cnn crossfire poll says gop is better at handling economy than democrats

Discussion in 'Community' started by jefhatfield, Oct 15, 2002.

  1. jefhatfield Retired

    jefhatfield

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2000
    #1
    the poll gives the gop 44 percent, to 40 percent who think the democrats do a better job at handling the economy

    we are in a recession right now and george w bush is president

    during the clinton administration, we were in the best economic times in us history

    however, the tail end of the clinton administration saw a falling economy which was devastatingly bad by the time george w bush took office...so it could be clinton's fault

    right?

    wrong?

    bush had almost two years to deal with it? things are still bad...but is that not enough time to turn things around?

    what do you guys/gals think?
     
  2. Durandal7 macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2001
    #2
    The economy only appeared good under the Clinton admin because everyone had money that wasn't really there. In the last few years we realized the money that we thought we had did not exist, that and Martha Stewart.

    The bottom line is that it doesn't matter who's President, the economy will go through cycles regardless of the President's political values.
     
  3. strider42 macrumors 65816

    strider42

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2002
    #3
    I agree, to a point. The economy goes through cycles. I don't think Clinton had a whole lot to do with the economy doing well, other than the fact that he spent money wisely and steered the steady course.

    Bush can't take all the blame for the4 economy doing badly, but I personally believe that his emphasis has been ont he wrong things, and I think the GOP, despite its decelarations that they are in favor of smaller government, only increase the size and beauracracy of givernment ni ways that spend money without getting a return on the investment. I think the democrats overall understand the need to spend money to make money and the social ramifications and big picture effects of what they spend money on. It is in this spirit that I don't have a problem paying taxes, and don't believe tax cuts are always the answer.

    I don't think bush is handling it well, although I don't blame the economies problems on him.
     
  4. brogers macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2002
    Location:
    Greensboro, NC
    #4
    Does it really matter???!!!

    My problem is that we always want to blame someone. Might as well be the Pres. Too many people in Congress and most people are confused by the Congress and how it all works, so they point at the Pres. The economy runs in cycles just like retail sales, manufacturing, etc. and whoever is sitting in the hot seat when it tanks is going to get the blame. I have friends that think the day Bush leaves office is they day things turn around. Foolish. On the flip side, Bush needs to focus a little more on it....or at least give the impression that he is. But, if he takes his eyes off the terrorism stuff and something happens...BOOM...people will say he should have done a better job at that. My opinion is that Bush really can't win. His election was what most call a joke, Sept. 11 hit and the ecomony got worse all in two short years. I would hate to have his job, but IT IS NOT HIS FAULT. Remember, all this garbage with Enron and other companies and the planning of Sept. 11 did not happen the day Bush took office. It started long before. And just for the record, Clinton was not a hero...he was a master politician. My 2cents.
     
  5. alex_ant macrumors 68020

    alex_ant

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2002
    Location:
    All up in your bidness
    #5
    To agree with everyone else so far... the president really has very little effect on the economy, especially in the short term. Economics is such a complex science that whenever the economy enters the crapper, there's little one can do but blame the economy itself. If you absolutely must blame someone, blame the Federal Reserve or Alan Greenspan, but don't blame the president, of all people. (And I would be saying this whether the president were Republican, Democrat, or Rastafarian Socialist.)
     
  6. shadowfax macrumors 603

    shadowfax

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2002
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #6
    to recall the lessons of martin van buren.... you can't be too careful about blaming the president for a bad economy. van buren led a country in a terrible economic recession in the 1840s, but it wasn't his fault at all. it was that dope andrew jackson... and his anti-federal economic policies...

    if you want to blame bush for something, there's always foreign policy... of course that isn't all his fault either(except for the unpopularity in europe).
     
  7. diorio macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    #7
    I know I'm going to piss off the canadians, but BLAME CANADA!
     
  8. gandalf55 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2001
    Location:
    boston
    #8
    the economy is large enough to enter into long cycles. the economy of today is based on conditions of about 8-10 years ago. you can't blame an economy on a current president. a lot of people who don't like GWB will say it's his fault because it gives them an excuse. but it doesn't really mean it's the truth. personally i love GWB and cringe when i think of what Al Gore might have been like. Ugh.
     
  9. Taft macrumors 65816

    Taft

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago
    #9
    Which is why you you think that the economy today was made ten years ago. I'm not sure eveyone can agree that the economy is in eight to ten year cycles.

    Current events, consumer confidence, housing markets, effects of foreign economies, concerns over current events (ie war), consumer debt, etc, etc, etc....these things all come into play in making an economy what it is. Some of these effects are made a long time before the effects are felt, but others take root firmly in the present. If the only things that effect our current economy occurred ten years ago, then why aren't we ablt to predict what the economy will be in ten years??? Simply because we don't know whats going to happen between now and then. All the events between now and ten years in the future will have soe effect on the economy of the future.

    Taft
     
  10. peter2002 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2002
    Location:
    Dallas, TX
    #10
    Vote Democrat.

    If you want to live like a Republican, vote Democrat.

    Republicans have been historically bad for the economy. Republicans only help out defense contractors, oil companys, other polluters, cops, Right to Lifers, Bible Thumpers, Neo-Nazis, KKK, skin-heads, NRA, and the prison system. The economy went sour or was bad under Republican Presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush Sr., and now Bush Jr. The reason is that Republican policies only help out the top 1%, whereas Democratic policies are beneficial to the other 99%. In the last election, Bush got almost all his campaign money, almost $100,000,000 from just 500 of the richest people in the USA. It is in the election record. Go figure whom Bush Jr. is really loyal to?

    Bush Jr. will be just like his father. He supposedly won the Gulf War which we will have to fight again in 2003, but lost the economy and the election to Clinton in 1992. Bush Jr. will be the same and lose to Gore in 2004. History always repeats itself for humans are too stupid to learn from the mistakes of the past.

    Peter
     
  11. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #11
    Wow. And some of you said I was the resident liberal.
     
  12. MrMacMan macrumors 604

    MrMacMan

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2001
    Location:
    1 Block away from NYC.
    #12
    Re: Vote Democrat.

    A ha, someone Else watchs crossfire besides me!! heehe. It is true that bush gained most if not all his money from the extreme wealthy. It is hard for republicans to lose because of Big buissnes, the NRA and Super wealthy all helping their campaign. All I hope for is a Democratic Senate and for them also to get some House members too ... In the last election Gore didn't appear with Clinton till it was too late, and he didn't show his Liberal side untill recently.
    Bah...:mad:
     
  13. Durandal7 macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2001
    #13
    History already has repeated itself peter2002. Compare the Bush/Gore race to the Hayes/Tilden race and you'll see some striking similarites (Floridia has been having election recoounts since the 1870s :rolleyes: )
     
  14. shadowfax macrumors 603

    shadowfax

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2002
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #14
    i have to admit, i am not a republican, just as conservative, and i rather dislike bush, mostly for his foreign policy.

    i don't appreciate the accusation, though, that republicans support neonazis and (redundant bec/ it is the same thing) skinheads. that's plain stupid. neonazis have more in common with democrats, economically. they are highly socialistic, the ultimate in economic control. republicans support laissez-faire to as high an extent as they can. republicans tend to botch up the economy because they are in a system that is highly "socialized"--ie, their economic views don't account for things like social security, welfare, and so on. they try to minimize costs, but they can't cut the places they really want to cut, because, as eisenhower said, it'd be political suicide to oppose the new deal. and so they don't and they have all kinds of budget deficits and that crap, and they really don't make much headway lowering taxes.

    the "success" to which some refer to as having occurred under democrats.... that's crap. on paper, sure. but what was the price of that? one thing i have noticed is that a huge amount of it was a lie. all that money disappeared--when we realized it was never really there. and furthermore, you have businesses lying out their asses. Enron, MCI, and so on. we don't know the half of it, and never will. the Clinton administration did nothing to stop business dishonesty. heck, clinton gave a great example of how you could get away with something as petty as screwing your interns. i don't care that he did it, i am pretty libertarian, but to lie about it... i don't respect a leader who's ashamed of how he conducts himself, and it most certainly transfers down to lower tiers of society. that's not all clinton's fault, but he's a wonderful symbol of the times. all that to say, democrats don't inherently make economic success; i would compare their economic policy to a different idea, though not necessarily a better one, but one in which they take the failing grade they received and marked an A on it. just because you say you were successful and you have a bunch of numbers that say you were doesn't mean you were... we can see how quick that goes south.

    ultimately, economics is magic. keynes is NOT god, keynesian economic policies do not always work. neither do conservative, laissez-faire economic policies. that's why neither democrats nor republicans stay in office. it cycles.

    either way though, there will be people on both sides to blame the other side for every single problem we have.
     
  15. mischief macrumors 68030

    mischief

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2001
    Location:
    Santa Cruz Ca
    #16
    Wow. I can always spot an ignoramous.

    They assume that Socialism and Stalinism are the same thing. Wake up dude: the rest of the Civilized world is Socialist.

    One person can't be blamed for the economy. Any large trends are a result of accumulated policies from many places. If you want to blame a group blame business analysts or economists that speak of the "Ideal and Unregulated Marketplace". Such ideas are every bit as naive and unpracticable as the Marxist Utopia. Greed and Fear are too great a motivator for idealistic principals to be allowed into politics.

    I feel that certain industry's need a Federal Leash. Utilities, Medical Care and Banking should all be regulated.

    There has to be a middle ground in which Business can exist freely enough to thrive and essential services can be provided by the Fed. To do otherwise makes for these kinds of massive fluctuations as the two Theories are applied by politicians who refuse to see the stupididty in using "on-paper" principals to run an economy.:rolleyes:
     
  16. ejb190 macrumors 65816

    ejb190

    #17
    Re: Vote Democrat.

    The problem with this line of thinking is that in the last decade or so when we had a Republican President, we have had a Democratic controlled Congress and vise versa. Realizing it is the Congress (specifically the House of Represenatives) who writes financial legislation, do we really have any right to blame the president (or his party) for the state of the economy?
     
  17. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #18
    Yeah, that axis of evil thing worked out real well so far. Of course, the foreign policy decisions when he first got into office were awfully effective in the first place.

    Let's see here, Bush's foreign policy... effective? He can't get our allies to agree with us. He can't get a UN resolution. He can't get a coalition to do anything in the middle east. He's done nothing vis a vis isreal/PLO other than to tell both sides to stop.

    All he's done is have one war and suggest we go to another war.

    When he's done more than that, then we'll talk.

    Oh, how could I forget, before 9/11, didn't he tell the russians we were going to ignore prior treaties? Didn't he also drop out of some environmental treaty? Didn't he also back out of something else dealing with a "world court?" (something I'm against)
     
  18. Durandal7 macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2001
    #19
    People seem to have this twisted idea in their heads that the President makes every decision for every company in the country.

    It seems that with the recent west coast port closures we would have realized just how dependent the American economy is on foriegn countries.
     
  19. job macrumors 68040

    job

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2002
    Location:
    in transit
    #20
    The SALT II treaty was never ratified by Congress, therefore, we were never officially "in" the treaty.

    Also, in the SALT II treaty it states that a country must give prior notice if it is pulling out of the treaty, which we did.

    Bush did not sign the Kyoto Protocol...

    Personally, I think the Kyoto Protocol would have limited our industrial capabilities...but oh well...
     
  20. job macrumors 68040

    job

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2002
    Location:
    in transit
    #21
    Has anyone noticed how many things are "Made in China?"

    Hell, the man-hole covers on my street are "Made in India." We can't even produce our own man-holes for ****'s sake...

    Yeah, it may be cheaper for the companies...but I still don't like it.
     
  21. shadowfax macrumors 603

    shadowfax

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2002
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #22


    you are going to hate me. but that's ok. i'm pretty annoyed at you myself. i'm actually not an ignoramus, i'm a national merit semifinalist (soon to be finalist), and i have taken and aced the european and american history AP exams. however, i received an email the other night about some pretty cool, funny words. "ignoranus" was my favorite word mix. it means you're both ignorant AND an ass.

    if you will reread, the closest i would seem to have come to comparing socialism and stalinism is when i compared neonazi economic policy to democratic (pseudo-socialist) policy. neonazis are similar to and have their heritage in Fascism, which has most prominently manifested itself in Italy under Mussolini, Germany under Hitler, and Spain under Franco. these countries, namely italy and Germany, practiced heavy economic control and planning by the government. this is a kind of socialism much aligned with the way that Britain and other European nations run their economies. the democrats in america want to have much of this controlled economy. not in the exact same sense; don't twist my words: DEMOCRATS ARE NOT FASCISTS. it's just the socialistic policies both employ that i am comparing. as to Stalinism, i don't see where that came in. Stalinism refers to Stalin's political system holistically. it includes but is not limited to government censorship, corporal punishment, mass murder, and largely socialistic economic controls. socialism is not stalinism. it is part of the communist process as it strives (on paper) to become a classless, usually governmentless society. socialism is government enforced equality to varying extents. welfare and social security are good examples of socialism. so is medicaid.

    i'm personally insulted by your telling me to wake up and see that the civilized world is socialist. i pointed out that many intitutions in america are socialistic, and in existence today. simple logic dictates that america is then partially socialistic. i made a point, a very valid one, if you would bother to read the conclusion to my argument, that government in america is cyclic. the democrats tend to make things more socialistic, while republicans tend to try to hold this trend back. that's a simple fact: look at clinton's policies, look at bush's. look at reagan's policies, look at Lyndon Johnson's.

    i spoke in generalizations about the 2 parties. not all republican policy is laissaez faire, and not all democratic policy is socialistic. it's a with a holistic look at the parties that their leanings becomes evident.

    most of the other points you made could be extrapolated from my argument. i referred to on paper policy/ideals. every person who submits a piece of legislation or supports a political party has tt, on some level, support "on paper" policy. a proposed solution to a problem makes assumptions that may or may not be right about what can fix that problem. and socialism, while societies with mass politics tend toward it, is not the only/the always perfect answer. you have said as much. this "zen" between regulation and laissez faire to which you allude is exactly what i am talking about. at some level, coservatives try and fail, and liberals try and fail, to get to that "zen" and neither reaches it. and when they don't, society drops them and tries the other. by and large, of course. another big problem economically in america is that, as ejb190 pointed out, no system has impunity. republicans and democrats are at odds, so neither can realize its goals, because each has a competing say on hyow policy is implemented.

    ultimately, i don't get you. you insult me falsely, more an insult to your own knowledge of economic systems, and then you make all these observations totally compliant with my argument. i'm thoroughly baffled.
     
  22. job macrumors 68040

    job

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2002
    Location:
    in transit
    #23
    Re: Wow. I can always spot an ignoramous.

    I'm sorry, but I don't want the government telling me how I can spend and save my money..

    And if Medical Care is indeed regulated (i.e. similar to the NHS in the UK) who has to pay for that? We do of course, through higher taxes..

    No thank you.
     
  23. shadowfax macrumors 603

    shadowfax

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2002
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #24
    hitman, i think when he talks about banking, he is talking about forcing banks to be honest in their dealings... like an SEC type thing especially for banks. if that is the case, i would think you want it. "let the buyer beware" doesn't work when you have no way of discovering bank fraud. not regulationg organizations like that is becoming increasingly difficult.

    just my opinion though, i'm sure you know a lot about this, maybe more than me. i am not up on the stock market and so on, i just know what happened in 1929 because of lack of regulation.
     
  24. job macrumors 68040

    job

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2002
    Location:
    in transit
    #25
    Ah, ok. A slight misunderstanding on my part then.

    I was wondering if he was suggesting a "Federal Bank," one similar to the government-run bank of the 1800s..

    Just wondering, what did you get on those A.P. exams? I got a 5 on both World History and European. I'm taking U.S. this year...and my teacher is full of crap...
     

Share This Page