No President Has Weathered Such Economic Assaults Successfully

[Cock Puncher]

(actually posted by a friend of mine on another board, thought I would see all the bush haters responds to it)


There are leftists and Bush Haters out there running for president or allied to those who are, that gleefully paint President Bush as "the only president to lose jobs since Herbert Hoover." All they can do is paint a negative picture, because they have no positive vision to offer the nation. But I would ask them how their favorite candidate or former president would have descending unemployment, rising stock markets and the strongest economy in 20 years if he or she were in power.

George Bush is the only president in history to inherit a recession, a market crash and market scandals, plus the worst attack ever on our homeland. Despite all of this, 94% to 95% of the American people remained employed - and there have been no further attacks on America. With all that, if we'd had 90% employed he'd deserve consideration for Mount Rushmore. Heck, President Bush deserves to be on the cover of Forbes magazine for this! Our president, who is also unique among his predecessor in having an MBA, deserves the Nobel Prize in Economics for what his tax cuts have done to empower the American people.

The government didn't do anything to start this recovery. The government just got out of the way, and the people refused to do what the Democrats wanted by not participating in the recession. The American people refused to give up. The American people refused to keep taking unemployment - which the Democrats want to extend from the three-quarters of a year they're already at - and sit on their Clymers to keep the issue alive for the 2004 election. I had a caller from Chicago ring me up and push this negativism, citing figures about job loss, etc.

Folks, you have to use your mind when you hear numbers. It's oh so easy to embrace negativism and sit in your bed saying, "I can't do anything." But if you think for a minute, you know that there's no way we can be down 2.3 million jobs since Bush took office. The unemployment figure does not match the percentage. If we're down 2.3 million jobs, we would have an unemployment rate of 10%. Don't fall for the Democrat Party's seductive negativism. They're simply trying to convince you there's no hope, for their own petty, personal reasons.

Don't take my word for it...

(AP: Bush Touts His Role in Improving Economy)
(NRO: The Economy Is Voting for Bush - Larry Kudlow)
(AFP: Surging US economy sparks rate rise speculation)
(AP: Poll: Economy Helps Bush's Standings)
(Investor's Business Daily: Job Fears Fall, But Still High, Dec. Poll Finds)

[Adam D]

it's pretty lame propaganda, and a bunch of assertions about others making assertions.

Originally posted by Adam D
it's pretty lame propaganda, and a bunch of assertions about others making assertions.

agreed


and....FDR?

[bfp]

If you want to study the failed economic policies within FDR's administration, there is a new book out called FDR's Follies. I hear it's a great read. I'm looking forward to getting this book pretty soon.

[Dionysos]

He doesn't know what he's talking about. A 10% unemployment rate doesn't get you Mt. Rushmore, it gets your opponent re-elected.

Originally posted by bfp
If you want to study the failed economic policies within FDR's administration, there is a new book out called FDR's Follies. I hear it's a great read. I'm looking forward to getting this book pretty soon.

My point was not the FDR was a rousing economic success - but - that he faced much greater economic crisis than GW.

I'm no fan of FDR - but to call the domestic economic issues that GW faces worse than those facing FDR is to ignore one's own history.

[Ryan]

As a good rule of thumb, automatically discredit anyone who showers praise or criticism on a president for the natural variations of an economy as compex and enormous as ours. They simply do not understand the basic fundamentals of macro-economics and finance. If they really were interested in explaining the economy, they would be analyzing the actions of the Federal Reserve over the past decade, looking at inflation in the money supply of the dollar, measuring consumer sentiment, and evaluating our trade relationships with the rest of the world. Instead, they are just rambling on about how Clinton caused the .Com bubble, comparing our unemployment rate with those acceptable in much poorer countries, and even implying that the former administration was somehow responsible for the terrorist attacks and the corporate scandals. This rhetoric has been spewed by a thousand more qualified people over the last three years and it's never stood up to the facts.

I do not criticize Bush at all for the recession, the 9/11 attacks, or the corporate scandals. What I do criticizse is how he has handled each one of these. The recession ended because of the lower interest rates, the actions taken by the Fed, and the political grandstanding that, for now, has bolstered consumer sentiment, to name a few points. To say that 90% employment would have been acceptable in the US is a joke, which shows a lot about this individual's knowledge level.

Blaming everything on Clinton or everything on Bush is pointless. We can only deal with what is happening now, and Bush is failing to make good decisions for our country. You can keep on spewing this tired rhetoric that we've all heard a million times or you can start urging the administration to act responsibly. No amount of Clinton-bashing is ever going to make up for the billions of dollars he is wasting, the war in Iraq that has no clear objectives, and the erosion of our social liberties.

True - presidents often get hung or praised for economic condition entirely NOT of thier making.

Greenspan has much more influence on the economy than any other single individual by controlling the supply of money.

[Ryan]

By the way, are you sure he actually wrote this? This sounds almost word for word like one of head-Rush Limbaugh's latest tirades.

[Element4040]

I didn't read anything in that article about blaming Clinton for anything? Are you saying that it's implied Ryan, or is my reading just that bad?

[Ryan]

Originally posted by Element4040
I didn't read anything in that article about blaming Clinton for anything? Are you saying that it's implied Ryan, or is my reading just that bad?

By the tone of the article and use of the word "inherit," it sounds a lot like they are saying it was "handed down" to him. Maybe I'm just taking it in the context of all the other articles out there that say the exact same thing but go a step further to blame Clinton for every bad thing that has ever happened to our country.

[Element4040]

Originally posted by Ryan
By the tone of the article and use of the word "inherit," it sounds a lot like they are saying it was "handed down" to him. Maybe I'm just taking it in the context of all the other articles out there that say the exact same thing but go a step further to blame Clinton for every bad thing that has ever happened to our country.

See I just read it differently in that I took those statements as meaning inherited in general, I.e. from the past administrations. Perhaps it's just a matter of viewpoint, I can certainly see how you gather that thought though. Perhaps there is some truth in that the author stopped short of blaming Clinton directly to garner more support for his "Thesis" hehe.