The downfall of Republicans -- needed defense.

The downfall of Bush will be the economy (no matter its condition). The liberal media is successfully weakening the economy by instilling fear into investors while the Democrats pin the blame on President Bush.

For all of our issues that we discuss here on Free Republic, most will never be considered by voters in 2002 or in 2004. Instead the state of the economy will be the number one issue among voters.

I recently toured one of the Democrat FreeRepublic rip-offs and saw post after post on how Bush and the Republicans were destroying the economy in only 8 months, undoing everything Clinton accomplished in 8 years.

Unfortunately, if I had no brain (I think millions of Americans don't) I would have to agree, after all, everytime I turn on my television I am reminded that we are entering a recessionary period.

1. A large part of our economy is driven by consumer confidence. If consumers do not spend, companies do not profit. If companies do not profit they layoff workers. Workers that are layed off cannot spend. A vicious cycle is formed.

2. A large part of our economy is driven by interest rates, especially in real-estate. Lowering interest rates promotes purchasing, but weakens financial institutions.

3. The money collected from payroll taxes is placed into the general fund along with all other collections. Director Mitch Daniels puts it this way: All money we collect is green, we do not have yellow money for social security, red money for medi-care, and green money for income taxes. You cannot distinguish one dollar from another when it enters the system.

4. The Democrats rigged Medicare in the 60's because it continually lost money -- making their plan to regulate healthcare more difficult. They divided the budgeting of Medicare into Plan A and Plan B. Plan A now runs a surplus of around 30 billion; however Plan B continues to lose double to triple that amount. Medicare is said to run a surplus because of this gimmick.

5. The Bush tax cut did not assist the wealthy this year and the economy is not reacting to a tax cut for the wealthiest 1% of the wealthy. Bill Gates got the same tax cut that I received.

6. The economy has not yet responded to the tax cut. I only received my check today. Only half of the checks have been received. If consumers spend the tax cut, they will be giving it to companies in desperate need of funds to hire workers. If it remains in the government it will go to pay down the national debt and no one will see any return on that investment for at least 20 years.

7. The majority of the surplus is in social security. A surplus means money collected that was not budgeted for spending.

8. The government has always spent or (raided) the social security surplus and all other surpluses. The government either alots the money for a program, possibly one that can stimulate the economy, or it sends it to the treasury which is in debt to other nations by trillions of dollars. Thus when it reaches the treasury the money disappears in the blink of an eye.

9. There is no such thing as a social security "account". The government does not use private sector accounting. Money is not tied up in assets and no one can access their account. Daniels joked that our money is not colored because too many people believe that their payroll taxes are deposited into an account and can be traced.

It is President Bush that is pushing for the ability to invest 2% of payroll taxes into a physical account. We cannot create a "lock-box" because we owe trillions of dollars. The analogy would be keeping a 5 million dollar bank account while owing 5 billion to American Express. American Express -will- expect payment.

10. No money EVER goes into an account, it ALWAYS disappears into the national debt. How do senior citizens or medicare recipients get paid? From the general fund -- the government allots part of the collected taxes into these programs and fully funds them each year. Thus, your mother's social security is being paid by your taxes and everyone else's. The greatest lie is that the Republicans are "raiding" Social Security. This lie is used to incite fear among recipients that their checks will get smaller -- leading these people to cut back on spending -- further weakening the economy.

11. In years past the congress passed a measure to prevent future congresses from spending the Social Security surplus. This is a good thing as it reduced what Democrats had long practiced: running Social Security investments into protecting insects and fish from corporate profits and other "feel-good" programs. However, this ensures that very little of any surplus can ever be spent on promoting a stronger economy or stronger defense.

12. The Social Security and Medicare programs are doomed to failure within 30 years. The taxes collected from future workers will not be enough to cover the spending in these programs. The options at that time will be to drastically increase taxes, cut spending, or reduce benefits. The Democrats will prefer to increase taxes in order to increase the number of dependents and Democratic voters.

13. The Bush Administration has repeatedly called on Congress to drop the fear-tactics on Social Security and to work on a tactic to reform Social Security and Medicare so that we can avoid these future failures. Both sides admit Social Security will fail and both side admit that even if the government eliminated the national debt that it could still not keep up with the payouts.

The Democrats on the Budgeting Committee are not accepting these facts to which all economists agree on. Instead they are accusing the White House of "raiding Social Security" (this phrase was counted 34 times in the meeting with Daniels earlier this week). After three hours of explaining basic government economics, the the comittee would not release the "raiding" rhetoric so that progress could actually be made.

14. The downturn in the economy started last year, of this all economists will agree. The GDP growth slowed every quarter throughout 2000. Layoffs increased throughout 2000. Estimate warnings increased throughout 2000. President Bush even spoke of the decline during his run for the Presidency.

15. The economy cannot turn on a dime. The economy reacts very slowly as actions traverse through the system. The loss in profits in 2000 led to the layoffs in late 2000 and 2001. The layoffs in 2001 will lead to reduced consumer spending and confidence in 2001 and 2002 -- unless those families are given futher tax breaks or the media stops its economy downturn rhetoric.

16. Consumers react to the picture the media paints of the economy. Bill Clintons scandals kept the media away from the economy during his eight years.

17. The market WILL correct itself. In 2000 the internet sector was overevaluated and after a series of profit warnings were released this became apparent to investors who then sold off and moved their money elsewhere.

19. Trickle-down economics works. Few of the wealthy during the 90's hoarded cash. They invested in the stock market and opened businesses to cash in on the craze. They spent money to purchase real-estate, office equipment, and on salaried employees. This led to rises in hiring. The high salary employees with ample money and increased confidence spent it on consumer products and services. The consumer and service markets were able to hire more people (usually lower-income) -- and the cycle repeated.

The government CANNOT increase the economy on its own. Giving tax breaks to the lower-income workers will not increase spending -- it will increase investing. Most lower income workers know that they will have trouble sending their kids to college and will have similar problems in retirement. They will place their money in bonds or in the bank and this will not stimulate the economy.

Everyone profitted under Clinton -- because of the trickle-down economics of Reagan -- remember economies do not turn overnight (stocks can, but a trillion dollar economy cannot). Plus, Clinton raised taxes on lower income families and ignored the rhetoric of his own party.

The Democratic party believes the government (which is criticized for spending $600 on a roll of toilet paper) can spend your money better than you. The government has no accountability. In the private sector a program that cannot show sustained growth is abandoned. The same program in the government is given more money -- without accountability. In the government a program that does NOT spend ALL of its alloted money is given a reduced budget in the following year. This insane process ensures that all programs spend their money (your taxes) before the end of the year, sort of like the movie Bruster's Millions.

The Democrats are setting up a major offensive to increase the down-turn rhetoric and to increase the fear in seniors on Social Security and Medicare "raids". The Bush White House has given a budget to the Congress that will not dip into these "surpluses". A truer statement is to say that the Bush White House has given a budget to the Congress that will not dip into the paydown of the national debt. Social Security and Medicare can be COMPLETELY removed from the discussion because ALL money is placed in the general fund and ALL extra money disappears into paying down the national debt and no amount of debt recovery can save these programs from failure.

How come the party that supposedly "cares" for the people is so driven for re-election that it is purposefully putting off reform of two major, failuring, programs.

How come the same party is purposefully trying to weaken consumer confidence for re-election. In the 90's the Republicans were in the congress and oversaw the strongest economy in history. In 2001 the Democrats are trying to see to the wrecking of the economy for 4 years in order to win elections in 2002 and 2004.

We need to remind voters in 2002 and 2004 that the Democrats weakened the economy to make Republicans look bad and to get their vote.

Bush and his spokesmen should spend every waking moment talking about the "Clinton downturn". This thing started before Bush even got into office. But Americans have a short memory and, by 2004, some of them will be stupid enough to believe the Democrats' lies about the economy.

Here is how people vote: (1) Loyalists. If Al Gore had murdered a 2 year old in cold blood they'd voted for him anyway. (2) Single-Issue. Environmentalists and Abortionists, and Amoralists. (3) Philisophical. Republicans are against Democracy. (4) Pocket-book. Who's president -- how am I doing? (5) Who looks cooler?

The number 1,2, and 3 lines have been drawn. The number 5 group consists of a small number of twits. The number 4 crowd is HUGE and is what swings the election; however, I don't think most pay any attention to how the economy works and what role the government has.

Altough they will talk up the social security "deficit" and "raids", they will subtly place into every interview the "downturn", the "loss in investments", and the need to "cutback spending". I mean _MY GOD_ we just ran the second largest surplus in the history of the country and the DEMOCRATS are already talking about how they'll have to cut government programs. Its as if the word surplus didn't have a logical meaning.

Agree 100% with your thinking. The (4) group is also the most dangerous. They know practically nothing about how the economy works. They think of their 401Ks as a kind of bank account. ("Gee, I put money in -- it's supposed to get some kind of return.") They don't understand how the capital and bond markets work. They don't know how interest rates are set -- or by whom. They don't understand how tax rates affect government revenues -- or that cutting taxes increases revenues. They don't care. All they do care is that the money keeps rolling in. All that they know is that they did well under Clinton. They credit Clinton with giving "good economy". They will be hard on Bush. They will blame everything that's happening right now on him, even though the economic downturn started 2 years before Clinton even left office. His economists were clever. They hid the downturn in fudged productivity numbers. GDP was flat or declining.

In the 90's the Republicans were in the congress and oversaw the strongest economy in history.

-----------------------

Somebody's knowlege of history isn't very good. I wish to God somebody would consult the figures for the last 60 years instead of trying to make unsupported political arguments that play into leftist hands with leftist premises.

There has never been a complete recovery from what is erroneously called the 91-92 recession, which according to figures for people out of work for more than three and six months, lasted well into 94. In 1997 the median white male had taken somewhere around a $4,000 drop in adjusted inceome from 1973. This has been a continuing process for nearly 30 years. The absence of regnition of this fact, and the reasons for it, is one reason conservatives are losing political leverage.

We have been in a state of deterioratin economic condition since the early 70s. Every figure shows it. The Reagan era reduced the rate of decrease, but did not end the fundamental problem.

It really infuriates me that the Democrats pretend to be for these working people all the while stalling economic reform in favor of political advantage. After all, what good would it be for them to have a strong economy in 2002. I just didn't see this with the Republicans during the Clinton era. The chairman of the Budget Committee (D) Sen. Kent Conrad (a former North Dakota state tax commissioner) pretended to understand NOTHING of government economics, even that social security HAD accounts and said:

"I think those who have been driving the car, grabbed the wheel and proceeded to run it right into the ditch have the first obligation."

"I think it defies logic and defies truth"

"I do believe they have an affirmative obligation to come up with spending cuts or new revenue to prevent us from raiding the Medicare and Social Security trust funds."

From Townhall.Com: "Implicitly, Conrad wants to impose higher taxes on a shaky economy."

In 1997 the median white male had taken somewhere around a $4,000 drop in adjusted inceome from 1973

Adjusted for inflation I presume. :-) You are most likely right -- but that arguement wouldn't hold water with voters.

Remember when during the campaign Bush said the Clinton economy was about to tank? The media went after him full force saying he was scaring people, and that by saying such things he would make the economy weaken?
Hmm, now who is doing this? The media of course, using it as another tool to undermine the President to the brainswashed public who do not realize that this is still the Clinton economy.
This is of course, all by design, President Bush must be made to pay for having the audacity to win the election and keep their fair haired boy from continuing the socialsist agenda the media so agrees with.

In 1997 the median white male had taken somewhere around a $4,000 drop in adjusted inceome from 1973. This has been a continuing process for nearly 30 years.

Where do you have this number from? All statistics I have seen show an increase in real incomes for all socio-economic groups except the bottom 20% over the last 30 years. I may certainly be wrong, but please give a source for your claim. Thanks in advance!

Oh yes, I remember. I was working for two startup companies in 2000, drawing full salary in each. Both had completely overestimated their consumer market and both went under in November. The key was that both had been looking for investors and that market COMPLETELY dried up in 2000 (NOT in 2001).

'The downfall of Bush will be the economy (no matter its condition).'

Taking swings at Bush ain't gonna help. This is a threadful of whine, hurts the Conservative cause. If you must kick your own asses, do it privately. Thanx for not breaking the 11th commandment (sarcasm off).

Adjuste for inflation, correct. It won't appeal to the voters if you don't tell them what is happening, but instead attempt to take credit for something that doesn't exist. If we want to appeal to voters instead of driving them off, we must stop engaging in fantasy island politics.

'The downfall of Bush will be the economy (no matter its condition).' Taking swings at Bush ain't gonna help. This is a threadful of whine, hurts the Conservative cause. If you must kick your own asses, do it privately. Thanx for not breaking the 11th commandment (sarcasm off).

I think you didn't understand. No other issue will remove Bush from office than the economy. Even if its doing great (as it still is) it will be the "worst catastrophe for working Americans in history" which is why we need economic education. If you ignore it -- you're sure to suffer from it.

Mmmmmh, I guess you were trying to reply to somebody else. Right?

He was trying to respond to me. But come on -- do you think the Dems will run based on the Stem Cell issue in 2002. We're not far off and the odds are the economy will not significantly recover, we're most likely looking at another quarter below or right at 0% growth. With all the reporting, I would guess just below 0% and then the trumpets will really start sounding because we'll be in a "recession". If we do manage to have significant recovery in 2002 I doubt it will have much attention compared to the fallout of the former. This will be the #1 issue for the races in 2002 and we'll have to deal with -- the best way is to dispell the myth now.

I agree - it will be the big issue for 2002, even though most mid-term races are more about personality than politics. Most likely the economy will be in gear again by 2004.

I think it was Drudge that had a link to Daschel's 2002 strategy meeting -- basically discouraging any collaboration on Bush economic plans to keep Democrat fingerprints off the economy -- essentially let it die and then we'll say "We told you -- Republicans will destroy the economy".

Bush isn't as brazen as Clinton. Plus, the media hold his feet to the fire as they never did for Clinton.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.