|By Mac87 (Mac87) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 04:25 pm: Edit|
a lot of people blame President Bush for the slumping econonmy and the jobs that people have lost and not doing anything to get them their jobs back
well, how does President Bush cause an economic downturn and how was he suppose to fix it
|By Lucifersam (Lucifersam) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 05:19 pm: Edit|
I myself don't blame Bush for the economy unless I'm arguing with someone and they bring up a stupid reason of their own, and in that case it's ok to fight fire with fire. But all I really blame Bush for are his horrible environmental and foreign policies.
This sounds like a "Hey guys he's not so bad" post pretty much, so that's the reason for my posting even though, since I don't care too much about it, I have no idea how or even if Bush screwed the economy (even though I wouldn't put it past him in a way).
|By Pookdogg (Pookdogg) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 06:22 pm: Edit|
Lucifersam: typically, it's more efficient to fight fire with water, but whatever...
Most people don't point to the economic downturn as Bush's doing: if they mention it at all, it's often a supplementary argument that just reinforces some other accusation against Bush. And you can't say that he hasn't opened himself up to such criticisms. Much of what has happened over the past couple years has been controversial, but not blatantly bad enough that it could stand on its own. Consequently, some people use the economic slump as a crutch to support their own arguments. That isn't to say that there is some merit in saying that Bush has harmed the economy: his actions have undoubtedly affected foreign trade with the U.S., and the deficit has certainly gotten larger with the war. Of course, there's nothing he can really do to fix it anyways, so it's sort of a dead argument.
|By Simba (Simba) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 06:34 pm: Edit|
well Mac87, one reason is that All presidents try to claim credit when the economy is doing well. They talk about 'turning the corner', they talk about how their stupid tax cuts will stimulate the economy, decrease unemployment, cut deficit etc etc....
So when it goes bad....the buck stops there
|By Lucifersam (Lucifersam) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 07:08 pm: Edit|
Pookdogg - It was just a figure of speech, for someone who might say something to me like "Oh, you argue with points that you actually don't know much about, just so you can win the argument?". If I am arguing with someone about the quality of President Bush, and they say "Well Bush has helped this country to prosper", an rebuttal I would use for that would be Bush's apparent mishandling of our economic policies. But that is not to say I only use points in arguing that I really know nothing about, of course.
That's all I was meant by "fight fire with fire".
EDIT: Good point, Simba.
|By Morgantruce (Morgantruce) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 07:19 pm: Edit|
The economy started tanking late during the Clinton administration ----on the very day that many Americans began to realize that George W. Bush might actually wind up being the next president.
If it begins to look as if Bush might be reelected in November, the economy will turn down---because working people will have no reason to hope that their situation will improve. If it looks as if Bush will lose in November, the economy will turn up---just on the speculation that things will be better with anyone but Bush moving into the White House in January.
It has little to do with Kerry.
Economies move up or down based upon what people expect the future to hold---not what happened last month. If this were not true, economics would be an exact science.
Report an offensive message on this page E-mail this page to a friend
|Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.|
|Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only|