CB, <Explain to me what, exactly, Clinton or Rubin did to give us a good economy. Then tell me what, exactly, Bush did to give us a bad economy. >
apart from the general principles on what effect a USA President can have on the USA and world economies, let's consider only the King George II effects.
As you pointed out, his Supreme Court judge appointments haven't had an effect, [which doesn't deny my point that Presidential appointments of Supreme Court judges does have an effect]. But Bush applying to the Supreme Court to be appointed was the first major effect he had. He got to be the boss instead of Al Gore.
Deciding to pursue his opportunity to the Supreme Court was the first impact he had. If the previous appointments had been opposed to him gaining power [as one or two were if I recall - of course on legal principles, not preference], he'd have been out and Gore in. We might then have had a CO2 vendetta, no war in Iraq, but war in Taiwan or whatever else might have happened as a result of Gore being the boss.
So, even before he was President, he had an impact by stopping Gore before he started.
Then, he started spending money like there was no tomorrow, as he presumably believes there won't be if we take his religious mania seriously [complete with Armageddon and the rapture - I note that Armageddon isn't far from Baghdad].
He started a war in Iraq, which has cost umpty $billion in cash and quite a few $billion in lives and injuries. He heavily damaged the aviation industry with panic over security and nail-clippers. That cost a lot of $billions.
He cut taxes, causing large deficits, which misled Americans into thinking they had more spending power than they have, so they've run themselves heavily into debt, which is going to have to be repaid or otherwise absorbed by way of economic dislocation. Living on debt and hope is NOT the way to economic advancement. It's the way to economic ruin as many banana republics can attest [quite large ones such as Brazil and Argentina included].
As interest rates rise, as they assuredly will from world record low rates in an inflationary fiat money economy, people with megamortgages [or even smaller ones] are going to find themselves squeezed and many will fail. Disruption of housing is a bad effect on economies [meaning what happens in people's lives].
Perhaps King George II has simple-mindedly believed the false cliche that "wars are good for the economy". Claiming "I'm a war president" leads me to think he doesn't understand just how bad wars are, especially if one is involved as more than an arms-for-cash supplier to the warring parties.
He has stopped me going to the USA and spending money there with his rabid attitude [for fear of crazies arresting me for some odd passport mistake - maybe filling in a form incorrectly or looking at an official in an untoward way]. Visitors to the USA were down a longgg way if I recall correctly. That's cash flow gone missing from the economy.
Heard of steel tariffs? news.bbc.co.uk That ensured a good supply of cheaper steel for China, which used it to build more stuff and gain ground on the USA economy. Not only were tariffs illegal, they were economically damaging to the USA GDP.
Cutting taxes in one place and whacking them on elsewhere is disruptive to smooth economic processes and forces people to second-guess where to invest, change plans, lose investments and get poorer. That's bad for the GDP. Better to have a steady approach to taxation and a rational one. Bush flip-flopping on taxes is typical of his wonky simplistic thinking.
Actually, I'm in favour of tariffs rather than internal taxes, so I agree with the principle of what Bush did, but on again off again isn't the way to do it.
I suppose there are plenty of other things Bush has done to damage the economy.
But on to Clinton. He cut military spending. Good thing too. That saved umpty $billions. He bailed out Mexico and made a profit on the deal. That was a great move. He put the screws on welfare and that pushed people in the direction of production instead of pleading. Excellent move. He gave the world a great soap opera with Monica, Gennifer and so on and that perks people up. It's dead-centre USA culture - look at Hollywood and the saucy USA is streets ahead of the stolid male grouchiness of the Kremlin, Taleban and North Korea. That revved the economy.
Al Gore invented the internet and awarded a Medal of Honour to Dr Irwin Jacobs of QUALCOMM, which made him feel good and stuck with his CDMA and the political backing of Clinton/Gore no doubt helped QUALCOMM attain its pre-eminent position. That's a mega$billion boost to the GDP and just getting revved up.
Clinton appointed Alan Green$pan a couple of times and that was a great move, avoiding a global financial collapse at the denouement of the Biotelecosmictechdot.com speculation and smoothing the way for King George II to take the reigns of something better than a smoldering heap of rubble.
And so on.
President's have a LOT of power, even if they are misunderestimated and can't spell potatoe or use apostrophe's.
Mqurice
PS: Isn't it great how we males have all the answers? |
