December 5, 200322 yr I think he's a dumbass, but why do you guys insist on blaming him for the economy? What can he do? Not much.
December 5, 200322 yr People here fail to realize that presidents who are in power are penalized or rewarded for how the economy stands, when in reality they have nothing to do with the state of the economy until 6-10 years until after they are proposed.
December 5, 200322 yr The recession started DURING THE CLINTON ERA! Bush is dumb, but these people and their economic crap pinning on bush are even worse. However, his unsound spending will bite our butts years from now.
December 5, 200322 yr ahh yes.... dubya's idiotic and insane spending. who the hell does he think he is screwing this nation for decades in terms of debt.
December 5, 200322 yr ahh yes.... dubya's idiotic and insane spending. who the hell does he think he is screwing this nation for decades in terms of debt. I'm sure he thinks he's ronald reagan...
December 5, 200322 yr yeah, it's just a coincidence that when clinton took over, the economy was in the dumps and when he left it was at the best in ages, and a few months after bush takes over it falls again?
December 5, 200322 yr yeah, it's just a coincidence that when clinton took over, the economy was in the dumps and when he left it was at the best in ages, and a few months after bush takes over it falls again? Yes. Throughout Clinton's first term the economy was in the dumps until 1994...and that's when the republican majorities in house and senate took over. Newt and the pack were the republican all star team, and because of them we had a balanced budget and ended the days of deficit spening. However, my father worked for a dot com at the end of clinton's term, so we were very much up to date with the economy and all, praying that the company would go public and make us millionaires. However, in MARCH OF 2000 Dell stocks took a HUGE dive and so did other dot coms. Since the march of 2000 the economy went down a downward spiral, and Clinton was still president... Bush will tell you its 9-11 than hurt the economy, but it was bad before that. Clinton will tell you it was him that helped the economy, but it was bad during his term too. The economy is usually independent of what policies are created initially, and it won't change until later. The technologies boom was inflated, so it helped THEN HURT the economy. However, if you want to give ANYONE credit, give the pre-bush republican party of 94-2000 that advocated less spending and actually had our government run on a surplus of funds. Clinton did absolutely nothing. Then again, we can blame this whole mess on Armando Benitez.
December 5, 200322 yr I think he's a dumbass, but why do you guys insist on blaming him for the economy? What can he do? Not much. Honey is not what he can do about it; it is what he's already done to get this country in debt for the rest of our existence, our children's, our grand-children and the way things are going, possibly even our great-grand-children's existence!
December 5, 200322 yr Honey is not what can he do about, it is what he's already done to get this country in debt for the rest of our existence, our children's, our grand-children and the way things are going, possibly even our great-grand-children! You are right, but that has nothing to do with the current recession.
December 5, 200322 yr Honey is not what can he do about, it is what he's already done to get this country in debt for the rest of our existence, our children's, our grand-children and the way things are going, possibly even our great-grand-children! You are right, but that has nothing to do with the current recession. :mischief2 prove it!
December 5, 200322 yr :mischief2 prove it! I'm no economist, but when Bush's tax cuts kicked in, a total of 2 years ago, they didn't do much then, and further economic recession was in response to the belief that the price of oil would skyrocket, which it didn't. I wish I knew more on the subject, but I think economic policies instituted in the last 2 or so years cannot have a strong effect on the economy for at least another couple of years.
December 5, 200322 yr the technology boom of the late 90s would of occured pretty much no matter what person was in the White House. because of the huge speculation going on at this time, the good times would only last for a temporary period of time and the economy would eventually check itself. This occured in 2000 and to an extent is still occuring, although its starting to strengthen in certain areas again. As far as Bush having an effect on the economy itself....the main person in charge of the economy from the federal standpoint would be Alan Greenspan....not sure if Bush has reappointed him or not. He really is the man with all the power of the economy.
December 5, 200322 yr the technology boom of the late 90s would of occured pretty much no matter what person was in the White House. because of the huge speculation going on at this time, the good times would only last for a temporary period of time and the economy would eventually check itself. This occured in 2000 and to an extent is still occuring, although its starting to strengthen in certain areas again. As far as Bush having an effect on the economy itself....the main person in charge of the economy from the federal standpoint would be Alan Greenspan....not sure if Bush has reappointed him or not. He really is the man with all the power of the economy. He can only serve 14 years I think, he will have to go eventually
December 5, 200322 yr he can serve as long as he continues to be reppointed. he has been the chairman since 1987...and well you do the math, his current term expires in 2004, so we shall see what occurs.
December 6, 200322 yr he can serve as long as he continues to be reppointed. he has been the chairman since 1987...and well you do the math, his current term expires in 2004, so we shall see what occurs. No, he cannot. They are limited to one term and done.
December 8, 200322 yr The govefnment should have really kept those $300 and $600 checks. And the checks for much more that all those rich friends of Dubya got. :banghead
December 8, 200322 yr The govefnment should have really kept those $300 and $600 checks. And the checks for much more that all those rich friends of Dubya got. :banghead We're paying for it later. Did you know we SPEND 100S OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS in interest because of the loans we take out for deficit spending? Imagine if we had no debt? We can pay for universal healthcare and college education for every American. We can make our military so unstoppable, we can take over the entire world. We can imprioson millions of more Americans for non-violent crimes! We can build that big space thingy from the movie contact. The big spending/deficit spending Bush and his "conservatives" go to go out. what happened to Newt and the balanced budget days?
December 22, 200322 yr if he was only limited to a 14 year term he would of been done in 2001. The rule states it's a one time 14 year term, but if you "step down" prior to the 14 year term you can be reappointed to another 14 year term.
December 22, 200322 yr That's like being a dictator for 10 years, stepping down one day before, and just take rule again. sounds sweet :mischief2
December 22, 200322 yr That's like being a dictator for 10 years, stepping down one day before, and just take rule again. sounds sweet :mischief2 But in this case, we wouldn't much mind :thumbup
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.