Favorite US President since 1960

gdub411 wrote: Almost Always, one can thank the previous administration for the current economy. The economy was starting to go into an upswing when Bill Clinton went into office....Walaa!...He's an economic genius. When Bill Clinton left office, the economy was slowing down for months already and in came George W. to recieve all the blame.

Sorry Gdub.. the economy started going down after Bush's first term.. not after Clinton's.  He started the roll and now he's having to deal with it his second term... G.W. earns his blames.. all by himself.

valravennz wrote: threefates wrote: gdub411 wrote: Almost Always, one can thank the previous administration for the current economy. The economy was starting to go into an upswing when Bill Clinton went into office....Walaa!...He's an economic genius. When Bill Clinton left office, the economy was slowing down for months already and in came George W. to recieve all the blame. Sorry Gdub.. the economy started going down after Bush's first term.. not after Clinton's.  He started the roll and now he's having to deal with it his second term... G.W. earns his blames.. all by himself.  - well said Linda. That is fairly obvious even from our corner of the world!

"One definition of recession is two consecutive quarters with a declining gross domestic product. By this measure, the economy was explicitly not in recession when Bush took the oath of office on Jan. 20.

According to the Commerce Department, the economy grew (albeit slowly) in both the third quarter and the fourth quarter of 2000, by 0.6 percent and 1.1 percent, respectively. GDP did decline in the first three quarters of 2001. So Bush would have been accurate in saying that "when I was inaugurated, the economy was three weeks into the first of three consecutive quarters in which GDP declined."

So technically the recession started under Bush, but the recession was not of his doing, since GDP started to decline before he was inaugurated. Just don't be ignorant people: no president or prime minister controls the economy single-handedly... he/she can influence the economy, but that takes a long time to happen.

If you're interested, here is the US' GDP growth since 1990:

Nice to see a lot of healthy debate on the subject. Just to clarify a few things.

1) Trickle down economics was designed to help the small and medium business owner to be competitive. Major corporations in the U.S. account for less than a quarter of the employment. The real movers of the economy is and always will be the small entrepreneur.

2) The dot.com meltdown was definitely a factor in the economic recession. All you have to do is refer to the capital flight from banks (savings accounts) towards mutual funds as well as the Dow surpassing 14,000 in 1999 to understand this. Investors flocked to buy up technology shares without understanding the economics of the internet. The fact that Google commands the price it has today is a clear example that people never learn. 

As a matter of fact, we are probably due another meltdown in the mortgage market (specifically on either coasts) due to speculation. Consumers are purchasing homes as an investment alternative to the stock market (it's like drugs, once you get used to double digit returns you can't quit). 

3) 9/11 cannot be downplayed enough for the economic and psychological effect it had over this nation. The fact that we have recovered in such a short time is nothing short of amazing.

Someone mentioned Bush's tunnel vision concerning the war on terrorism and his lack of focus concerning the plight of his own citizens.

Fact number one:

We face a greater danger today than during the cold war. At least then, we operated under the premise of mutually assured destruction. Neither the U.S. or Russia wanted that so it never came to be. Today however we face a highly organized and determined terrorist organization that uses religious zeal as it's source of motivation. The U.S. can fully expect a nuclear device to be detonated in a major metropolis within the next five years (ie. New York). To think that this won't happen is unrealistic. With that in mind, I think it's our business to meddle into any country.  

Fact number two

President Bush addressed the nation two nights ago to discuss revamping Social Security, which by the way will be bankrupt by 2042. His plan is simple and based upon in part by the same social security plan Chile instituted back in the late eighties. Today Chileans have a robust pension plan which actually provides a rate of return of 19% (try getting that at the bank) to secondary market investors. 

Fact number three

The economic downturn began during the Clinton administration, to be more precise check out the Dow Jones indices for April 2000. Thats seven months prior to the election and nine months prior to Bush's inauguration.

Sweetnighter - I would not blame George W. single handledly for the State of the American economy. However, if you care to take another look at the figures you kindly provided above, their is a definite slowing of growth in the GDP from 2000-2002 (a 3yr period). Was this due to, do you think, to the redistribution of capital to fund the war in Iraq and against terrorism in general?? I have parents who live in Florida and have been living in the States for many years now. Though their political opinion can be somewhat biased, they give a general idea of how economic strategies affect them as ordinary citizens - like countries all over the world taxation is a big problem health and education and employment.

From my understanding the USA was certainly in a better position economically for its citizens under the Clinton administration than it is now. The impression I get is that Bush's agenda is tunnelled vision - towards ending terrorism world wide. His fellow countrymen's welfare is second to that. What right has he to interfere in the politics of other nations? He should start taking a closer look at what is happening in his own backyard.

BTW Bill Clinton was/is a highly intelligent and motivational speaker and diplomat. I have yet to see George Bush jnr show such strengths with out being propped up by "spin-doctors".

Nice to see a lot of healthy debate on the subject. Just to clarify a few things.

[EDIT]

Someone mentioned Bush's tunnel vision concerning the war on terrorism and his lack of focus concerning the plight of his own citizens.

'Twas me - valravennz

Fact number one:

We face a greater danger today than during the cold war. At least then, we operated under the premise of mutually assured destruction. Neither the U.S. or Russia wanted that so it never came to be. Today however we face a highly organized and determined terrorist organization that uses religious zeal as it's source of motivation. The U.S. can fully expect a nuclear device to be detonated in a major metropolis within the next five years (ie. New York). To think that this won't happen is unrealistic. With that in mind, I think it's our business to meddle into any country.  

Response: Don't you think that the country is getting very paranoid? I understand your fears after 9/11 and yes terrorism is very much in our faces. But I also blame that on the Television media, newspapers and the Bush publicity machine for aggravating the fears of the people. If you remember during that dreadful day 9/11, CNN and other powerful newsmedia organisations replayed and replayed the same scenes over and over again not for a few hours but over days. Tell me that is not psychological manipulation of the masses!!!! There is more to this than meets the eye, my friend.

Fact number two

President Bush addressed the nation two nights ago to discuss revamping Social Security, which by the way will be bankrupt by 2042. His plan is simple and based upon in part by the same social security plan Chile instituted back in the late eighties. Today Chileans have a robust pension plan which actually provides a rate of return of 19% (try getting that at the bank) to secondary market investors. 

Response: I don't doubt that this is a good plan that seemingly works well for the Chilians. But this is aimed at one sector of the population - the elderly. Yes - a good pension plan is needed as the general population in the US and indeed, other Western countries, ages. However, I am sure that there are other domestic problems within the US economy that require action now, social security, health, education and unemployment for example. The Bush administration needs to look more closely at distributing resources into these areas on a greater scale if there is to be any great improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans.

Fact number three

The economic downturn began during the Clinton administration, to be more precise check out the Dow Jones indices for April 2000. Thats seven months prior to the election and nine months prior to Bush's inauguration.

Response: I will go have a look - thanks. However, that is at the end of the Clinton administration and his 2 terms were up. Al Gore was never going to take Clinton's place on the political podium. Unfortunately, the Bush election machine was too good.

By the way don't you agree that the domestic economy of the US was in a very good position up until that period?

Cheers