Posted on 01/07/2005 5:43:47 AM PST by The G Man
Fox News to liberals: Look at us we are making doom and gloom scenarios out of nothing. Please love us and invite us to your cocktails parties, pleaaaase.
I won't argue with you.
But I will repeat that in most cases in politics it's better to compromise and win than not to compromise and not win.
The bad policy was reflected in his speeches from the moment he took office. First, the speeches reflected near total ignorance of the economic happenings of the time (which is very similar to Hoover's speeches). The stock market took huge dives on the days he gave economic speeches. He never mentioned the virtues of technology or investment in those speeches. He made claims like an extra few billion dollars in farm exports would turn our economy around (our economy was 10 trillion dollars at the time). He gave a speech in a trucking warehouse in front of boxes with fake "Made in America" labels on them.
look at the lastest yahoo headline. this is getting laughable now:
"US jobs data points to steady, not spectacular growth"
Exactly, but after the Republican revolution of 1994 Clinton went along for the ride and the economy took off in the late 1990's, but people are claiming that GWB inherited a bad economy from that time period because of Clinton's bad policies. What gives?
Well there was the stock market chrash the dot-com industry started to go crash.. Plus a lot of companies was lying about the numbers in 90's also.
If a significant number of companies were lying, the GDP should have contracted significantly. It didn't. In fact some people wonder whether we had a recession at all, which is determined from the GDP numbers.
As far as the dot-com industry goes, it has so far led our economic recovery. There must have been some other reason(s) for the boom and bust.
i cant speak for how anyone else feels but bush did inherit a bad economy. was it clintons fault? i believe no because if you are going to blame clinton, you need also to hold congress accountable. the government in reality has little affect on job growth. bush didnt create these 2.2 million jobs this past year as clinton didnt create the 17 million during his 8 years. the private sector did. the economy works in cycles as it always has, doesnt matter whos in power. the number of jobs in this country has been hijacked as a political figure. notice how the democrats would parade around every first friday of the month during the campaign season stating that job growth was subpar. what a bunch of crap! do they really think they could have anything different? no - they know this but they know that everyday joe schmo doesnt and they use it against the republicans. they keep siting clintons big growth during his term and say thats what democrats bring. what im basically saying is that this has turned into a huge political barometer when it realiy shouldnt. most people think that the number of jobs is a direct result of the president when in reality its not. republicans would use this to as a political number if they could.
And we all know how biased Fox is.
I think employment should be used as a barometer of the economy. It shows how well most people are benefitting from the economy. Does it help that the Federal Reserve views full employment as a bad thing?
Willie Green is deeply saddened too!
157K is a good number.
i agree with you about how it should be a baromter of the economy but not a political barometer of the parties in power. the federal reserve has the most impact on the economy and they deserve some of the blame for the economic situation in 2000, not clinton or bush. but at the same token, you cant give clinton or bush the credit for all the job growth that happened while they were sitting as president. carrottop could have been president in the 90s and there would have been healthy job growth.
Yeah, but none of them were the "right kind of jobs."
Exactly, Greenspan pumped in too much money to protect against Y2K disruptions. When there were no disruptions, he pulled that excess cash out too quickly which is why the boom was so high and the bust so low.
Clinton's excess regulations which he mostly created outside of Congress did hurt the economy.
If you remember that in the start of 2004 the Bush adminstration economic report predicted a job growth of 2.5 million jobs. At the time, the country was bleeding jobs, due to outsourcing and other factors. The report was laughed at in the media and the democrat party and Bush was looking very vulnerable on the economy. Then March and April came with big job growth and it continued all year. Not bad, not bad at all. These yearly totals are very good, and I believe that if were not sending jobs hand over fist overseas, Bush would have hit 2.5.
agreed
Yes, he inverted the yield curve, and raising rates when the dollar is very strong doesn't make much sense if the objective is steady price levels. Y2K was a big driver of the economy, especially business spending, which mostly goes toward technology. Greenspan never saw that. He was focused on something else.
Clinton's excess regulations which he mostly created outside of Congress did hurt the economy.
I would like to learn more about that, and whether GWB has rescinded most of it.
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.