Why does ANYONE support George W. Bush? I have heard some say he is good for the economy and has a good business sense. Forget the fact that his business ventures before he went into politics were disasters. Let’s look at his economic performance as president:
* 2.9 million private sector jobs were lost since Bush took office
* 2.5 million people lost their jobs since Bush took office
* Unemployment rate increased by 37 percent since Bush took office
* An average of 79,000 jobs were lost per month under George Bush (as apposed to an avearage of 135,000 jobs being created under every president since Truman)
* The country has gone from a $281 billion surplus to a $521 billion deficit, so far.
* When Bush took office, a $5.6 trillion baseline budget surplus over the next 10 years was projected by the Congressional Budget Office. This number has been reduced to a projected $5.2 trillion baseline budget deficit since then.
* Bush’s 2004 budget deficit is the highest in history by $188 billion. (ecclipsing his father’s previous record)
* Personal bankrupcy filings have increased by 10% under George Bush.
* Out-of-pocket healthcare cost increased by 50% under George Bush.
* Job-based health insurance costs increased by 14% under George Bush.
* College tuition & fees increased by 35% under George Bush.
* Gas prices increased by 11.5% under George Bush
* Set all-time record for biggest annual budget increases
* President's Economic Plan Claims Outsourcing is Good for America; Millions of Jobs Will Be Lost to Outsourcing.
Now let’s get the ecomonic experts opinions:
* Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan urged Congress to cut the growth of Social Security and Medicare, warning that without immediate measures, the U.S. will face unsustainable deficits, rising long-term interest rates and slower growth in living standards. Rising pressure on U.S. finances from an aging population makes it vital to fix the social safety net soon with steps such as raising the age for full retirement benefits..
* Goldman Sachs economist Ed McKelvey stated in his firm's newsletter that "the U.S. federal budget is out of control." The $374 billion dollar budget deficit in the fiscal year that ended on Sept. 30, 2003 which was by far the largest dollar amount ever, is expected to rise to $525 billion in this fiscal year. Should that be the case, the Times reports that "the annual budget picture will have deteriorated by more than $650 billion" during Bush's term as president, from a surplus of $127 billion in fiscal year 2001.
* U.S. Comptroller General David Walker refuted George W. Bush's claims that his administration can cut the federal deficit in half within five years without changing policies. According to the Los Angeles Times, "Bush has argued that by 2006, growth prompted by his $1.7-trillion tax cut plus spending cuts will pare deficits in half." Contrary to Bush's claims, Walker, the nation's chief fiscal officer stated that, "The idea that this is manageable or that we are going to grow our way out of the problem is just flat false."
Let's here one of his business associate's opinion of his business acumen:
Co-Founder of Carlyle Group, David Rubenstein, talking about setting up Cater Air after Carlyle acquired it: “When we’re putting together the board,” Rubenstein said, ‘somebody came to me and said ‘Look, there is a guy who would like to be on the board. He's kind of down on his luck a bit. Needs a job. Needs some board positions. Could you put him on the board? Pay him a salary and he'll be a good board member and be a loyal vote for the management and so forth.’ …We put him on the board and (he) spent three years. Came to all the meetings. … And after a while I kind of said to him, after about three years – ‘You know, I'm not sure this is really for you. Maybe you should do something else. Because I don't think you're adding much value to the board. You don't know that much about the company.’ The board member told him, Rubenstein said, ‘Well I think I'm getting out of this business anyway. I don't really like it that much. So I'm probably going to resign from the board.’ And I said, 'Thanks.' Didn't think I'd ever see him again. His name is George W. Bush,’ Rubenstein said. ‘He became president of the United States. So if you said to me, name 25 million people who would be president of the United States, he wouldn't be in that category. So you neverknow." Nicholas Horrock, “White House Watch: With Friends Like These,” UPI, July 16, 2003 .
[SCARY]
Are you better off than you were four years ago? Is the country? When can we start blaming bad economic conditions on W?
Would you hire George Bush to run your company? A lemonade stand? Hell, I wouldn't trust him to be the banker in a game of Monopoly.
LOL at the monopoly comment. You know I agree with you. I'm curious how the conservatives feel about these things. How can they argue with the fact that things have gotten worse under the Bush administration?
Posted by: Robyn at September 1, 2004 02:08 PMFirst and foremost....although some of my friends (Robyn) believe I am a Republican, I am not. I agree I am more conservative on certain issues than most republicans, but I am also more liberal on a number of issues than most Democrats.
As for the question of the economy and W....well, I can agree that he (and his party) are partly to blame. However, I also believe the Democrats are equally (if not more) to blame.
Granted 9/11 and a number of other issues have severly impacted our economy. However, I believe the impacts of these events can be reversed by doing one thing - stop relying on the federal government for the solution to every single problem. The federal government's role (as described in the US Constitution is to
Are you concerned you may lose your job to downsizing or corporate mergers? Do you know someone who has? Do you honestly believe that voting for one person in our huge federal government system will make a difference?
Its not one person who's the problem. The problem is the system that one person belongs to.
Establishment politicians think that larger, more elaborate government jobs programs are the solution to your problems. However, since these programs must be funded by taking money from the private sector, even more jobs are destroyed---more jobs than the government programs can ever create.
Establishment politicians don't have solutions that work in the real world because they aren't asking the tough question: "Why are jobs becoming scarce? Why do we have so much downsizing and so many corporate mergers?"
The answer is too much regulation and too much government spending. In the 1980s, the number of federal regulators fell from about 122,000 to barely 100,000. The private sector added 3,500,000 jobs as a consequence. The loss of each federal regulator resulted in the creation of more than 150 new jobs, enough to hire the ex-regulator, most of the unemployed, and some of the able-bodied poor. The nation prospered!
From 1987 to 1992, the number of regulators swelled once more to pre-1980 levels. The 3.5 million newly-created jobs were destroyed as a result. The number of regulators has continued to increase, costing additional jobs as well.
More government regulation and spending translate to more unemployment and less wealth creation. Less wealth creation means fewer goods and services, less health care, higher prices.
We know how jobs are destroyed: too much regulation and too much government spending. We know how to reverse the process; we've done it before.
You may think Im anti-government. Im not. I believe the answer to America's political problems include: a free-market economy and the abundance and prosperity it brings; a dedication to civil liberties and personal freedom that marks this country above all others; and a foreign policy of non-intervention, peace, and free trade as prescribed by America's founders.
I love America and believe we can make a change for the better. However, we're not going to do it with W or Kerry. We're going to do it by becoming more active citizens and taking responsibilty for our choices - and not depend on the government to make decisions for us.
Thats my opinion.
Terry
LOL! Okay, did you just copy the Libertarian brochure onto the site? :-) I was actually wondering how you felt about the fact that W has run the economy into the ground since coming into office... You say he's only partly to blame and the Dems are more to blame, but you don't state any reasons.
I know you have a bright vision for how the world would be under an alternative government structure, but guess what... your guy's not going to win. Get all your friends to vote for him. The third party system isn't catching on.
Why not weigh in where it really matters? Vote for a candidate who has an actual shot at winning (and who deserves a shot at doing a better job than Bush, READ: Kerry).
I hear your idealistic views. Unfortunately they aren't going to take place any faster than peace on earth and good will to men.
Can I at least get you to say Bush Sucks just once?
If jobs are destroyed based on too much regulation and too much government spending, and more jobs were destroyed under Bush than any other president... clearly he isn't PARTLY to blame, and clearly he isn't less to blame than the democrats--he's to blame. Period.
That's basic logic for you.
Posted by: Robyn at September 1, 2004 03:16 PMFine, I will admit that all of these bad things happened while Bush was President. Does that make you happy :)
However, that does not mean that Bush caused them. Looking at the recent recession as simply a failure of the president shows a fundamental misunderstanding of our political system, not to mention basic economics.
The President runs the government, he doesn't run the economy. The economy is made up of billions of economic interactions by the billions of people across the globe. The economy is not controlled by Washington, D.C.
If you look through the history of our country, you'll see that the economy operates in cycles. A cycle of good economic times is followed by an economic downturn. It's the natural economic cycle. No matter who was in office during the past four years, we would have had a similar economy. In fact, the economy was slowing down at the end of the Clinton years, and there is some evidence that the recession actually started during his term. The events of 9/11 certainly didn't help, either.
Granted, governmental policies do affect the economy. The role of tax, regulatory, and spending policy, as well as governmental actions on tariffs, all play into how strong an economy is. However, since Bush has lowered taxes, promoted free trade (with the exception of the disastrous steel tariffs he imposed, which probably did lead to some job loss in the automobile industry), modestly simplified some regulations, and increased government spending (which, by the Keynesian economic model, increases economic activity), it's hard to see how any of Bush's policies would have contributed to the recession.
However, if you can explain what Bush has done which has caused all of the things listed, I'm all ears. If you can't name specific ways in which Bush's policies have contributed to the economic downturn, however, then you should probably re-examine your premise that somehow Bush is responsible for the bad economy.
Posted by: Terry at September 1, 2004 04:16 PMI guess I should chime in since I started this topic.
Terry, I respect your Libertarian viewpoint and, personally, welcome third-party participation in politics. However, I don't completely agree with that viewpoint. For one, it seems to be narrowly focused on economic issues and nothing else. However, there is more to the world than just money. And in turn, the world's money is affected by many other issues. The Libertarian literature that I've read seem radical and verge on arachism, in my humble opinion. While noble in reason, the practicality seems idealistic at best. Corporate greed (e.g., ENRON,WORLDCOM) are the realities of de-regulation.
Now the point of my blog entry was to demonstrate the poor job George Bush has done in managing the nation's economy (I'll save the poor job in managing other issues for another day). I'm just tired of hearing how W is good for the economy when practically every economic indicator points to the contrary. And while 9/11, the dot.com bust, etc. can be pointed to as contributers to the recession, Bush's policies had delayed recovery and even made matters worse. My opinion, yes, but the numbers back it up. He sucks!
I generally agree with Terry when he says no ONE man can control the economy (well, maybe Alan Greenspan). But usually it's best if an administration takes a hands-off approach (only minor tweaks) and let the economy take care of itself, but W started mucking with it the day he took office and that's why there is such a huge negative spike in so many economic indicators. 9/11 contributed initially but not solely.
I don't claim to be an expert in anyway on economic theory, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the drastic, record-breaking changes that took place during the Bush-Cheney administration. The numbers are there in black and white. Or should I say RED.
An aside on the Keynesian economic model. Doesn't it grossly conflict with the Libertarian principles? Increased government spending to increase economic activity? So if I were to max out my credit cards, I can expect a windfall because of all the economic activity I've generated? Problem is somebody has to pay the bills. Increased government spending in conjunction with decreased government revenues EQUALS debt. Who pays that debt? We the People
Now to get back on track: How has Bush's policies contributed to the recession? First I want to point out the BUSH-CHENEY recession can't simply be curve-fitted to the natural economic cycles. The VALUES are too extreme as compared with history.
You already pointed out one direct negative effect that Busy policy had. The steel tariffs did cause job losses that haven't returned and came very close to triggering an international trade war.
Here's another example. The highest gasoline prices in US history occurred during this administration, yet W chose NOT to tap the national reserves as past presidents have(including Daddy Bush) to help control the costs. So people are paying more to heat their homes, airline and transportation industries suffer greatly, etc. Now oil prices aren't ALL George Bush's fault, be he has been irresponsible in ignoring them.
Speaking of irresponsibility. George W. Bush lead us into war under the false pretense of enforcing a UN resolution prohibiting Iraq from pursuing Weapons of Mass Destruction. Interesting how he used the UN resolution as an excuse at the same time he ignoring the UN when they voted to NOT go to war against Iraq. Want to sabotage a nations economy, try waging a war while isolating your country from the rest of the war. The War may be good for certain industries like the Defense industry but disastrous in so many of sectors. Plus any fool that tries to say war is good for an economy should be on the front line wear the belong. It's not all about dollars and cents, there is right and wrong as well. Anyway, I strayed from the subject.
I'll have to add more specifics later. Got other things to do now. But I'll part now by saying if it smells like a dog, and looks like a dog, it's a damn dog. George Bush has been the most irresponsible President in AT LEAST 50 years. The numbers are there. It can't ALL be blamed on 9/11.
Posted by: John at September 1, 2004 09:13 PMI love a lively discussion, so your opinions, Terry, are welcome here.
I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on economics. I don't need to be to know that there's a difference between normal economic cycles and the drastic downturn we've had during the Bush Administration.
It's simply wishful thinking to say that the economy would be "similar" under ANY president. Even Reagan had sense enough to change his economic policies when he saw the need. Bush keeps plunging forward, refusing to re-evaluate failing policies.
Yes, let us look through the history of our country, you'll find that across the board, no president has had economic numbers as low as Bush's in most areas. In the last 50 years, the stock market hasn't been as low as it is today since The Great Depression.
What did Bush personally do to cause these economic problems? Um, I'd say waging war against the will of our people and our allies is a great place to start. It's not hard to realize we're at war with Iraq not due to terrorism but because Saddam once tried to kill his daddy. With that personal motivation and other trumped up "reasons" we rushed to war and will be paying that bill for generations to come.
I'd loved to dive into all the other ways Bush has hurt this country by making policies that disenfranchise gays, women and other minorities--but that would be pointless. You say you're more liberal than most Dems on some issues, but we both know those "libreral" issues will never be enough to drive your vote at the polls. It seems libertarians and republicans make decisions based on money, and the rest of the issues be damned. If that weren't the case, the environment, civil rights and education would be the first topics on the platforms instead of tax cuts.
Posted by: Robyn at September 2, 2004 04:47 AM