After Iraq, will the post-war fallout catch up with Bush?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Wtiberon


For all his faults Clinton was a very good president and did hold high approval ratings however they were not as high as Bush enjoys now. Bush has broken records for highest approval ratings so I'm not sure what your are refering to that Bush can't claim that. Unemployment is a result of the economy not one man...the economy is a complex and very fragile system and he is doing as much as he can to recover from two major trajedies: 9/11 and the Corporate scandals. I think that as long as Bush makes improvements (however small) and the economy does not fall further back he will be re-elected.

Before 9/11, Bush barely managed to hold 50% approval. Prior to this war, his popularity was slipping back down towards that level. Clinton was always popular, even during that stupid Lewinsky scandal.

Now, the fact that the economy is beyond the control of anyone man doesn't mean that one man can't have a big impact on it. His war posturing hurt the economy. His tax cuts are targetted towards people who don't need it, while middle- and low-income people aren't seeing them. Social spending is being paired to the bone, which reduces the spending power of low income people even further.

This presidency has simply been one economic mess-up after another.

[Jac de Molay]

I agree with che.

In a years time, the people of Iraq will have almost universal health care and huge reconstruction effort underway for schools and hospitals.

In the meantime, states like mine are told to suck it up in the face of record deficits and human service cutbacks. All while he keeps pushing for dividend tax cuts and other nonsense. If things dont shape up soon, Ill think he'll be in for a rude awakening in 04.

[Wtiberon]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Before 9/11, Bush barely managed to hold 50% approval. Prior to this war, his popularity was slipping back down towards that level. Clinton was always popular, even during that stupid Lewinsky scandal.

Now, the fact that the economy is beyond the control of anyone man doesn't mean that one man can't have a big impact on it. His war posturing hurt the economy. His tax cuts are targetted towards people who don't need it, while middle- and low-income people aren't seeing them. Social spending is being paired to the bone, which reduces the spending power of low income people even further.

This presidency has simply been one economic mess-up after another.

Sorry bud but you make no sense...Clinton was plagued by low approval ratings early in his presidency it wasn't until later in his term that he began to enjoy higher marks...it took Bush a year to gain high marks so once again you are basing your argument on half assed information.

Here let me help you out:

http://pro.harvard.edu/papers/047/047002NewmanBria.pdf

Read this get a little smarter and then we'll talk

edit: BTW have you read his tax proposal? I doubt it but its not aimed at those that don't need it its aim is to end some retarded taxes that have existed for many years such as the double taxation of stocks. Don't you think that if it became cheaper to buy stocks that more people would by them? Stop ranting the liberal rhetoric and please do some research.

[JohnT]

"His tax cuts are targetted towards people who don't need it, while middle- and low-income people aren't seeing them."

I have argued time and time again, citing the IRS even, explaining why this is a specious and misleading argument and people here still trot it out.

[GePap]

Bush is a very devisive character: notice that he got a 12% jump in the polls due to the war and never reached 80% like his dad did.

The fact is that Democrats haven't forgotten 2000. We have several months left in this year as is, and if the economy does not pick up substantially, with unemployment going under 5.5% then Bush, but specially the Republicans in congress, will have big troubles. And the thing is that the unemployment rate is actually hinding unemployment: remember, only people actively seekign work are counted..those that have given up after closed to a year of looking aren't classified as unemployed, but they are.It's too early to tell, but there ae plenty of ways for Bush to screw up, specially ocne the War euphoria starts to dissipate.

[Inverse Icarus]

don't forget we still need to beat up on North Korea, Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey for opposing the new kurdistan, the new Kurdistan, Iraq III, Lybia, Egypt, Yemen, Pakistan, Cameroon, France, new France, new new France, the smoking crater that was once new new France, and, of course, Mexcio.

YOU DON'T CHANGE HORSES MIDSTREAM.

[Inverse Icarus]

question: has there ever been a time when we were at war, someone of the other party won an election, and IMMEDIATELY stopped the war?

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by CerberusIV
If the voters are happy that they have money to spend and a good prospect of jobs then they will vote for the current administration. If not then they will give the other lot a try.

Whether that be true or not I always find it funny that the Tories won re-election (1992) during a major recession, and lost the next election (1997) during a major economic boon.