Bush or Kerry - No Americans!

[limerickman]

Limerick you are as wishy washy as John Kerry.

Thus placing overall blame of the U.S. economy on Bush to which we replied, the president does not have as much control over the economy as most people think. He can only fine tune it.

The President has the power to either veto or not veto any bill passed by congress and the senate. That is all. He has no power over the Federal Reserve Board of Governors and he is not the "government." The President can only "fine tune" the economy. You claim he is the government like our president is a dictator with supreme control. umm NO not.

None of these were or are done by the President, yet you personally blamed the president. Instead of spouting off irrelevant facts and arguing over things we didn't say, take an extra minute or two to read (and comprehend) what was said before you go on another tangent.

Oh by the way, the inflation policy of the government of the day is set by the Federal Reserve Board of Governors not the Treasury Secretary.

Well then why is Bush (and indeed Kerry) telling US audiences that they will
provide economic solutions during their respective debates ?

Whether the president vetos or approves measures is frankly immaterial.
The fact is that a goverment sets economic policy : that policy can be monetarist (laissez faire, let the market do it's thing.........) or it can be interventionist (Keynesian, goverment invests in the economy to a greater
extent.........).
The goverment, of which Bush (or Kerry) is leader set these policies.
So to absolve Bush of blame for the four year errosion of US economic performance is bollox, quite frankly.
If Bush had made a success of the US economy - you would be claiming that he did a great job.
But because it has been shown that he created the biggest deficit in the history of the USA, lost more jobs as President since the 1930's, you try to absolve him from blame.

The book stops with Bush - he's CEO of the USA and he has shown himself to be incapable of managing an economy that was handed to him in great shape.

 

[jitteringjr]

Well then why is Bush (and indeed Kerry) telling US audiences that they will
provide economic solutions during their respective debates ?

That’s simple. Because it gets them votes, which in turn gives them power. Furthermore the majority of the uneducated a good portion of the educated people believe it. I don't fully understand it other than it being a mass psychology thing.

Whether the president vetos or approves measures is frankly immaterial.

That couldn't be further from the truth.

The fact is that a goverment sets economic policy : that policy can be monetarist (laissez faire, let the market do it's thing.........) or it can be interventionist (Keynesian, goverment invests in the economy to a greater
extent.........).

I agree with this. However:

The goverment, of which Bush (or Kerry) is leader set these policies.

The President is not like a Hockey coach telling the team to run this play or that play, it is much more multifaceted than that. He can either agree with or disagree with what bills congress and the senate bring to him. (See Veto)

If Bush had made a success of the US economy - you would be claiming that he did a great job.

Before I got my MBA I would have agreed to that because I followed the group think logic like most everyone else. Now I know better.

But because it has been shown that he created the biggest deficit in the history of the USA, lost more jobs as President since the 1930's, you try to absolve him from blame.

Lets examine this. Why a large deficit? History shows that when the senate, house and president are majority controlled by one party (Republican or Democrat) they get more bills past and thus spend more money. Right now one party (Republicans) controls the show. (Democrats would do the same thing if they had the opportunity so no blame can be assigned here) Furthermore, we are fighting 2 wars. I don't want to get into the logic behind it, but it costs a lot of money to do so causing a larger deficit.

As far as the president loosing jobs, that is far beyond his control just like the rest of the economy is, and the rest of this debate, and is nothing but a ploy by the Democrats to get the bleeding heart voters to believe it. I must say however, that it is a very intelligent ploy because people are buying it.

 

[limerickman]

That’s simple. Because it gets them votes, which in turn gives them power. Furthermore the majority of the uneducated a good portion of the educated people believe it. I don't fully understand it other than it being a mass psychology thing.
.

I think that you're being slightly disingenuous here.
Look, all political parties attest to an economic ideology - call it rightwing or leftwing.
Rightwing goverments normally advocate monetarist policies like less tax, less goverment spending.
Leftwing goverments normally advocate Keynesian policies, more tax, more
goverment spending.
To try to suggest that Bush does not set the tone of the policy currently employed by his goverment is simply not true.

The President is not like a Hockey coach telling the team to run this play or that play, it is much more multifaceted than that. He can either agree with or disagree with what bills congress and the senate bring to him. (See Veto)

I agree that the overall economic performance is multifaceted.
I have never suggested otherwise.
However, I have contended throughout that it is the goverment that sets the
conditions in which the economy operates (low tax, low gov spend / high tax,
high gov spend).
It is the goverment who control US interest rates (Greenspan and Co take their economic policy from their political master - despite his supposed
impartiality).
Control of fiscal and interest rate policy underpins the economic envoirment for Corporate USA, Corporate Ireland and Corporate any other location you care to mention.

Before I got my MBA I would have agreed to that because I followed the group think logic like most everyone else. Now I know better.

An MBA doesn't automatically confer you with any greater insight in to the
economic situation pertaining to the USA.
I like to consider myself educated too (Member of the Chartered Institute of
Management Accountants), but I do not use this fact as a precursor for promulgating my views.

.
Lets examine this. Why a large deficit? History shows that when the senate, house and president are majority controlled by one party (Republican or Democrat) they get more bills past and thus spend more money. Right now one party (Republicans) controls the show. (Democrats would do the same thing if they had the opportunity so no blame can be assigned here) Furthermore, we are fighting 2 wars. I don't want to get into the logic behind it, but it costs a lot of money to do so causing a larger deficit.

As far as the president loosing jobs, that is far beyond his control just like the rest of the economy is, and the rest of this debate, and is nothing but a ploy by the Democrats to get the bleeding heart voters to believe it. I must say however, that it is a very intelligent ploy because people are buying it.

The deficit has been impacted by the war and by 9/11 : no doubt.
But the fundamental flaws in Bush's economic policy is the root cause to the
USA's poor economic performance.
9/11 happened three years ago.
However, jobs continue to be lost three years later.

The deficit grows in the meantime.
The US goverment authorises the deliberate devaluation of the US dollar in order to try to make US manufactured goods more competitve, yet this is insufficient to allow the retention of existing US jobs, never mind creating new US jobs.
The US goverment gives tax breaks to people in the hope that the extra money will allow consumers to spend in the hope that this will allow the US to generate economic activity ("more money, more spending, more jobs, more income tax, more revenue for the goverment, less borrowing for the goverment").
This last roll of the dice hasn't brought about an upturn.

 

[jitteringjr]

One thing in life that I have learned, probably took me too long to learn it, is to know when to stop beating my head against a brick wall. That time is now.

 

[iluvfreebeer]

The Republicans don't advocate an isolationist policy. They are in fact the prime drivers of free trade in US politics. The Democrats would prefer that only "Made in USA" products be available for sale and are far more isolationist.

They (Republicans) also favor less government intrusion into how people spend there money. It is with certainty that we individuals better know how to spend our money than some government bureaucrat or politician. At least I'm certain I know better what to do with my money than a disconnected politician or bureaucrat does.

I disagree with this premise.

The Republicans advocate a low tax economy.
The Republicans advocate an isolationist policy.
The Republicans advocate less social spending.

Each category - in an economic sense - is predetermined by the goverment.
To say that Bush has no hand in the economy is a lie.
In a macro economic sense - goverment sets criteria.
It sets the criteria for taxe, interest rate and inflation policies.
No entity - either public or private can set these macro economic conditions.
It is the goevrment who set these circumstances.
So to conclude that Bush (and his policies) have no influence over the economic performance is not true.

Look, the US deliberately devalued the dollar in real terms to try to stimulate
the economy : to get consumers to spend.
No entity, except goverment, has the power to do this.
Ditto interest rates (Greenspan is go in a certain direction by the goverment of the day).
Ditto inflation policy.

 

[FredC]

Everyone of the things you list only fine tune the economy. They do not drive the economy. The government can help stimulate areas that they deem need it. Maybe you should quit looking at the US economy thru the European model.
If tax rates effect the economy, please explain why the economy grew despite the fact taxes were increased in the 90's.
If inflation policy(interest rates) drive the economy, how come when they were at record low levels, the economy still went into a recession(tech bust).
Thats is correct about nationalization. Now companies are just heavily subsidized eg Airbus.

I don't know how the USA goverment deal with monetary issues. In the UK Government Treasury department deals in it's own macro economic climate as regards, mainly the welfare of the state and it's citizens. At one time, not long ago it also controlled interest rates and used them as a political football. However when Blair came to power this charade was stopped, and control of interest rates were then the responsibility of the Bank of England and Industry. Thus seperating the industrial economy from the State. Despite the polemics on other issues none of the political parties want a return to the previous situation. I think it has been a great success, and we don't have yo-yoing interest rates to cloud election issues. Of course I would like to see some responsible replies on this sub-topic, so that I might learn something of value.

 

[jhuskey]

I don't know how the USA goverment deal with monetary issues. In the UK Government Treasury department deals in it's own macro economic climate as regards, mainly the welfare of the state and it's citizens. At one time, not long ago it also controlled interest rates and used them as a political football. However when Blair came to power this charade was stopped, and control of interest rates were then the responsibility of the Bank of England and Industry. Thus seperating the industrial economy from the State. Despite the polemics on other issues none of the political parties want a return to the previous situation. I think it has been a great success, and we don't have yo-yoing interest rates to cloud election issues. Of course I would like to see some responsible replies on this sub-topic, so that I might learn something of value.

Here are a couple of notes to consider. When interest rates fall as they have building and home buying increase as it has, however building material costs climb due to demand. Still a good thing especially for home buyer and real estate agents amoung a few.
When lending rates are low return rates on investments are low( savings accounts and so forth) so persons depending on interest as an income suffer.

No definitive answers just a couple of facts to consider.