Precisely.
"Worst Economy Since Hoover" Sets Dow Record High!
- Thread starter Dixie - In Memoriam
- Start date
Precisely.
There seem to be two conversations going on here. On the one hand we evidently have peope who are arguing whether or not the president "controls" the economy. This is a ridiculous argument, the president has had a hard time controlling his daughter's drinking, let alone the economy of the nation. The other conversation is actually much more interesting and concerns whether or not and to what extent the president and his actions both directly and indirectly effects or influences the economy. The difference in these two conversations is that between "all or nothing" and "how much if any"! No President controls the economy (even under a socialist regime, the president would not control the economy) it is multiply-determined by numerous influences and considerations far outside of his powers. But that is a qualitatively different question than whether or not one's policies and pronouncements or lack of same effect different aspects of the economy. And that later discussion is much more interesting too because we can never determine definitively how much or to what extent and so can argue for many days about it .
uscitizen
Villified User
Oh you mean we managed to stay out of a recession in spite of what Bush did don't ya
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
No, you sat on your hands and didn't utter one word when pinheads were blasting Bush during the election for the "worst economy since Hoover!" It didn't bother you one fucking bit, because you didn't care for Bush, so you were completely silent on it, until someone mentions the positive for Bush, then all of a sudden, you are on your soapbox preaching your viewpoint about how the president has nothing to do with the economy.
There are some things a president can do to stimulate the economy... Reagan did it, Dubya did it... and there are some things a president can do to stiffle the economy.... Carter did it... Hoover did it! It's intellectual dishonesty to say that the president has nothing to do with the economy, just as it is to say he has everything to do with it. But it's amazing how a Republican can be lambasted for 6 years about the dismal economy by the Democrats, yet when it improves to a record high, no Democrat wants to acknowledge his part in it!
I guess it goes something like this.... Democratic presidents are responsible only for good economies, while Republicans are responsible for only bad ones. If you are a Democrat in a bad economy, it's not your fault, and if you're a Republican in a good economy, it's not to your credit. Is that how it works? It sure seems that way to me!
I think you need some clarification here. First you post that the Dow hit a record high finally after 6 years of Bush. Then you begin raving about the economy. The economy is actually a much broader area that may or may not include the Dow as an indicator of its possible health or ill-health. I think that markets are influenced by consciousness and fear and lack of fear is certainly a part of that consciousness. But to go from claiming that the Dow hit a record to making unsupported claims about the over all health of the Bush economy is just plain illogical without additional evidence to support that claim.
IHateGovernment
Is this your homework?
No, you sat on your hands and didn't utter one word when pinheads were blasting Bush during the election for the "worst economy since Hoover!" It didn't bother you one fucking bit, because you didn't care for Bush, so you were completely silent on it, until someone mentions the positive for Bush, then all of a sudden, you are on your soapbox preaching your viewpoint about how the president has nothing to do with the economy.
Really you know this huh Dixie. Well you're wrong. I always give that reply that the President doesn't shoulder the blame or credit for the economy. Are you obsessed with me or something that you have committed all my posts to memory and not whether or not I have not said something.
You are 100% wrong on this point Dixie. Nice strawman though......again.
There are some things a president can do to stimulate the economy... Reagan did it, Dubya did it... and there are some things a president can do to stiffle the economy.... Carter did it... Hoover did it! It's intellectual dishonesty to say that the president has nothing to do with the economy, just as it is to say he has everything to do with it. But it's amazing how a Republican can be lambasted for 6 years about the dismal economy by the Democrats, yet when it improves to a record high, no Democrat wants to acknowledge his part in it!
Look you brought up the DJIA. As far as that goes its not a barometer of how well the President is handling economic policy. In fact it was on this very thread that I said the slump of 2002 was not Bush's doing. Perhaps you missed this.
I guess it goes something like this.... Democratic presidents are responsible only for good economies, while Republicans are responsible for only bad ones. If you are a Democrat in a bad economy, it's not your fault, and if you're a Republican in a good economy, it's not to your credit. Is that how it works? It sure seems that way to me!
Maybe for partisan hacks. I'm not and frankly don't want the President to be too involved with the economy. Hands off please.
Really you know this huh Dixie. Well you're wrong. I always give that reply that the President doesn't shoulder the blame or credit for the economy. Are you obsessed with me or something that you have committed all my posts to memory and not whether or not I have not said something.
You are 100% wrong on this point Dixie. Nice strawman though......again.
There are some things a president can do to stimulate the economy... Reagan did it, Dubya did it... and there are some things a president can do to stiffle the economy.... Carter did it... Hoover did it! It's intellectual dishonesty to say that the president has nothing to do with the economy, just as it is to say he has everything to do with it. But it's amazing how a Republican can be lambasted for 6 years about the dismal economy by the Democrats, yet when it improves to a record high, no Democrat wants to acknowledge his part in it!
Look you brought up the DJIA. As far as that goes its not a barometer of how well the President is handling economic policy. In fact it was on this very thread that I said the slump of 2002 was not Bush's doing. Perhaps you missed this.
I guess it goes something like this.... Democratic presidents are responsible only for good economies, while Republicans are responsible for only bad ones. If you are a Democrat in a bad economy, it's not your fault, and if you're a Republican in a good economy, it's not to your credit. Is that how it works? It sure seems that way to me!
Maybe for partisan hacks. I'm not and frankly don't want the President to be too involved with the economy. Hands off please.
The president is involved in the economy whether you want him to be or not. And this President in spite of his claims to the contrary is more involved than a lot of his predecessors, simply because he is so incompetent. He has everybody running scared most of the time. Notice how as the Democratic hopes and chances for taking back Congress have increased the Dow has rebounded. Too bad Dixie didn't think to explore that aspect of the recent resurgence of good signs in the economic outlook. Hey Dixie think people are beginning to feel better and buying more stocks because they know Bush will finally be brought under a little more control. Why not explore that aspect of the recent increase in stock activity?????
Last edited:
T
TRGLDTE
Guest
Is that nation wide, or just U dub?
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Shhh!!
Dixie doesn't understand the concept of inflation. If you tell him about it his head will explode.
Well said! And although there will be the usual trends of highs and lows with the economy, our president with decisions like spending 300 billion on a war...(which helped us in this case, with American companies getting a great deal of that money), or it is the budget that he gives congress to work off of that puts us TRILLIONS MORE in debt than when he took office....so MUCH MORE of our tax dollars are going to the other countries we are borrowing from for our interst payments alone.... But also alot of these trillions that has been borrowed because of the President's budget and priorities.... is going back in to the market place....with government spending, buying the private sector's goods and services....
basically a few people/companies, the ones dealing with our government are getting very rich off of our tax dollars....
But the President's direction, given through his budget to Congress to pass, can effect our economy in my opinion....
it may not make a downward trend turn upwards overnight, but it gives a "tick" or two against the trend itself and it can stop or deter a downward turn, or give boost to and upward trend in the economy.
Is it ALL up to the President? ABSOLUTELY NOT....can his budget, and his policies in unison with congress's support of such, help its upward trend or hurt its upward or downward trend, OF COURSE IT CAN imo.
Anyway, I am not much of an economist, but that is what it seems like to me.
care
Last edited:
Good question, I want to say just U dub but it could be nation wide since I don't think they would have the resources to be closely following all last year's graduates. But it was in one of the books they keep there and when I pointed it out the person who I was talking to said she wished I hadn't seen it, since I already felt bad enough. I found it incredible that the more education you have the better your chances of unemployment become. The myth is it isn't supposed to work that way. It was disheartening to say the least...
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Dow Jones at an all-time high...
Unemployment lower than average over the previous 4 decades...
Housing starts higher than ever...
First-time homeownership among minorities at all-time highs...
Intrest rates at unprecidented lows...
New businesses on the rise...
Gas prices in decline...
Every single economic indicator you can look at, is showing our economy to be one of the strongest in decades, and all pinheads can do is bluster and spin and try to paint doom and gloom where there is none! No frikkin wonder Care has to pull out the anti-war rhetoric in this thread, there isn't much she can say about the GREAT BUSH ECONOMY!
Unemployment lower than average over the previous 4 decades...
Housing starts higher than ever...
First-time homeownership among minorities at all-time highs...
Intrest rates at unprecidented lows...
New businesses on the rise...
Gas prices in decline...
Every single economic indicator you can look at, is showing our economy to be one of the strongest in decades, and all pinheads can do is bluster and spin and try to paint doom and gloom where there is none! No frikkin wonder Care has to pull out the anti-war rhetoric in this thread, there isn't much she can say about the GREAT BUSH ECONOMY!
IHateGovernment
Is this your homework?
If in fact we are to thank our government for prosperity and condemn them for the lack of it why are we assigning such praise or condemnation to our President?
Would it not be more appropriate to tie this to Congress. Afterall they only have the small charge of writing the laws.
Would it not be more appropriate to tie this to Congress. Afterall they only have the small charge of writing the laws.
IHateGovernment
Is this your homework?
This whole thread illustrates what is wrong with Americans today and their ideas about the nation state. They expect their government to be the ones to grant them prosperity and to be their provider.
As Machiavelli said:
As Machiavelli said:
There you go again with that hyperbolic "every" as I have shown this isn't the case at all. But if you need to tell yourself that it is, go right ahead, just don't expect the rest of us to join in your dog and pony show. Because in spite of your portrayals of us, we aren't that blind, deaf or dumb.
Dixie, nearly 4 TRILLION DOLLARS has been added to the National Debt and borrowed from other countries and dumped in to our economy via our Deficit Spending during Bush's first 5 years of his Reign....it has to contribute something to the trend...?
And as far as unemployment numbers...I don't think they are comparable...we really don't know apples for app;es UE numbers because the Bush administration changed how it was calculated and made many changes to how specific working groups are classified....SO Basically the UE numbers are hard to use in comparrisons with previous Presidencies.....
As far as the stock market....it's just a little above where it was when Clinton left.....6 years ago...I am glad it got back up to what IT WAS though, so don't get me wrong....!!
MEDIAN wages are stagnet, inflation was and still is out of control but we fail to get the REAL numbers on this....and the Bush administration has also played with how these numbers are reported, soooo hard to get a truthful fix on it...I only know it from my personal end of it and groceries are 30%-50% higher than they were 6 years ago, gasoline even with the drops recently is nearly 100% higher than they were when Bush took office....college costs up double digits each year since 2000 .....
There are things going on, that just aren't showing up in the good numbers that we see, and they are taking place in our own lives.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
I understand the REALITY of inflation, I lived through the Carter era!
Prissy and Waterhead don't understand the concept of terror attacks, corporate fraud eroding consumer confidence in the market, bursting dotcom bubbles, and inherited recession... and apparently they don't think these things have a significant effect on the economy.
Oh, it's real cute the way you try to compare one period with another, and act like none of these things ever happened, all things being static.... unfortunately, Bill Clinton didn't have these monumental and unprecidented obstacles to overcome, instead, he had an energized conservative congress, who forced him to cut taxes and reform welfare, which contributed to economic growth.
Nice spin job, though... too bad it's as transparent as Paris Hilton's panties.
