stupid people

Look at the results of this poll. The most popular opinion for why the unemployment rate is at 6% is because of Bush's policies. What a bunch of BS. The real reason is the markets have been going down. The effects of it spread to cause problems like this.

GWB certainly didn't cause the stock market to stop going up. The markets don't go straight up. They have to have their downturns. When the downturns happen, people make up bogus explanations for everything. Just like the markets are chaotic, so is just about everything else, including the unemployment rate. Sure, there are things maybe Bush could do to help, but to blame all this on Bush's policies is just STUPID.

 

Well only a minority of people think it is Bush, so that is good.

 

Here is how the game works:

A guy decides to run for president. He campaigns, says he is going to solve the problems, that he has the solutions.

People vote.

Well, Bush wins the presidency.

So, is Bush to blame for the conditions of the country when he takes office? No.

Is Bush to blame for the problems that are a direct result of what wasn't done properly in previous administrations? No.

Is it Bush's job to fix the problems? Yes, that is what he said he was going to do.

Is it Bush's responsibility to turn it around? Yes, that is his job, isn't it?

I head some master spin yesterday from one of Bush's chief advisors Bill Kristol, that boiled down to an argument that we need to forgive any failures on Bush's part that have to do with the economy or domestic issues because foreign policy is more important right now, and that Bush's has done such a marvelous job in foreign policy (his opinion, not mine).

So, Bush isn't responsible for domestic policy? He isn't responsible for the economy? Really. That's news to me.

Bush may not be the one to blame, but he is the one responsible.

Anyone remember a president from our past named Harry S. Truman?

On his desk, "Give 'Em Hell Harry" had a plaque that read:

The Buck Stops Here.

If Bush doesn't want full responsibility to fix the problems on the domestic side as well at the foreign policy side, no doubt some other man/woman will come along who is willing to take on that responsibility.

Oh yea. The Bush supporters will blame congress if things are not handled properly, and the domestic issues don't improve. He can always say, "If they had done what I wanted, everything would be great."

Seems to me, if I recall correctly, that Bush claimed to be one who was able to create coalitions during his run for the presidency, that it was his particular strength to bring opposing parties together, as he was not an insider in D.C., and he promised the people that he had the ability to reach compromises.

Well, unless we have another war or terrorist threat to distract the attention of the electorate, we can begin to focus on many of his campaign promises between now and the next election.

Now that the election rhetoric is going to heat up (didn't the whole aircraft carrier landing seem like just a photo op and the beginning of the run for the presidency in 2004) we will see who he blames, and what he takes responsibility for.

Oh, and now that the war is over, can it be patriotic once again to participate in the political process of America, and criticize Bush and Company?

 

Denial. When the shit finally hits the fan (and I'm sure it will hit again and again thanks to the whole Iraq situation) it'll just be more denial. "It's not Bush's fault!! It's Jimmy Carter's fault! Who is Dick Cheney, anyway?! and what does he have to do with anything?! Bush is a good guy! A real patriot! Yeah, he's not too smart, but he doesn't have to be smart! He's got all those great leaders around him like his fath-- ...I mean, Colin Powell, and Dick Che-- ...and that Rums-- ....yeah, that Colin Powell is really something! God bless Colin Powell! He's so well spoken! Yep, that Colin Powell is helping to run this country, and he is a great man!

We love Colin Powell!!"

Bush hasn't done one thing to distinguish himself as a leader. As David Cross said, even Nader would've bombed Afghanistan. All Bush has done is manage to completely kill any faith in the American democracy and the economy. Everything he does is pure election rhetoric, especially his little speeches in front of faith-based, defense contracting, or military groups. He lacks the balls to address a group that won't go along with 100% of what he says.

Tony Blair has lost all credibility in his party and in Parliament for following Bush into the desert. I feel bad for Blair; I think he had the best of intentions for his country by trying to boost the relationship with America. I think he saw the war as a real opportunity to get side by side with America, something that would ultimately benefit GB. Poor Tony. Sometimes good intentions are not good enough.

GSCO chief economist on CNBC friday morning saying that for a growing economy, deficits are a lead balloon, and that ultimately large deficits will sacrifice important capital that could otherwise be used to grow the economy.

I seem to recall a budget surplus in Jan 2000.

 

If people were taxed too much, the money should be given back to the people that overpaid. If I buy a $50 radio and pay for it with $100, they don't keep the extra $50. Why should the government?

HERE IS THE POINT OF MY THREAD:

Presidents don't have complete control of what happens while their president. Sure, they're powerful, but they still can't control everything. I wouldn't give total credit to Clinton for a good economy and I won't give credit to Bush for a good or bad economy. It is really just beyond one man's decision making. Most likely, the good economy during the Clinton years had more to do with what happened before him, rather than the decisions he made. However, I'm not saying he had no impact. I'm just saying that it's all a chaotic mess.

If the market were to bottom and Bush doesn't get re-elected, then the next president will be given credit for such a great economy. If it's bad, they'll blame it on Bush. People just need to stop the blame BS and understand what really goes on. A president does the best he can, but does not have control over everything. If the markets are going to continue going down, they will go down no matter what Bush does.

 

Exactly !!!

 

It's now called the USA PATRIOT Act, and the USA PATRIOT Act II.

 

I agree with you 100%. My biggest complaint about bush is deficit spending. I think it's insane to get into an expensive war campaign in the middle east when we are on a crutch back home.

And this tax cut...makes no sense to increase spending and cut taxes...just like credit card debt...

The tax cut is just re-election rhetoric...any boost we get in the markets will have to be paid for in the form of increased deficits...and those deficits will have to be repaid...

 

A tax cut does make sense, if the money saved is put back into the economy to create new jobs and stimulus.

Problem is, that the ultra wealthy won't necessarily re-invest their savings in the economy to stimulate it.

What good does it do for the economy if a multi-millionaire has all their money in T-Bills, paying tax on the interest, and with their tax savings just buys more T-Bills?