Economic inheritance by presidents

Rudey · #1 08-04-2004, 01:41 AM

A Record of Recovery
By GEORGE P. SCHULTZ

Published: August 4, 2004

Over the course of last week, we heard a lot from the Democrats about their record of economic achievement. So let's take the advice of a Democrat of yesteryear, Al Smith, the former governor of New York. His trademark phrase was, "Let's look at the record."

These charts show the rate of change in real gross domestic product and in employment from 1990 to last June. The shaded areas show recessions. The vertical lines show when President Bill Clinton took office and when he left. Because the economy has momentum, it's useful to look carefully at the trends in evidence at the time of presidential transitions. When you look at the record, a quick summary is this: President Clinton inherited prosperity; President Clinton bequeathed recession.

The 2001 recession was short and shallow, with employment - always a lagging indicator - the last part of the economy to rebound. The employment picture has been a little puzzling since the two main surveys - one asks existing establishments how many people are on their payrolls, and the other asks people in a large sample of households whether they have jobs - show slightly different patterns. In any case, by now a third piece of the record appears clear: the recession President Clinton left behind has turned into prosperity under George W. Bush.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/04/opinion/04shultz.html

-Rudey

Kevin · #2 08-04-2004, 08:32 AM

One popular Democratic technique seems to be if you repeat something enough, people will believe it. Let's try:

"Bush is stupid".

"Bush has ruined the economy".

"Bush lied about WMD".

"Bush stole the election".

Are we getting anywhere? No? Try repeating the above phrases until you believe them. There you have the Democratic strategy folks.

kappaloo · #3 08-04-2004, 08:41 AM

Actually, that's the strategy for almost all politics. What's the term "speaking points"? "Talking points"?... I forget... but when a politician says it, it is "staying on message".

Kevin · #4 08-04-2004, 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by kappaloo
Actually, that's the strategy for almost all politics. What's the term "speaking points"? "Talking points"?... I forget... but when a politician says it, it is "staying on message".

Call it whatever you want. Try to factually argue (that means you need to support your argument with real evidence) any of the above points.

The Republican talking points are:

"Kerry is a flip-flopper". -- okay, that's true. He comes down on whatever side (or sides) of an issue more people would agree with, often changing directions. Bush on the other hand, you know where he stands on everything.

"Bush was left with an economy that Clinton screwed up". Well, actually, the Pres. has very little to do with the economy, but if the Dems are going to argue that the recession was Bush's fault, well, just see the above chart.

I can't think of many others off hand, but you get my point.

kappaloo · #5 08-04-2004, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ktsnake
Call it whatever you want. Try to factually argue (that means you need to support your argument with real evidence) any of the above points.

I'm totally agreeing with you - that's why it's so annoying that every time a political party get a good idea, they wrap it in these points and don't allow their representatives to say anything else. Even if a talking point is true - shouldn't the electorate hear why? Unfortunately, the facts are longer than a sound bite, so that's why I think they stay off the news.

As for the economy, blaming the economic downturn in 2001 on anyone is stupid. You can see from Rudey's graph the downfall start in 2000. It was the dot-com burst (amoung otherthings)... and at least at that point there was nothing anyone could do to stop it.

Kevin · #6 08-04-2004, 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by kappaloo
I'm totally agreeing with you - that's why it's so annoying that every time a political party get a good idea, they wrap it in these points and don't allow their representatives to say anything else. Even if a talking point is true - shouldn't the electorate hear why? Unfortunately, the facts are longer than a sound bite, so that's why I think they stay off the news.

As for the economy, blaming the economic downturn in 2001 on anyone is stupid. You can see from Rudey's graph the downfall start in 2000. It was the dot-com burst (amoung otherthings)... and at least at that point there was nothing anyone could do to stop it.

Great to see that we agree

IowaStatePhiPsi · #7 08-04-2004, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ktsnake
One popular Democratic technique seems to be if you repeat something enough, people will believe it.

Kind of like the Bush Admin trying to tie Saddam to 9/11 and the American public so stupid to believe it?

Kevin · #8 08-04-2004, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by IowaStatePhiPsi
Kind of like the Bush Admin trying to tie Saddam to 9/11 and the American public so stupid to believe it?

Find me a quote.

IowaStatePhiPsi · #9 08-04-2004, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ktsnake
Bush on the other hand, you know where he stands on everything.

Like how he said same-sex marriage was a state issue but now he doesnt?
Or how he said he was against McCain-Feingold Act but then signed it?
Or how he was against creating an intelligence czar but then did?

Flip-Flop. Flip-Flop.
All Hail Bush the Flip-Flop.

IowaStatePhiPsi · #10 08-04-2004, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ktsnake
Find me a quote.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.htm

Kevin · #11 08-04-2004, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by IowaStatePhiPsi
Like how he said same-sex marriage was a state issue but now he doesnt?
Or how he said he was against McCain-Feingold Act but then signed it?
Or how he was against creating an intelligence czar but then did?

Flip-Flop. Flip-Flop.
All Hail Bush the Flip-Flop.

I think we established in another thread who the flip-flop guy was.

Same-sex marriage has changed in what it entails. It's not a "state issue", it can't be one. Because of this nasty little thing called the Constitution, if you and your man are married in Massachusetts, they'd have to recognize your marriage as valid in Kansas. Therefore, if one state adopts it, it automatically becomes a national issue. At least you know where Bush stands on it. Kerry has pretty well straddled the issue, by saying he's for it, but against it (and that's his current position).

As far as McCain-Feingold, he'd be crazy NOT to sign it. It gives the Republicans a huge boost and a solid advantage over the Democrats in fund raising ability. Besides that, PAC's have pretty well immasculated it.

As far as the Intelligence Czar, are you actually criticizing him for adopting the recommendations of the 9/11 panel?

Rudey · #12 08-04-2004, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by IowaStatePhiPsi
Sadly, Kerry is known for straddling issues and being a flip-flopper. Nobody calls Bush a flip-flopper but me because, well, I like to be special and not think.

Read the other thread where you embarassed yourself yet again.

-Rudey

Rudey · #13 09-01-2004, 03:42 PM

It's funny how they had these pink slip protests today where people were talking about jobs lost.

What exactly is it that President Bush did to make anyone lose a job? I mean here is a chart on economic movements showing the bad economy we inherited.

-Rudey

Kevin · #14 09-01-2004, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rudey
It's funny how they had these pink slip protests today where people were talking about jobs lost.

What exactly is it that President Bush did to make anyone lose a job? I mean here is a chart on economic movements showing the bad economy we inherited.

-Rudey

This is what people with no lives and large trust funds do for kicks.