Only a socialist or a child would believe that any President has much effect on the economy. Seriously.
You're an adult. You post on an investment website. 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.
While you're at it, please explain how a 5.4% unemployment rate and a Dow over 10K are indicators of a bad economy.
I am all ears.
The President inherits a lot of stuff that he has no control over.
Just as a great track coach can not make some one run a four minute mile, if that person does not have the inherent abilities, but a lousy coach can screw up a kid and not allow the kid to come anywhere near his potential.
Clinton/Rubin managed to turn a budget deficit into the biggest budget surplus in history. Bush and who ever are responsible for providing the economic vision (his first team of advisors have left)have turned this budget surplus into the greatest budget deficit in the history of mankind.
First of all, anyone who manages a budget deficit has some explaining to do. If you are running a household budget and you are deeply in debt, no matter what the circumstances (you have bad weather, stormy marriage, sickness, unemployment, whatever) - you are open to criticism and you have explaining to do.
What you can't say is that things are going great - I'm going to continue to do what I am doing.
Secondly, you have to get terrific economic advisors. Having some shallow understanding of some philosophic principles are not enough. Inevivatbly economic advisors of even the same stripe (philosophically) will disagree .
There has to be someone at the top that has to make the proper choices. Bush has been a slacker all his life. IMO, he does not know enough about the economy to be able to make the choices his economic advisors present to him.
The dismissal of Paul O'Neil and the first set of Whitehouse economic advisors suggest that all is not going well.
WRT economics - as with anything else - there has to be a vision thing. Some one at the top has to have some sort of vision. The economic advisors can provide the means (the choices that you have to make) to make your vision a reality.
Who in the Bush administration has the economic vision?
While you're at it, please explain how a 5.4% unemployment rate and a Dow over 10K are indicators of a bad economy.
The numbers by themselves have no real meaning. It only has meaning in its context. During the Bush adminstration there has been a net loss in jobs created. This hasn't happened since before Herbert Hoover.
There are no doubt complicated factors that you, me, or George Bush can not explain. But, it is not anything that you can celebrate. |
