Bush economic policy approval soaring

[BTox]

Dang, those poor dems have to get some good news one of these days, don't they?

President Bush (news - web sites) is getting good marks on the economy from a clear majority of the public at a time when consumer confidence has risen to its highest levels since early 2002, an Associated Press poll finds.

People are increasingly optimistic about the economy in the next six months and feeling more secure about their jobs, according to the poll conducted for the AP by Ipsos-Public Affairs. The uptick in Bush's rating comes on an issue certain to be central to the 2004 presidential campaign.

In all, 55 percent of registered voters said they approve of Bush's handling of the economy and 43 percent disapproved, according to the survey. That is Bush's best number on this measure in Ipsos polls since the third quarter of 2002, though he briefly came close to this level — at 52 percent — last July.


A month ago, 46 percent approved and 51 percent disapproved of Bush on the economy.

Source: bush economic poll

 

[Jocko]

Well, this could certainly mean trouble for Nader.

 

[aerocontrols]

The third-quarter showed the highest economic growth in 20 years, and supposedly the economic growth is supposed to be quite high this quarter as well.

Good economic news is good news for Democrats.

Just not good news for Democrats who happen to be running against Bush for president.

MattJ

 

[Otther]

Maybe it shouldn't be the economy, stupid?

 

[Snide]

Good economic news is good news for Democrats.

Just not good news for Democrats who happen to be running against Bush for president.

MattJ

Indeed. I didn't and won't vote for GW, but I still don't see this as bad news.

 

[shanek]

Folks, whomever is President at the time has almost nothing to do with economic recovery. These are large cycles that are affected by long-term trends. I know that Presidents like to take the credit for a booming economy, and a President's detractors like to blame him for the recession, but the reality of the situation is that there's really nothing the President can do to have such a major effect on the economy, short of the really drastic measures such as Nixon's wage and price freeze. And even then, the effect they can have is almost always detrimental.

 

[Troll]

Folks, whomever is President at the time has almost nothing to do with economic recovery. These are large cycles that are affected by long-term trends. I know that Presidents like to take the credit for a booming economy, and a President's detractors like to blame him for the recession, but the reality of the situation is that there's really nothing the President can do to have such a major effect on the economy, short of the really drastic measures such as Nixon's wage and price freeze. And even then, the effect they can have is almost always detrimental.

While what you say is true, it's not what either party has done so counter measures must be implemented from time to time. Remember when it first took the hard drop and all of the detractors were placing the blame and asked if they would also give the credit when it picked up? I'm not giving anyone credit or blame for it, I'm just enjoying the one's that didn't understand how it works when it dropped, squirm now.

 

[aerocontrols]

Folks, whomever is President at the time has almost nothing to do with economic recovery.

I'm pretty sure that everyone in this thread knows this, just as you are aware that the state of the economy affects the election nonetheless.

 

[shanek]

I'm pretty sure that everyone in this thread knows this, just as you are aware that the state of the economy affects the election nonetheless.

Yes, I actually seem to recall someone who invented an algorithm to predict who would win the Presidency based on how the economy was doing. It wasn't 100% accurate, but it pretty much beat out anyone else's predictions, including that of the pollsters.

I guess people vote the way Reagan told them to: "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" While, of course, avoiding the question, "If you are better off, is it because of or in spite of what the President has done?"

 

[dsm]

I guess people vote the way Reagan told them to: "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" While, of course, avoiding the question, "If you are better off, is it because of or in spite of what the President has done?"

Let's look at that. Four years ago:

1. We were in the midst of the Internet boom.
2. Unemployment was low (or very low).
3. Interest rates, while not great, were certainly reasonable.
4. Investment was high in all things that sounded "reasonable" ( )
5. The government's budget had been balanced.
6. Predictions were being made about erasing the national debt.

Since then:

1. The Internet boom has gone bust.
2. Unemployment has climbed considerably.
3. Interest rates are extremely low, but is it really helping?
4. Stock market IPOs are probably 10% of what they were.
5. The government is (firmly) back into deficit spending.
6. The debt, like it did under Reagan, will see a significant jump up in the short term.

Are you better off than you were four years ago?

 

[Larspeart]

um. . . dsm?

I worked in computer sales in 1999, at the end of the Clinton Era. The 'internet boom' was THOROUGHLY busted by November of that year. The Dot-coms were already in the advanced stages of failure, and most had already filed chapter 11-12-13. Had Gore won, he would have inherited the EXACT same thing. I am in no way a Bush supporter, but tell your facts right. I witnessed it all crash (and felt it in my pocketbook) LONG before Bush was in office.

Also, you don't seem to know economic 5-year cycles very well, do you? We were due, and we are due right about now. ALL OF THIS is a natural up-down economic cycle that repeats roughly every 5 years.

"4. Investment was high in all things that sounded "reasonable"

Are you for real? This was the WORST PERIOD SINCE THE 1920'S in terms of stupid, arrogant, ignorant investing. The crash and fall of 99-00 is the DIRECT result of idiots like you investing in all of those fake, start-up, no-product and no-revenue 'good idea' companies! THAT is what caused the recession of the last few years. That, and the natural progression of economies.

 

[Jocko]

Since then:

1. The Internet boom has gone bust.

1. 
   
   As it was bound to do eventually, regardless of what was happening in Washington.
   
   

   [*]Unemployment has climbed considerably.

   
   As will happen when inventories are high, investmens slackens and the economy goes through its normal cycles. Plus, 6% isn't that high - 5% is considered "full employment" by economists, IIRC. And let's not forget that little incident on 9/11/01 that put a kink in the economy's knickers.
   
   

   [*]Interest rates are extremely low, but is it really helping?

   
   If you have debt or wish to buy durable goods, it helps immensely because those are the kinds of purchases that build the economy, not your 20% credit cards. Plus it boosts real estate, gets people refinancing and saving money... in fact, how is it NOT helping?
   
   

   [*]Stock market IPOs are probably 10% of what they were.

   
   Which is closer to where they should be after the aftificial inflation of the market during your beloved internet boom. The market is still overvalued today, most would say.
   
   

   [*]The government is (firmly) back into deficit spending.

   
   There's a two-front war on during a freakin' recession. FDR should have had critics like this.
   
   

   [*]The debt, like it did under Reagan, will see a significant jump up in the short term.

   
   Which is automatically a bad thing... why? This is the American economy, not your personal checkbook register. Deficit spending has occured in about 90% of all years since we became a nation, so while you're blaming Reagan and Bush, be sure to blame everyone from Washington to Kennedy as well.
   
   

   Are you better off than you were four years ago?

   
   Not really. But I expect I will be by November. That's what counts.

 

[shuize]

Are you better off than you were four years ago? [/B]

Thank you for asking. Yes, I am.

 

[dsm]

Thank you for asking. Yes, I am.

Wish you'd define how. During the Bush administration, I've lost my job twice (currently unemployed) after having steady employment for the last 25 years. Many others in Silicon Valley have seen much worse in that they've bounced from one shutdown to another to another over the past few years. I hope it's getting better, but Bush certainly isn't helping things.

 

[dsm]

I worked in computer sales in 1999, at the end of the Clinton Era. The 'internet boom' was THOROUGHLY busted by November of that year. The Dot-coms were already in the advanced stages of failure, and most had already filed chapter 11-12-13. Had Gore won, he would have inherited the EXACT same thing. I am in no way a Bush supporter, but tell your facts right. I witnessed it all crash (and felt it in my pocketbook) LONG before Bush was in office.

As someone who worked in sales, you may have seen things drying up sooner than I did (backroom programmer). You say that things were "busted" by November, 1999, yet I saw significant amounts of employment happening on into early 2001. The NASDAQ peaked in about March, 2000 and the DOW began steady sliding in 2001.

Also, you don't seem to know economic 5-year cycles very well, do you? We were due, and we are due right about now. ALL OF THIS is a natural up-down economic cycle that repeats roughly every 5 years.

True and also something that both candidates should've prepared for. Bush came in with an agenda based upon the government running a surplus, so he was motivated to provide a big tax cut. The economy then tanked immediately upon his taking the job and the surplus was predicted to dry up. His solution -- provide a big tax cut.

"4. Investment was high in all things that sounded "reasonable"

Are you for real? This was the WORST PERIOD SINCE THE 1920'S in terms of stupid, arrogant, ignorant investing. The crash and fall of 99-00 is the DIRECT result of idiots like you investing in all of those fake, start-up, no-product and no-revenue 'good idea' companies! THAT is what caused the recession of the last few years. That, and the natural progression of economies.

I know -- thus the reason for quoting "reasonable".

 

[Mike B.]

Folks, whomever is President at the time has almost nothing to do with economic recovery. These are large cycles that are affected by long-term trends. I know that Presidents like to take the credit for a booming economy, and a President's detractors like to blame him for the recession, but the reality of the situation is that there's really nothing the President can do to have such a major effect on the economy, short of the really drastic measures such as Nixon's wage and price freeze. And even then, the effect they can have is almost always detrimental.

Cool...
I agree with Shanek 100%.

 

[shuize]

Wish you'd define how...

By understanding that Bush (or any other president for that matter) is not responsible for my personal financial success or failure.

If it makes you feel better though, by all means, keep blaming him for yours.

 

[BTox]

True and also something that both candidates should've prepared for. Bush came in with an agenda based upon the government running a surplus, so he was motivated to provide a big tax cut. The economy then tanked immediately upon his taking the job and the surplus was predicted to dry up. His solution -- provide a big tax cut.

You should get your facts straight. The economy began "tanking" in the 3rdQ 2000. Perhaps the economy knew Bush would get elected and decided to get a head start.

 

[BTox]

Are you better off than you were four years ago?

Yes.

 

[peptoabysmal]

Wish you'd define how. During the Bush administration, I've lost my job twice (currently unemployed) after having steady employment for the last 25 years. Many others in Silicon Valley have seen much worse in that they've bounced from one shutdown to another to another over the past few years. I hope it's getting better, but Bush certainly isn't helping things.

Does it have anything to do with "offshore outsourcing"? Who was it that was pushing globalization of our economy so hard a few years back?