Posted on 03/06/2003 8:43:42 AM PST by areafiftyone
Sparingly. Other priorities, like getting a job.
Bush is doing quite well considering the states polled...
First, its good to see you post! I hadn't seen a post from you in ages.
As for the economy - I am of the school that it isn't as bad as portrayed, but that may be a local thing. In these parts, unemployment is around 4%, houses are being built at record levels, and the area's new car sales have soundly beaten the figures from last year. People are real busy around here.
In contrast, I remember living in Cleveland, Ohio in the late '70's when local unemployment was around 14%, interest rates were very high and the big local employers, Ford, Republic (LTV) Steel, and the like weren't doing very well. I beleive that Chrysler got its bail-out in that era. I don't think we've stooped to that level - and I hope we don't, but if we don't get the Iraq issue behind us, we could.
I hope you're not comparing today's economy with that of the mid-late 90's - that was an overheated economy by any measurement. I would compare the late '90's to the roaring '20's, but on a lessor scale. To Bush's credit, he hasn't resorted to FDR-like remedies to the slowdown.
Keep in touch with FR - your posts are valued as far as I'm concerned.
No, I am comparing working to not-working.
Keep in touch with FR - your posts are valued as far as I'm concerned.
I will, but sparingly.
And thank you for your support. It's touching during this difficult time.
Doesn't matter if it's Hillary, Dean or Alfred E Newman on the ticket.
They want ABD, Anybody But Dubya.
I agree, in Dec. 82 the national unemeployment rate was 10.8% and Reagan and the Republicans had suffered a 26 seat loss in the House the month before which is in sharp contrast of Bush 43 gaining seats in his first midterm election.
Reagan went on to crush Mondale in Nov. 84. There is a lot of time. In 92 the economy was in full recovery, but the press was hellbent for Clinton, add Perot's tilting at windmills, and Bush 41's lackluster campaign led to Klintoon's win with 43% of the vote.
When Perot first dropped out of the race in 92, Bush 41 pulled ahead of Clinton. If it wasn't for Perot, Clinton would have never have won, IMO. Also there was no mass Internet availiablity in 92 and the press had full reign to put out thier propaganda for Clinton.
I understand. I hadn't realized that you were looking until after I put up my previous post. The microeconomic is what drives peoples' vote, not the macro. You're definately experiencing the downside of micro. Best of luck with the search and don't give up!
BTW, if I may be so bold, I recall your being in the computer industry, but I can't recall what area. Where's your expertise?
Sadly, I was one of the Perot people. I had been a Reagan democrat prior to that, had voted for GB-1 in term one, and was at something of a crossroads when that election occurred. I, like many Perot voters, was tired of the political games and wanted something new.
Hindsight is, of course, 20-20 - Perot split the vote and the 'toon won without anything close to a majority (a little fact that doesn't get in the way when democrats talk about the 2000 election). I always wonder how that vote would have went had Perot not entered the scene. I also wonder at times what would have happened if Perot would have won. Now THAT would be an interesting scenario. :^)
I will never forget that. When Perot first dropped out Bush 41 surged ahead and then Perot entered the race again and was a deciding factor.
I always wonder how that vote would have went had Perot not entered the scene. I also wonder at times what would have happened if Perot would have won. Now THAT would be an interesting scenario. :^)
I do too. If Bush 41 had won there probably would never had been the Newt revolution of 94, where pubs won the House for the first time in 40 years, and kept electoral control of both houses during the 90's and they would have kept that streak of electoral victories alive for the Congress elected in 2000 if Jumpin Jimmy hadn't decided to become Tom Daschle's toadie.
Perot made some amends by endorsing Bush 43 before the 2000 election.
All history is very intersting, but when I see this thread, I recall my dad, a big Reagan supporter, saying in 82 that Reagan couldn't make it in 84, and we lived in an area where the economy was just as bad as Cleveland's.
We got 19 months till election day and I think that Bush 43 is following the Reagan model(ala Karl Rove, i.e. ala Michael Deaver).
One of my intentions was to point out that the Democrats have often been extraordinarily fortunate to have followed GOP administrations which were turned out because Americans believed they had mismanaged the economy. Witness the uncanny good luck of high-tax proponent Clinton taking office just as the economy was entering the greatest boom of the century, no credit to him. Whether caused by a cycle or by fiscal policies, the onset of upturns and downturns, often resulting from tax policies, seem to lag behind their cause at a slow enough tempo to usually insure a Democratic president a successful economy during his tenure purely by chance. OTOH, a downturn, usually caused by some destructive Democratic policy, seems to always lag sufficiently to insure the downturn occurs at some point in a GOP administration, usually around election time. Call it lucky timing I suppose. The Carter and Reagan presidencies were both exceptions to the broad rule.
One of my reasons for assigning considerable importance to the cyclical nature of national economies is the Clinton administration's exceptional run of good fortune in the 1990s. There were no significant tax cuts during his tenure that I remember after his first year major tax increase, yet the economy continued to expand dramatically for another seven years afterward until the cycle caught up to it in his last year. Or did the "lag" between his tax hike and an inevitable result account for his good fortune? I'm not sure, but seven years seems like a longer than normal lag.
Let's see, huge tax hike enacted during a period of slow but increasing economic growth, followed 6-7 years later by downturn, right? Well, OK, maybe I'm giving too much importance to the business cycle phenomenon, but I still think it's an important factor.
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.