Third Party & Independents: Archives

The emperor has no clothes.

The problem is that the Whitehouse has direct contact with journalists through phone and email. BushCo can’t win if the media starts talking about the economy, health care, or education, so journalists are bombarded with other talking points about gay marriage, the most liberal senator, and flip-flops. If it wasn’t for the internet, I think Bush would be ahead right now.

I think it has to do with what sells advertising. The economy is is complicated and does not sell well in a 30 second TV news segment. Hence aside from quoting the markets closing numbers, and perhaps action by the fed, there are no sales in going further. Folks who want economic news have a plethora of other outlets besides the these networks to get the details and complex numbers from.

I don’t see any conspiracies, here. Just audience profiles and marketing geared toward them.

Well, the jobs growth news is back in the news at least! When two or three hundred thousand jobs were being created a month, it was a dirty little unmentionable secret, but now that a few meager tens of thousands of jobs have emerged in July, we can all raise our champaigne flutes on Park Avenue to celebrate such an obvious sign of a Great Depression and Bush economic holocaust!

And to think that the unemployment rate dropped to 5.5 at the same time the growth rate slowed to such disasterous levels! 5.5, the exact same as this point of Clinton’s first term during his reelection bid. We all remember, don’t we, how terrible the media told us the economy was when Clinton ran for reelection.

Martin, we expect this country’s economy to do well. If it’s not doing well, it’s news.

We all remember, don’t we, how terrible the media told us the economy was when Clinton ran for reelection.

Haha! Are you seriously going to try to compare Bush’s economy with the Golden Age of Clinton? Good luck! :)

The numbers don’t lie—the spinsters talking down the economy do. If we compare across the board, Bush’s numbers are vastly better than Clinton’s.

For which demographic, Martin?

If you compare Bush now with Clinton at the end of his first term you get these numbers.

GDP: Clinton 3.2%; Bush 2.2%
Inflation: Clinton 2.1%; Bush 1.9%
Productivity: Clinton 1.7%; Bush 4.0%
Disposable income: Clinton 1.1%; Bush 1.9%
Unemployment rate: Clinton 5.4%; Bush 5.5%

Certainly not overwhelming, but Bush leads Clinton on all measure but GDP. I’ll admit the economy should be stronger, but compare Clinton’s relatively easy first term with Bush’s (9/11, Enron, and a recession that started before he got there). I think you have to admit, number to number Bush’s not doing bad.

I’d go so far as to say if this data was reported, Bush would poll better.

-D

(statistic source – Datastream)

Delzario is missing the important points.
Despite the overwhelming empirical evidence, economists and other spokespersons for global interests continue to maintain that globalism benefits the U.S. workforce. Arithmetic-challenged economists explain away vanishing manufacturing employment in terms of productivity increases that allow more output from fewer workers.

If this is true, why is America’s trade deficit in manufacturing goods rising, including advanced technology products? The United States, allegedly a superpower, is now dependent on advanced technology products from China, allegedly a Third World country.

Those giving assurances that America is benefiting from globalism are missing the big picture. Globalism is reshaping the U.S. labor force, giving the work force a Third World profile. Thirty-two months of economic recovery has seen job growth only in domestic services, many of which are poorly paid. Overall, the economy has lost 1.8 million jobs since President Bush’s inauguration.

It is absurd for economists to pretend that the absence of U.S. job growth in tradable goods and services is unrelated to offshore production and outsourcing.

If the U.S. economy can no longer generate jobs in tradable goods and services, we will find out whether Americans can survive by taking in one another’s laundry — and if Americans can pay for imports with domestic nontradable services.

These problems didn’t start with Bush, but he is ignoring them, denying them and/or aggravating them by adopting globalization and taxation policies which hurt working Americans and enrich his already rich chronies. He is a traitor to the principle of Government of, by and for the
people. I would not despise him so much if he presented his agenda openly and honestly. Instead all we get is doublespeak.

but compare Clinton’s relatively easy first term with Bush’s

Haha! Please. Bush came into office with the luxury of a record breaking surplus and eight years of strong growth. Clinton had a record deficit and sluggish economy to wrestle with.

And don’t forget, Bush had already lost half a million jobs and squandered the surplus before 9/11.

Come on AP it’s a well known fact that the economy had turned south before Clinton had left office. Do you actually expect people to think that Bush could have caused half a million jobs to be lost in his first 10 months, before he had a budget in place, or passed any legislation? Get real.

-D

Blaming Clinton, the Democrates or other externalities is wearing pretty thin after four years of baloney from this President. He has a responsibility to represent American interests and doesn’t have a clue where to begin. He claims results matter, but his record is increasing terrorist attacks, destabilization of the middle east, rising energy costs, winking at accounting fraud, sinking the country economically and politically, and complaining loudly about gay marriage. His campaign can’t stop talking about what a terrible person Kerry is because he has nothing to show for himself. Send this idiot back to his Midland bars.

Blaming Clinton, the Democrates or other externalities is wearing pretty thin after four years of baloney from this President.

So it will be totally off-limits for Kerry to blame anything at all on Bush when he takes over, then, right?

Of course I know the answer to this already, but I just want to see how you tap-dance around it.

Presidents take the blame and get the credit for a lot more economy than they can affect. Things like international energy prices; weather, performance of foreign economies etc are all beyond the immediate control of any president. This goes for Bush, Clinton or maybe Kerry. The economy has been generally good under Bush. He handled well the hangover after the bubble of the 1990s broke and terrorist attacks. Unemployment is low and declining. Energy prices are currently high because of uncertainty in the Middle East and – more importantly – increasing demand from China and India caused by their growing economies (a good thing). A President Kerry could do nothing to improve this situation, but may get credit for the improving economy next year. The same thing happened to Clinton, who got credit for the economy that began to improve in a lot by March of 1992 and inversely to W. Bush, who got the blame for an economy that began to go sour in March of 2000 – in both cases almost a year before they took office.

Unless the unemployment rate is seriously out of whack, it’s actually not as important a statistic as net job loss/creation. If you look at Bush’s net job loss (and it is a loss) we’re far from where we need to be to have a healthy economy.

My concern is that with rising interest rates and the housing bubble, average salaried Americans won’t be able to afford decent homes. And forget about people below the median.

The truth is that the rate hike isn’t stopping inflation that much, but instead creating a glass ceiling for gaining wealth, equity, etc.

Do you actually expect people to think that Bush could have caused half a million jobs to be lost in his first 10 months, before he had a budget in place, or passed any legislation?

The economy runs on confidence. Bush’s proposal to squander the surplus on the already discredited trickle down theory made a lot of people nervous and tight with the investment money. I’m not going to contend that it was all Bush’s doing in the first year, but he didn’t help.

It was Bush’s second year with the second round of record breaking, deficit generating, irresponsible, mistargeted tax cuts, and the economically nerve wracking preparations for an unnecessary Iraq invasion that really did in the economy.

So it will be totally off-limits for Kerry to blame anything at all on Bush when he takes over, then, right?

Ciggy, I expect Kerry to act responsibly and fix the problem. Clinton didn’t blame Bush Sr. for Somalia, or for the first WTC bombing, or for the bad economy he inherited. He just dealt with it. I expect Kerry to do the same.

A couple of strikes against Dubya:

We have lost about a million jobs. That may not sound so bad, but we should really be ADDING millions of jobs. He will probably be the first prez sent Hoover to see a net loss in jobs.

The Dow Jones is down about 800 since he became president. It increased exponentially under Bill.

Ciggy,
Neither Clinton nor Bush deserve credit or blame for every erratic cycle in our economy. There is a time lag between policy decisions and their effects. The difference between Clinton and Bush is that Clinton took the impact on working people, trade and international diplomacy into consideration in decision making. He also acted fiscally responsible by trimming government, especially defense spending. On the other hand, Bush just follows his handlers recommendations(Rove, Cheney & Rice). Worse he engages these people secretely before having scripted meetings with his cabinet with foregone results. Republocrate policies like NAFTA & globalization are baggage that Bush inherited. Bush’s policies benefit only his campaign contributors, he gives little or no consideration to working citizens, trade deficits, or international diplomacy. Shrub came into office with an idealogical team hell bent on building a new ABM system, privatizing energy production and invading Iraq. The results speak for themselves. Fake war with thousands of people killed and maimed unnecessarily, skyrocketing energy costs, record deficits and unemployment due to relocation of manufacturing. US Corporations still make tons of money, but Americans have lost good paying jobs. NAFTA & globalization are a bust for the working class but most CEO’s and economists are in denial, as is Bush.

The Commerce Department reported Friday that the trade deficit surged to a $55.82 billion in June, a sharp 19.1 percent increase from a May imbalance of $46.88 billion.
The price moderation last month did not extend to energy, which shot up by 2.3 percent in July, the largest gain since a 4.7 percent rise in January.
The deficit with China jumped to $14.2 billion, the highest in history, while the deficit with Japan rose to $6.27 billion and the deficit with European countries using the euro currency rose to $7.85 billion. The deficit with Canada rose to $6.63 billion and the trade gap with Mexico widened to $4.9 billion.
Bush is still pretending that we turned the corner. He is clueless and we cannot afford to have this idiot ruining the country.