsoever to do with budget timing - they are the purest representation of economic expectations and they show beyond a shadow of a doubt that the people who have money to bet are betting that Bush will continue to kill growth. I think a lot of investors don't believe Bush will wrap up the Iraq war and they don't believe Bush will cut spending.[/B]
Perhaps investors are still woozy from all the corporate scandals that inflated the internet bubble. If I saw my friends lose their livelihoods on the stock market because some executive wanted a golden parachute, I'd get out too.
There is no doubt that tax cuts for the wealthy can increase investment faster than tax cuts for those earning $35,000 or less. The working poor don't invest too much - they're too busy trying to live month-to-month. But when the tax cuts do not spur growth or are not invested, it's time to stop them and consider the debt and deficit.
The biggest surplus in the history of the U.S. was not invested in improving the lives of Americans by this administration. The biggest surplus in history was squandered into the biggest deficit in history.[/B]
This statement seems to assume a starting point prior to the tech bubble bursting, and not the bottom of the recession when the tax cuts were inacted. It's not proper math. Also don't forget that the tax revenues that generated that budget surplus were inflated for the same reason that the stock market was in 1999.
(I can't wait to be in one of these presidential debates about 12 years from now...) [/B]
[applause] When you run, let us know who you are. We can say "Look! He played Aces High!"[/applause]
