So why don't the Democrats and their allies get it then as Consumer Confidence Indicators continue to rise here and abroad?
How good is it? Well, at U of M, a group of snarky pro-Kerry economists argued it wouldn't rise above 92.6, but it hit 93.4; ouch, that's gotta hurt when you consider we've got oil shock running rampant in all sectors of the economy and auto manufacturing remains belabored by Big Labor's Big Costs.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...0.wconsumer0120
It appears the success is pegged to consumers' outlook on the jobs market --according to several industry analysts.
http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/ap/2006/0.../ap2489500.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10942994
With all that booming economic news, you can plan on W's approval rating on the economy to rise. For those still licking their chops at the prospect of a "broken presidency" of W's, wipe your mouth and put down that fork.
And you can also expect that in Democrat-controlled states with subpar economic performance (like Michigan), the Democrat governors will have some rough campaign days ahead as the GOP capitalizes on "It's the economy, stupid" and makes the case that subpar performance is all about failed leadership at the state level.
Full Version: It's the economy, stupid!
Matt, as good as this may be, can you imagine how much better the economy would be if we we didn't have such a huge deficit and a president who hasn't the balls to use his veto power (along with a Congress that's spending like a drunken sailor)?
Of course, in that case, the Fed would have raised interest rates a lot higher to prevent what they would probably call a superheated, inflationary economy.
[ February 01, 2006, 06:17 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]
Of course, in that case, the Fed would have raised interest rates a lot higher to prevent what they would probably call a superheated, inflationary economy.
[ February 01, 2006, 06:17 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]
Well Bush is still in power and consumer confidence seems to have changed a bit.
I would not regard that as a fundamental of economics, but rather a symptom of bad economic policies.
Some fundamentals:
1-those who do not support unprovoked wars will pay as much or more for the prosecution of those wars as those who do support them.
2-those who do not waste their money on gambling, whether on Wall Street or Main Street, will ultimately pay for the waste - in a depressed economy - as will those who don't. And that includes lotteries.
3-those who make economics most complicated are the ones who are most likely trying to rob you.
Adam Smith and Karl Marx were both intelligent men. But neither allowed sufficiently for free will. Economies are arbitrary rules that must be designed according to the needs.
I would not regard that as a fundamental of economics, but rather a symptom of bad economic policies.
Some fundamentals:
1-those who do not support unprovoked wars will pay as much or more for the prosecution of those wars as those who do support them.
2-those who do not waste their money on gambling, whether on Wall Street or Main Street, will ultimately pay for the waste - in a depressed economy - as will those who don't. And that includes lotteries.
3-those who make economics most complicated are the ones who are most likely trying to rob you.
Adam Smith and Karl Marx were both intelligent men. But neither allowed sufficiently for free will. Economies are arbitrary rules that must be designed according to the needs.
Whatever happened to W's PR posse on here?
The handwriting on the W mafia's mismanagement of the economy was as clear as day, but it's interesting to read this cheerleading from just two years ago, even though overall W's economic performance has been among the most dismal in the last 75 years. When you can look back on people like Paul O'Neill and Lawrence Lindsey to note that they were among the saner and more rational members of this administration, it is really a sad and sobering sign.
On the economy and so many other areas, W'll go down as one of the worst presidents of all time. Unfortunately, it'll take the next Democratic president more years than it took Bill Clinton to dig out of the trough created by Raygun and Bush II.
The handwriting on the W mafia's mismanagement of the economy was as clear as day, but it's interesting to read this cheerleading from just two years ago, even though overall W's economic performance has been among the most dismal in the last 75 years. When you can look back on people like Paul O'Neill and Lawrence Lindsey to note that they were among the saner and more rational members of this administration, it is really a sad and sobering sign.
On the economy and so many other areas, W'll go down as one of the worst presidents of all time. Unfortunately, it'll take the next Democratic president more years than it took Bill Clinton to dig out of the trough created by Raygun and Bush II.
Yes, Bushy was so fond of taking credit for those better economic years, citing the success of his irresponsible tax cuts.
Of course, I'm not holding my breath for that time when he takes blame for these horrible economic times. Hell, we can't even get him to admit that most of the regular folks are currently drowning in a sea of economic sh!t. To him, the economy has only "slowed".
Of course, I'm not holding my breath for that time when he takes blame for these horrible economic times. Hell, we can't even get him to admit that most of the regular folks are currently drowning in a sea of economic sh!t. To him, the economy has only "slowed".
QUOTE(fantomas @ Apr 13 2008, 12:22 PM) 
Whatever happened to W's PR posse on here?
The handwriting on the W mafia's mismanagement of the economy was as clear as day, but it's interesting to read this cheerleading from just two years ago, even though overall W's economic performance has been among the most dismal in the last 75 years. When you can look back on people like Paul O'Neill and Lawrence Lindsey to note that they were among the saner and more rational members of this administration, it is really a sad and sobering sign.
On the economy and so many other areas, W'll go down as one of the worst presidents of all time. Unfortunately, it'll take the next Democratic president more years than it took Bill Clinton to dig out of the trough created by Raygun and Bush II.
You might be interested in reading Age of Turbulence, if you haven't already. Greenspan's take on the Bushes is quite illuminating.
QUOTE(fantomas @ Apr 13 2008, 12:22 PM)
Whatever happened to W's PR posse on here?
The handwriting on the W mafia's mismanagement of the economy was as clear as day, but it's interesting to read this cheerleading from just two years ago, even though overall W's economic performance has been among the most dismal in the last 75 years. When you can look back on people like Paul O'Neill and Lawrence Lindsey to note that they were among the saner and more rational members of this administration, it is really a sad and sobering sign.
On the economy and so many other areas, W'll go down as one of the worst presidents of all time. Unfortunately, it'll take the next Democratic president more years than it took Bill Clinton to dig out of the trough created by Raygun and Bush II.
You might be interested in reading Age of Turbulence if you haven't already. Greenspan's take on the Bushes is quite illuminating.
QUOTE(MiMatt38 @ Feb 1 2006, 09:03 AM)
So why don't the Democrats and their allies get it then as Consumer Confidence Indicators continue to rise here and abroad?
How good is it? Well, at U of M, a group of snarky pro-Kerry economists argued it wouldn't rise above 92.6, but it hit 93.4; ouch, that's gotta hurt when you consider we've got oil shock running rampant in all sectors of the economy and auto manufacturing remains belabored by Big Labor's Big Costs.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...0.wconsumer0120
Still I think it is less consumer confidence that we have to worry about than consumer poverty. We are constantly being sold the notion that big government cannot do anything to control a massive economy, especially now that it has gone global.
People forget that globalization is a choice, not a necessity. If the economy goes global, regulation also must also go global. And if regulators are not controlled by elected bodies, they will bow to oligarchic bodies.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.