The CNN/Wolf Blitzer question of the day is will Bush turn the economy around in the year before the election? Current results 90% no, 10% yes. Time for another tax cut Shrub. wink

The poll also says...

"This QuickVote is not scientific and reflects the opinions of only those Internet users who have chosen to participate. The results cannot be assumed to represent the opinions of Internet users in general, nor the public as a whole. The QuickVote sponsor is not responsible for content, functionality or the opinions expressed therein."

And just how is Bush supposed to turn the economy around, huh? As if a president can do so on his own.

One of these days people will realize the American economy is a huge engine that doesn't go up or down by a president's actions--whether that president or a Republican OR a Democrat. If anything, a president's influence on the economy is no bigger than a pimple on a gnat's ass.

Considering many of the world's industrialized nations are suffering economically, I'm sure the libs here will blame Bush for that, too!

MIB - I'm archiving your response -- it will come back to you when you are bitching that President Dean isn't doing enough for the economy in 2006.

MIB, I disagree. A balanced budget has a huge impact on the overall health of the economy. There is a limit to the capital investment pool. The more the feds borrow the less there is for business to invest. Your point would also imply that the tax cuts have no effect on the economy either...

I think it's easier to hurt the economy than help it. Raising taxes by $2 trillion, as Howard Dean is proposing, would definitely hurt the economy.

By giving Bill Gates and other billionares a huge tax cut, thats how....

I thought that was the cure-all for everything.

Working great so far...3 million jobs lost since Chimp took over, biggest deficits in the history of the country.

Just think what he could "accomplish" with another huge tax cut for the rich.

Oh, you mean the tax cuts that hadn't even gone into effect when the economy had turned for the worse well before then, right? This, of course, would mean it was the previous president's fault, since the American economy takes quite some time to get going up OR down.

BTW, Earth to Razor: Gates and other rich folks are going to get their taxes cut regardless of what kind of package is ever passed. Besides, how do you think these people GOT so rich? By knowing how to take advantage of every loophole and break they could, among other things.

Really now, for decades you on the Left have been using the same, worn out chants about the rich benefitting. With EVERY tax cut, the Left says the SAME thing. It's about time you retire that playbook. JFK ignored it when HE got Congress to cut taxes. Reagan ignored it when HE got Congress to cut taxes. And in both situations, tax revenues increased dramatically.

Oh yeah, there's not a thing W can do. Let the states founder. Slash taxes as a response for everything, as the deficit explodes. Make bland pronouncements about how everything's improving, which you did the summer before, and the summer before that, and blame every problem on your predecessor as you trumpet every minor uptick, praying that it turns over into something major. What a farce! I'd never thought I'd feel this strongly, but you know, I'll take W's babbling, moderate Republican, ineffectual daddy over W's conniving lying job-destroying ass any day. Unfortunately HW isn't Richard Nixon so he won't be running again, so I'll take whatever Democrat or Green manages to get enough primary votes to face and then oust him.

I think I can identify an way that the current administration (ANY administration, not just this one) can have a a direct effct on the state of the economy. Antagonize, belittle, insult, berate and threaten every government in the world that does not agree with you. Now regardless of anyone's feelings about this administration's actions towards Iraq are, it is very difficult to disagree that the tone of the Bush administration's diplomatic efforts have been harsh and divisive (dividing the US from the rest of the world).

The result is that Americans do not want to travel abroad and a prominent reason is that Americans are not welcomed there like they used to be and we know it. Citizens from all over the world do not want to travel here becuase they see this country as a bully and so on. Travel of airlines is down, as is hotel occupancy, booking fees for the travel agents and computer reservations systems. Again, much of this is a result of ill feelings towards America and Americans traced directly back to how our current administration has behaved.

Uh huh.

Americans choose not to travel not because they "don't feel loved enough" when traveling; rather, it's because of: (a) The fear of terrorism, ( The hassle of traveling, © The cost involved; etc. Survey after survey has revealed this. Hell, I know several people who this year alone canceled their European trips because they were too worried about terrorism, more so with the airlines than anything else. Were they a bit paranoid? Perhaps, but it was their choice.

two major reasons not to go to Europe right now.

1.The Euro conversion rate makes everything 50% more expensive than last year.

2.For the last 1.5 months, the temperature in europe has hovered around 100degrees. and there's no air conditioning in Europe.

[ August 15, 2003, 10:05 AM: Message edited by: ung ]

It's interesting that the leading Republican candidate for governor in California is taking what I thought were traditional Democrat positions.

Arnold Schwarzenggar is a social moderate who has taken on an economics advisor in Warren Buffett who advocates raising taxes.

A truly progressive tax system, fairly enforced would go a long way toward solving this country's economic problems. Just cutting or raising wont.