Stocks up, consumer spending down; Is Bush plan working?

[Sava]

Originally posted by Fez


Actually this is going to be a 1983. A landslide victory for Bush. It only makes sense.

While I would equate Bush's intelligence and competency with that of an Alzheimer's patient, I don't think he's that popular. As high as his approval rating is now, his daddy's was higher at this point after the first Gulf War. We shall see whether or not Americans like their money more than they fall for this pseudo-patriotism.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Sava
While I would equate Bush's intelligence and competency with that of an Alzheimer's patient, I don't think he's that popular. As high as his approval rating is now, his daddy's was higher at this point after the first Gulf War. We shall see whether or not Americans like their money more than they fall for this pseudo-patriotism.

Well lets agree to disagree. That is one thing we can agree on. I think Bush is doing fine with the economy.. apparently you don't.. but that is your opinion.

By the way, he has been abled to keep his high popularity rating quite stable.

[Q Classic]

let's not forget that bush is running unopposed, and has over 120 million in his campaign war chest.

the democratic opponent will have just come out of a brutal primary season, and odds are he won't even have a fifth of that sum in his.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
let's not forget that bush is running unopposed, and has over 120 million in his campaign war chest.

the democratic opponent will have just come out of a brutal primary season, and odds are he won't even have a fifth of that sum in his.

That 120 million may get a lot of voters out. Good thing they will vote against him .

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Kidicious


That 120 million may get a lot of voters out. Good thing they will vote against him .

What a load of nonsense. You think people will actually vote for whoever the democrats will put up? I am sure there may be a few who will.. but certainly not even close to enough.

[Imran Siddiqui]

He only beat Gore, because people believed he was something of a moderate.

Explain the 2002 midterm elections. In the end, it was basically a vote on the Bush Presidency.

let's not forget that bush is running unopposed, and has over 120 million in his campaign war chest.

the democratic opponent will have just come out of a brutal primary season, and odds are he won't even have a fifth of that sum in his.

That is true. The Democrat WILL have to survive a brutal primary season... and unless it is Howard Dean or John Edwards (both highly unlikely) coming out of the bunch you won't see another 'Clintonesque' win. The rest don't have the charisma or charm.

[Sava]

I think Bush is doing fine with the economy

but see... this is the problem... the economy is sucking! There is no disputing this! Bush's 2001 tax cut did nothing, America has lost over 1 million more jobs since then. Why would a bigger round of silly tax cuts succeed now when they didn't then?

Here's my point Fez:

All things being equal between today and 2004, if Bush wins, it will not be because of his economic policy. We can debate his economic policy, and whether or not it will be effective, but you haven't disputed anything I've posted.

If you want to dispute something I posted from the EPI website, quote it and tell me why.

[Sava]

That is true. The Democrat WILL have to survive a brutal primary season... and unless it is Howard Dean or John Edwards (both highly unlikely) coming out of the bunch you won't see another 'Clintonesque' win. The rest don't have the charisma or charm.

You don't think Kerry can be Bush?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Kerry is wooden and boring. I don't think someone like that can beat Bush in 2004.

By 2004 the economy will be recovery (the boom/bust cycle), and while it won't be at full peak, Bush won't get hit like his dad did. As FDR said (paraphrasing) it doesn't matter if what you do works or not, as long as you DO SOMETHING! Bush is trying to do something, and for that reason he's not getting huge negatives for the economy.

[Q Classic]

Gore was wooden and boring too.

as for the economy, one will hope that it's recovering... that's still up in the air.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Kidicious


That 120 million may get a lot of voters out. Good thing they will vote against him .

Unfortunately, history shows that the candidate with the most money wins a lot more often.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Sava
but see... this is the problem... the economy is sucking! There is no disputing this! Bush's 2001 tax cut did nothing, America has lost over 1 million more jobs since then. Why would a bigger round of silly tax cuts succeed now when they didn't then?

Remember what we talked over private message? You promised not being so aggressive and I would too.

I have to disagree with you. It is not so much the short term effects, but the long term improvements the tax cuts will provide.

All things being equal between today and 2004, if Bush wins, it will not be because of his economic policy. We can debate his economic policy, and whether or not it will be effective, but you haven't disputed anything I've posted.

I haven't disputed anything you post? Oh please...

If you want to dispute something I posted from the EPI website, quote it and tell me why.

Why should I?

[Sava]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Kerry is wooden and boring.

Really? I haven't really caught on to that.

By 2004 the economy will be recovery (the boom/bust cycle), and while it won't be at full peak, Bush won't get hit like his dad did. As FDR said (paraphrasing) it doesn't matter if what you do works or not, as long as you DO SOMETHING! Bush is trying to do something, and for that reason he's not getting huge negatives for the economy.

The only question (assuming there is recovery) is whether or not Bush's policies will damage the economy more than it will recover. IMO, this is a cyclical low, but being made much worse by the admin's policies.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Really? I haven't really caught on to that.

Well not GORE wooden and boring, but wooden and boring none the less.

whether or not Bush's policies will damage the economy more than it will recover.

Even assuming that it does (which I don't think it will), it won't matter, as long as growth rates are positive and seem to be climbing, that's all that matters.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Fez
Remember what we talked over private message? You promised not being so aggressive and I would too.

Aggressive? I'm not getting personal here. The economy sucks. The presence of exclamation points is to illustrate the level of suckage. For example.
1929: THE ECONOMY SUCKS!!@!@!!!
1980's: The economy sucks.
early 90's: The economy sucks!
now: The economy sucks!
It's nothing directed at you, I simply used the !! to indicate the level of suckage.

I haven't disputed anything you post? Oh please...

When I say dispute, I mean with fact. A simple, "you are wrong" doesn't count.

Why should I?

If you want to debate with me further, you need to provide information and facts to support your argument. Otherwise, we have nothing to talk about. And I like talking to you Fez.