[Dont_Tread_On_Me_888]

Bush has so screwed up what the Democrats have worked so hard for.

Bush should not be credited for the good housing numbers over the most recent month's reporting.

Nor, should Bush be blamed for the horrible retail sales number from the most recent number reported.

Besides the good news today, there is bad news (at the moment) that the 10-year Note and 30-year bond are lower--that is bad news. Bush should not be blamed for that.

In fact, the bond market is lower because the housing number was strong. The stock market is also lower following the housing number report--should Bush be blamed for these negatives if we are to blame him for the positives?

You people who keep associating economic indicators on a month to month basis with presidential performance are so ininformed of economic reality.

President should not receive blame, nor should they get credit, for short-term economic indicators. To do so shows a total lack of knowledge and common sense.

[Dont_Tread_On_Me_888]

should Bush be blamed for these negatives if we are to blame him for the positives?

should read as follows:

should Bush be blamed for these negatives if we are to CREDIT him for the positives?

---

Again, for anybody to blame or credit short-term economic indicators on the president shows an extreme lack of knowledge (and even a lack of common sense).

[RedBloodedAmerican]

"You people who keep associating economic indicators on a month to month basis with presidential performance are so ininformed (sp) of economic reality."

You're full of crap.

It is the President's tax cuts that has led to the housing boom since he took office in 2000 both in existing and new home sales. So yes he does get credit, as much as it grieves you.