BILL CLINTON!

HE LEFT US WITH A 5 TRILLION DOLLAR SURPLUS , FULL EMPLOYMENT, AND A VERY GOOD EXPANDING ECONOMY, PEACE AND PROSPERITY WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL! REMEMBER THE GOOD OLD DAYS?

Bill Clinton certainly wouldn't save us and the slow economy is certainly not George Bush's fault either.

IceNine said:

yes it is because americans arent spending money because they are frightened that this fool is about to go to war with Iraq,

Economic indicators were on a downturn before Bush was elected, therefore he had nothing to do with it.

The possibility of a war doesn't help anything, but it is not the reason for the downturn.

The FCC and the FED are to blame.

I'm just waiting for the fools to rush in blaming Clinton for everything wrong with the economy/country whilst never giving him due credit.

thechronic said:

Why does everyone think that Amercans spending money is the answer to everything? You watch too much TV.

Spending was also down very late in the election season before Bush was elected. The unofficial polls indicated that Bush and Gore were running pretty closely at that time, which could lead to the belief that many consumers curbed their spending because of a potential totally different administration.

IceNine said:

Dubya so can be blamed for the *current* stale of the ecomony...sure, at the beggining of Bush's administration he was dealing with a slow down...

however, now we are dealing with an immediate change in consumer confidence...this change has aided in the "stale"...and like chronic pointed out, these is contributed to peoples concerns about the growing deficit and concerns over a war...

come on now ice...how can you not agree with me? hehehehehe

SkletonKee said:

Some of the biggest factors in the downturn of the economy are things that no president could be blamed for... the discovery of massive corruption in many large corporations, the failure of internet businesses and the death of the telecom industry.

On top of that, we should place the unemployment from massive layoffs in the previously mentioned industries.

Bill Clinton, George Bush, Ronald Reagan, or John F. Kennedy could not have been blamed for this...

The looming war doesn't help things, but there are many other factors involved.

The false economy created in the 90's is certainly coming back around to complete circle. Is it really the Presidents fault, or is he the leader who bares the blame? Take a look at who is making the decisions in our country...Icenine you hit it on the head, though war usually turns the economic tide around.

IceNine said:

and yet Republican die hards WILL, and HAVE in the past on this site, blame Clinton. I hate the Republican party. Did I ever mention that?

IceNine said:

yes, i agree...however, consumer spending is what has held up our economy...yet, because of actions caused by our current president (new deficit, war, lack of attention on the economy as a whole), consumer confidence and spending dropped...

so, how can you not attribute that to Dubya?

Am I the only one to notice that during the last 3 Republican administrations every single one has incurred a recession?

Bladerunner said:

The Republicans could argue that they inherited economic problems and started getting them straight when Democratic presidents came in and reaped the benefits of the Republican party's work while causing economic problems that spilled over into the next Republican presidency.

IceNine said:

Don't be so cavalier about blaming the industries. 1000 Telecom bankruptcies are not caused by corporate corruption or a "false economy." They indicate a systemic problem in our fiscal and monetary policies.

I DO blame Bush and Rubin for repeatedly mumbling that the economy is "ok" and the "fundamental are strong" when there is an obvious deflation (or not so obvious) and a flaky interest-rate rule at the fed which cannot combat it very effectively. Add in a confiscatory tax rate and you've got a recipe for recession. Meanwhile, Telecom is doing just FINE in low-tax environments such as China.

I remember a writer once referred to Bill Clinton as a "good luck charm" for our economy and that pretty much sums it up.True,there are many other factors involved but I think our economy's performance depends a great deal on who is in the Oval Office at the time.Since Bush has been in charge,our economy has really suffered and it's not likely to improve anytime soon,with war on the horizon.If the Republicans somehow regain control of the Senate in next week's elections,we're gonna spend the next two years in a long recession.

IceNine said:

Icenine thanks for having more sense then certain people on this thread.

Reading the initial post that started this thread makes me glad I went to Wisconsin and not Michigan.

lovemachine said:

im really offended by your statement...just because people have a fundamental disagreement doesnt mean they or I are lacking senses...


icenine is liked because he doesnt belittle others because of their opinion (well, most of the time)..remember that if you expect people to have an interest in what you have to say in the future..

DavidEye said:

Normally it's the Republicans who are more likely to push the necessary tax cuts...but not Bush...no spine.

SkletonKee said:

I'm sorry if you were offended, but realize that I wasn't even talking about/to you. My statement was mostly meant as a compliment to Ice.

Also, while I am sorry that you were offended, I must say that much worse things intrinsically are going to be said around this org.

Anyway I respect your opinion although I don't necessarily agree with you.

lovemachine said:

yeah, i know...but still...i like to be the flower power representative around here...to give some balance...

without balance..this place would end up like hell...

SkletonKee said:

I respect that.

Power

IceNine said:

That's only part of the story. Why does every president takes credit for the good times, but the bad times are never, ever his own fault? We all know the economy is like a great big sea with smooth sailing days and stormy travels, but that's why the president has to be a good navigator no matter what his responsibility. And so far, Bush has been hapless and irresponsible. Right before 9/11, Bush was busy selling his big surplus giveaway as just the thing that would keep the economy going... and now? It's Irak and that damn Saddam.. His economic endeavours have been met with derision, like the time the NYT said Bush tried to fix the economy before lunch (he had a nice press conference after a three hour love-fest with business leaders).

Aerogram said:

Aerogram said:

Indeed, Bush's pathetic tax cut was totally on the "demand side," i.e., the consumer. It had a minimal impact. The supply side of the tax cut (making it easier for businesses to stay in business and employ folks) doesn't kick in for years, and then it expires, which is useless...the stock market sees all of this and doesn't like it...

What scares me the most is how the future of our country is going to be decided by middle America. I cannot stand that so much of the Bible belt influences the nation's path. Who do you think voted for W? Most of the yahoo states.

IceNine said:

...I agree with Ice on this one!

OCEANA said:

You are on icenine pretty tough these days.Azure watch out

IceNine said:

Agree again! Some people live day by day and only see what today may bring them and some either ignore tomorrow or somethimes just do not care...(our economy is effected by what is called the domino effect)...Today there are many reasons for this. Good, for those who can see what IS comeing and be able to prepare...to bad some are less fortunate. And actually some, MANY make money (much) at times like this.