[Lerkfish]

this CNN story...

seems to indicate that Bush is recognizing that voters are concerned about the economy

of interest in the Bush story:

Spending the President's Day holiday in Florida, the second day of his 19th visit to the state as president, Bush said the country is recovering from its economic downturn. He blamed the recession, corporate scandals, and the 2001 terrorist attacks for the problem, but said his policies turned the economy around.


"Those were a lot of obstacles and hurdles for our nation to handle and yet our economy is strong. I will argue vociferously that one of the reasons it is strong is because the Congress wisely heeded my call and let people keep more of their own money," Bush told employees gathered in a warehouse of NuAir Manufacturing, a small but thriving window and door manufacturer.


"The tax relief plan you hear some people maligning around our country helped small business growth."

er...I personally don't see the connection between the tax rebates and small business growth, but ok. What he's doing here is taking credit for any success and absolving himself of responsibility for any problems with the economy....no surprise there.

It allowed Bush enormous exposure to the millions of NASCAR fans who have become one of this election year's most prized voter profiles. (CNN.com's interactive Election Calendar)

See, spliff is right: the hillbilly threat is real!

Before his remarks at NuAir, Bush walked an assembly line staffed with workers busily wiping windows newly attached to frames. The president, wearing goggles, picked up a tool briefly and then mingled with employees. One, whom he hugged, told him "I love you" in Spanish.

But just after Bush left to take the stage for a "conversation" with NuAir executives, employees and local business leaders, the line was deserted.

Hmmmmmm........now THAT's ironic.


in the exit poll story*

The economy's significance for those who responded to pollsters was borne out by their answer to another question: whether their family's financial situation has improved compared to four years ago.

Only about one in five said it had, compared with around two in five who said it was worse and slightly more than one-third who said it was the same.

*all polls are inherently flawed. IMHO, but I do know that politicians pay attention to them.

[BRussell]

This line that Bush said

Democrats would endanger America's fiscal health

is truly amazing.

Bush is ever-solidfying his position as a social conservative and a fiscal liberal. If that's what people really want, then fine. But I would be surprised if they do, if that bigger picture really comes out in the election. I'd like to see a philosophical contest between the Dems as fiscal conservatives and social liberals vs. the Repubs as fiscal liberals and social conservatives.

In a way, in order to make that case, it's good that Kerry has a very socially liberal voting record, because he also has a pretty good fiscal record, as this opinion piece in Fortune magazine argues:

Kerry and Bush: Who's the LIberal?

The Democrat's 'tax and spend' label is being turned on the GOP in 2004: John Kerry is a deficit hawk, while Bush has produced record deficits.

The economy will probably be doing fine by the time the election rolls around, and we'll probably be creating jobs at a pretty good pace too. If that's true, the problem will be for the Dems to convince people that the deficit and debt matter. That's no easy task.

[thunderous_funker]

Why should Bush even bother? There are a lot easier ways to win Florida than trying to convince everyone they aren't struggling to make ends meet because Wall Street is happy.

Yeah, it sounds good now but when it gets close in Florida, politicians will do what they have always done--pander to the Cuban exiles with some hollow moralizing about Castro and a chuk of federal money to fund their propaganda campaign, pander to seniors with massive entitlements, and spend a lot of time talking about Jesus.

Oh, and if that fails, by all means stop the coloreds from voting.

[Fanatic]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:

er...I personally don't see the connection between the tax rebates and small business growth, but ok. What he's doing here is taking credit for any success and absolving himself of responsibility for any problems with the economy....no surprise there.

Of course it's no surprise.... it's a broken record... every president does it. And as is the case with most Presidents, he TRULY is not at fault for the economy, nor is he TRULY responsible for any recovery.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Fanatic:
Of course it's no surprise.... it's a broken record... every president does it. And as is the case with most Presidents, he TRULY is not at fault for the economy, nor is he TRULY responsible for any recovery.

Yup. But what the gov't is responsible for is the fiscal situation.

1980s Reagan/Bush:
tax cuts
spending increases
economic growth
deficits

1990s Clinton:
tax increases
spending restraint
economic growth
surpluses

2000s Bush II:
tax cuts
spending increases
economic growth
deficits

Are we seeing a pattern? Economic cycles come and go, and the gov't has little effect on them. Deficits are directly related to taxes and spending. But Bush suggests that his tax cuts have helped the economy. If that's true, then why are jobs being created at a much slower pace than other recoveries, including after Clinton's tax-increase?

Furthermore, deficits:
1. waste government money because of the increased finance charge on the debt, and
2. hurt the economy in the long-term because of higher interest rates.

[OldManMac]

I wish he'd come to Michigan, which is still one of the hardest hit states in the country, and where manufacturing jobs are leaving faster than a rabbit with pepper in its ass, and tell us how his tax cuts have helped!

[Fanatic]

BRussell:

I pretty much agree with your assessment, but I find it to be a tad bit too simple. The one thing Clinton had going for him was a booming economy and capital gains tax revenue that was unheard of! IMHO (and that of many of today's economists), this is one of the largest reasons why Clinton was able to create surplusses. The economic boom of the 90's was much more related to technological advances (such as doing business over the internet, near real-time info, and E*Trade) than on fiscal policy.

Your comments on the defecit are also accurate, but remember that GDP growth of 4% will generate enough tax revenue to totally eliminate the defecit (GDP growth was near 5% for much of Clintons' Presidency). The real question is not whether we should have a defecit or not, but whether our economy can pick up enough steam to get back to 4% growth.

As far as job creation goes, I think we all know that today's global economy is much different than it was 5 years ago. The US, as a whole, is outsourcing jobs to other countries. This isn't something you can necessarily fault on the President (whomeever it might be). This is due, mostly, to economic forces that come with the territory. If you get paid $10 per hour and someone can do your job just as well for $8, well, let's just hope your boss is loyal to you!!! But you see my point... I really don't know what could be done about this. Ideas?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by KarlG:
I wish he'd come to Michigan, which is still one of the hardest hit states in the country, and where manufacturing jobs are leaving faster than a rabbit with pepper in its ass, and tell us how his tax cuts have helped!

err...why would he?

[olePigeon]

Logic and common sense has no place in politics.

Originally posted by BRussell:
Yup. But what the gov't is responsible for is the fiscal situation.

1980s Reagan/Bush:
tax cuts
spending increases
economic growth
deficits

1990s Clinton:
tax increases
spending restraint
economic growth
surpluses

2000s Bush II:
tax cuts
spending increases
economic growth
deficits

Are we seeing a pattern? Economic cycles come and go, and the gov't has little effect on them. Deficits are directly related to taxes and spending. But Bush suggests that his tax cuts have helped the economy. If that's true, then why are jobs being created at a much slower pace than other recoveries, including after Clinton's tax-increase?

Furthermore, deficits:
1. waste government money because of the increased finance charge on the debt, and
2. hurt the economy in the long-term because of higher interest rates.