POLL: Bush Recall?

DMC, BTA - No way. Here's the other side of that argument: The rich don't create jobs, the market does. Thus, in the 90's when the average person was able to buy stuff and invest, we had the greatest economy ever. People buying goods and services forces the rich to invest in more resources and employees to keep up with demand. The goal of the rich is to always make more money and their greed hurts the average worker when things are thin, like now. They cut back and stop nvesting, since they control almost all the wealth anyway. But when they know that they can make more they invest like crazy.

The tax cuts are really meaningless. It is just the payback to the rich for helping Bush sieze power.

BTA - I will match my old Clinton returns on investment against your Bush returns, % wise, any day of the week, year month or whatever. Things are horrible right now for investors and workers.

 

I think DMC struck upon my one big complaint with the Republican party...

That is absolutely true...and the Republican party seems to feel that the military is somehow exempt from this logic. Twenty-five percent of our tax dollars go to the military and they are probably the most inefficient organization on the planet. The worst part is that the 25% is what is budgeted to them...not what they actually spend which is CLOSE TO DOUBLE!!!!

Does anyone know the tonnage of bombs we dropped on Iraq? I don't know the exact number, but it is unbelievably high I guarantee you that...and you know why? Know why we bombed the same targets three, four, and five times over...? I bet the CEO of Honeywell or McDonald-Douglas who is making 30 to 50 million a year salary knows.

The people who enlist and serve their country are probably some of the bravest and honorable people in the nation. The government and industry who supplies them is full of the most greedy and immoral people in the nation.

The military-industrial economics George Bush Jr. has embraced is going to harm us ALL for years to come.

 

Wander in...

1. I'm sad. My neighbor has been really happy though. If my neighbor wasn't so happy there would be more happiness to go around. Damn that greedy s.o.b.

2. Economy/wealth etc is not a zero sum game and thinking it is leads to disaster. Thanks everyone ranging from 'conservative' (used pejoratively of course) Milto Freidman to more 'liberal' Warren Buffett.

3. Guess the French were right. I always knew there would be a nefarious alliance between the golden arches and the defense contractors. They're out to use military might to force the world to eat hamburgers! It's McDonnel-Douglas by the way, not McDonald(s)-Douglas, but the golden arches hiding missles thought tickled me.

4. While we're on the subject, I think people get carried away with their class warfare. For example, there isn't anyone from Honeywell (which does lots of non-defense stuff) or McDonnel-Douglas in the top 100 compensated executives in the US. That means that there isn't anyone from either of those companies with a total compensation package of more than ~ 3.5 million dollars. A far cry from $50 million.

5. Indeed, in all the US there are only 3 individuals who make the kind of money being talked about among the executive world - two of them work for Capital One and the other works for the less known NVR which is a home and mortgage company.

6. What was until relatively recently the largest tax cut in US history took place under Kennedy and a lot of folks on both sides of the aisles thought it was a pretty good idea.

7. The President exerts slightly more control over the economy than he does the tides. It's an international beast of trillions of trillions of dollars that breathes in and out. He can indirectly make certain pushes - by asking other people to do what he wants, such as the chair of the Fed, or Congress, which could very very slowly impact the economy through fiscal policy changes, but there is nothing he can do on his own gumption to change the economy one way or the other.

I think presidents get far, far too much credit, and far, far too much blame for the performance of the economy. This goes for Bush, Carter, Reagan, Clinton etc. They have some influence, virtually all of which (such as bills like NAFTA, etc) is by trying to convince other people who actually have the decision-making authority to do what he wants.

But, it is definitely not a situation analogous, to say, a CEO being held accountable for the performance of his or her company. The president of the United States definitely does not "manage" or "control" the economy. And there's often a tendency to talk about it as if he does.

The economy is a wild bucking bull, the Chairman of the Fed is on its back trying to steer by pinching the ears, and the President of the US is a bystander yelling helpful advice from the sidelines.

8. Oh, and just an FYI - Lockheed Martin is the big time defense firm in the US. Also, the compensation at the top end is pretty nebulous. For example, the top two guys from Capital One get paid a grand total of $0 in salary but are the highest compensated individual executives. Their compensation could drop by 20% tommorrow though.

Wander out...

[ August 24, 2003, 04:32: Message edited by: Laches ]

 

Now, here we are in the Bush economy. What does that mean? How's this: A war that costs 4 billion dollars a month that may go on for years, and that does not include the cost of the war itself. Does it affect the entire ecnonmy? It is, after all, just a micro event that has no real meaning on life, property and wealth for those in America and Iraq. Right? Right.

What about the war on terror and something vague called "Homeland Security?" Probably just another micro event in the great scheme of things. Unless you are running a state that is on the brink and forced to shell-out several million here and there to keep the "Homeland gang" happy in Washington. What could that amount to instead of building a few new schools and maybe even help with a few new state projects? Right?

How about the war on drugs? Another great government program with dubious returns for the puplic good. But, it does employ countless lawyers, jailers, judges and police. Isn't it nice to know that so many of our government resources go to such "programs" that have little impact on the ecnonmy? Why should the money be spent improving the quality of life for Americans, when we can have more prisons, courthouses, police stations and law offices?

Yes, in Washington they sure know how to ride the "bull." Don't they? Or was that "steer?" I keep getting them confused.

 

DMC wrote:

LNT wrote:

The economic theory on the effect of goverment spending:

Obviously, not DMC's theory is the leading theory in the current administration, but the quoted theory above. The problem is, both theories have an income-side. FIRST budget balance, THEN tax-cuts. Not the other way around.

Threat

 

Under the constitution the pres can only do this for a short period of time. In this case that didn't happen, instead like typically happens they asked those with the power to please do something and they did.

The pres can't do that - fairly obvious. He can ask others to and shout suggestions.

The pres can'd to that - fairly obvious. He can ask others to and shout suggestions.

Off the top of my head, one of the few areas he does have direct control is with things like steel tariffs and their impact is limited over the entire massive economy and its cyclical nature.

The economy is a social interaction influenced by billions of societal factors from second-to-second, from billions of people, the biggest of which is somewhat ironically what the players themselves expect from the economy. The perception of reality becomes the reality.

I think it's completely fair to judge the performance of a president (or any other public figure) by the decisions he or she makes which might have an economic impact (good example - Bush and the steel tarriffs) but is wholely unfair to either implicitly or explicitly hold up any economic metric and use it as a report card to judge the performance of that official, or say it is his or her fault or credit.

This goes for all the presidents no matter affiliation. Bush gets too much blame as did Carter. Clinton gets too much credit as did Reagan from their respective supporters.

As an aside - the vitriol really does lead to the deterioration of these things imo. To call those who disagree with you a 'gang' with its connotation and say that those who disagree with you don't care about the welfare of Americans is no more accurate and just as ad hominem as calling people Nazis or fascist or saying that if you support Clinton you don't care about character or....

 

I suggest that you buy a good dictionary and look up the meaning of "gang." It may help you to understand that there is more than one definition for a word. If you wish to associate that word with "Nazi," then that is your definition. Don't twist words or attempt to misrepresent other's meanings.

My copy is the _American Heritage_, which has 6 meanings ranging from "a group of labors doing a job or task," or "a group of people who associate socially on a regular basis" to "a group of criminals or hoodlums." Take your pick.

 

Oh, good lord, the exact reference was "gang of criminals." Pull out all the dictionaries you want it's ad hominem. You said what you said and then went on to say that they and others don't care about the welfare of Americans.

The implication of stupidity ("you need a dictionary") in the post is also ad homienm btw and certainly increases the likelihood of things overheating.

 

Although Bush himself has a record, I can't say the same for Rice, Powell, or some others. For me they are a gang of cronies. Most of them are not criminals, unless gross incompetence is now against the law.

 

Okay here is the thing. I know the theory of trickle-down economics and for the longest time it made sense to me. The problem was that I couldn't understand why it didn't work and since it didn't work, why it kept being put into use. I think (keyword there, I'm not entirely certain) the problem is the need factor. The richest people get money back -- that is fair, they pay more taxes than everyone else. And then in theory since they are the big company leaders, CEOs etc then they would have more money to hire more people and thus generate more jobs (jobs which are then taxed of course) and then the money begins circulating. More jobs = more money spent on food, toys, clothings, luxuries, movies etc. And that of course gives more money to the people having things bought from them and so it trickles down. It makes sense... When I first heard about it, I was pretty sure it was a good plan. When it didn't seem to be working well though, I started looking into it.

1. Very rich people don't generally run their own finances, they have accountants that judge how much should be invested into stocks, how much should go into pensions, how much should be set aside into a "checking account" for personal needs etc. And the big company leaders don't personally judge if more people should be hired, their vice presidents, mangers, and other higher-ups figure it out. Thus, just because the CEO is personally getting more money from tax breaks, it doesn't mean that he even notices.

2. Already rich people generally have all the basic luxuries they want. For instance, they are not going to worry if their DVD player breaks. They have the clothes, food and gadgets (ie cell phones, computers, electronics etc) they need/want. For this reason they are not generally going to go out amd buy new things if they get a heavy tax break. They just don't need to. Now the "government" realizes this. In fact they don't expect the big CEOs to go off and buy new electronics to replace their old ones just because they have the money to now. They expect them to hire more people though (who would then use their own tax breaks to buy things). This is a fatal flaw. Just because the rich people have money to hire people, doesn't mean they will. If they already have a limo driver, cook, maid, butler, gardener etc. then they may not have a NEED to hire someone else. In any case, if they did have a need/want to hire someone else they would have, with or without the tax break. See, as is obvious, rich people often stock up on money. (Mainly due to the fear that there will come a time when they won't have money.) Now I'm not saying this is a bad thing. I myself, save up money whenever I can if I got more money that I didn't need/want to spend on stuff, I would save it. It's just that because they generally save up their "excesses" of money they usually set goals and then buy whatever extra thing they want.

I can see I'm getting confusing so I will put this very simply and stop babbling. For (some)middle class people, the tax breaks create an ability to go buy a new washing machine or something they've wanted/needed for some time. This does not hold true for the upper class because there is not nessassarily something they need. Bill Gates doesn't need to hire another butler so just because he has extra money to do so, doesn't mean he will. George Bush himself has a good deal of money -- this doesn't mean he hires people just because he can. He has no need to hire another gardener. Could he? Of course. Will he? Why would he??
~This holds true in large companies as well. When they get more profits they do not go hire more people. And very often they will lay off quite a few workers in order to get more (short-term) profits. Now little companies could use more workers and would gladly take the money and go hire some more help. The problem is, they're little and therefore don't pay as many taxes and thus don't get enough back to do that.
~Now of course there are many citizens who actually do go use the tax break. However the people who would use the tax break most of all, pay the least of taxes and so get back a near pitiful amount.

To the point: the tax breaks cannot stimulate the economy because they do not generate need in the people who get the most money back and do not give back enough money to those would use it and circulate it the most.

Now getting back on topic -- while I realixe that the economy is not fully the president's fault and that they are usually given too much credit and blame; very often it is the president who presses bills for taxes (and breaks) through and thus THAT becomes their problem (and fault.) I apologize if I gave off the impression that I blame Bush for the bad economy and I credit Roosevelt for fixing things up. I put nothing on them personally except for the bills they pass through. Hence, I blame George Bush (well mostly his administration) for constantly giving tax breaks while spending inordinate amounts of money. I believe that part of the responsibilities of presidency is budgeting -- don't spend more than you take in. And that is exactly what he is doing. If they aren't good at budgeting, fine then; hire someone to do math numbers for you and make sure you're not spending more on NASA then you have money for.

That is a problem I think people all too often forget about. They want money to go towards things like NASA and the military (and education and war on drugs) but at the same time they don't want to pay taxes. Of course if the President doesn't fund those programs then people get mad about it. So when I talk about economy, I encompass a lot of things. Stocks for some reason don't rely on rationality but the faith of people (and very often the faith of the people that the pres. is doing well with his economic plans) so I count that in -- the president has to inspire faith in his people that he knows what he's doing economically (D+ to Bush on that) He also has to regulate his budget spending and tax intake (D- to Bush there. I'd give him an F but I've decide to reserve that for Reagan) And he has to make sure that either a) his bills/laws/regulations don't screw up the job supply and demand or b) make sure that his bills make it better (as in less unemployment, more job oppuruntities) -- and these are to ensure money circulation. (C+ to Bush 'cuz he IS trying, needs some help though) And yes, the Presidency is a HARD job. I would be the last person to say it wasn't. It is hard; it's extraordinarily hard. But if you can't take the heat -- get out.

So anyways, if it was possible, I would probably vote to recall Bush because I think that there are others who could have done better and I'd rather give them a try. But he certainly hasn't done anything worth impeaching; the man's doing his best and is probably in over his head (without either knowing or admitting it) And of course, he wouldn't get voted out anyways even if everyone agreed with my whole economic process assessment -- I'm just one of those people who doesn't cut any slack and many others would give him sympathy/slack. I'm just hoping that whoever runs against Bush is better.

 

Nice response Silverwolf.

I see two somewhat separate issues developing though: 1) whether a pres. (specifically Bush in this case but it can be any pres as far as I'm concerned) "controls" the economy and to what extent and 2)more generally a discussion about wealth.

1) As to the first point I think I've made my position clear - a pres. doesn't 'control' the economy. He doesn't because he has to rely on others to do what he'd like - Congress, Greenspan etc. Congress is so closely split, and has been historically, that it becomes difficult to apportion blame.

The real meat and potato(e)s as far as I'm concerned is fiscal policy. The fiscal policy being discussed is the Bush tax cut(s). The problem is, most economists say that a fiscal policy change will have a 'lag' time of at the very least 18 months before you even begin to see the effect on an economy. Many argue that lag time is at least 26 months. And keep in mind that this is before you 'begin' to see an effect. Also, it is still just a cattle prod in that the economy is massive and lumbering with a mind (of sorts) of its own and fiscal policy changes try to prod it in one direction or another but there is a distinct lack of control.

Now, if people were complaining about Greenspan I'd be more willing to jump on board a bit as if he gets indigestion it seems to have an effect.

You've mentioned that you have mapped the economy to take into account who was pres. Did you account for the lag time? For example, you blame Bush I for cutting taxes and making things bad but the economy began to turn around at the end of his term and was trending upward (which is about when any fiscal policies he enacted would begin to show any effect) and steadily rose through Clinton's term. Then at the end of Clinton's term the economy had started to trend downward and was already in the process of bursting. Now the economy is showing signs of having leveled out and beginning to trend upwards (although I would argue we don't know this and the numbers are skewed).

Also, Bush is getting blamed for tax cuts that don't occur until 2007. The effect of tax cuts 4 years from now is psychological in nature and the effect is one of pure expectation. Thing is, most American's think tax cuts are good for the economy and so...

Here is my opinion. The economy goes up and the economy goes down. Democrat or Republican or whatever in office has minimal effect over the long term. The reason is because they don't have much in the way of control and that's a good thing because history tells us that when economies try to put a small group in 'charge' of an economy things fall apart.

2)More generally on the way wealth works and whether, say Bill Gates, 'getting a break' does anyone else any good:

Bill Gates does not need to go out and buy anything for his money to do folks good. Hmm, how to start this... I've done this before but it works in this thread too:

First of all, Bill Gates doesn't have billions of dollars in cash in some big Scrooge McDuck vault that he rolls around in and laughs and mocks poor people in. He owns bunches of stuff, primarily Microsoft stock, that would theoretically be worth $X billion if sold at today's prices. But the very act of selling that stock would drive the price way, way down, and if he wanted to have several tens of billions of dollars in his checking account for some reason, he couldn't even if he wanted to.

Second, "wealth" isn't something that sits there stagnant, not doing anything, only being able to be used by one person at a time. If I have $100,000 in the bank, I am wealthy. But this doesn't mean that nobody else is able to use that $100,000 at the same time. It's being loaned out to people for oodles and oodles of different purposes, such as buying houses, sending their kids to college, or whatever. So if I didn't have that $100,000, and it had never existed, that doesn't just mean that I'm worse off - everyone else who'd be buying a house or sending their kid to college with it would be worse of, too. Plus then all the carpenters and sheetrockers who would have built the house that isn't bought are less wealthy. Then the baker and the farmer who would have made food that the carpenters and sheetrockers would have bought are less wealthy. Then.... well, you get the idea.

Third, and basically the same point as above, is that the amount of wealth in this world is not a zero-sum game - someone else being more wealthy does not make you or me less wealthy. In fact, as I mentioned above, if you are less wealthy it's probably going to make me less wealthy, as well. Bill Gates being less wealthy would not make the starving people in China more so. It's not just one set of pie to go around, with everyone grabbing the biggest slice they can - and Bill Gates getting a mondo-big slice doesn't mean that the rest of us gets a smaller one. Bill Gates being tremendously wealthy makes the whole damn pie bigger for all of us.

This is because of the multiplier effect (total new money in the system = deposit / reserve requirement of banks) the lack of the $100,000 means a total reduction of wealth to society of far more than the original $100,000. Likewise, the increase of that means a total increase to society far greater than the original.

If anyone is interested in being acquainted with any of this in a non-painful and fun manner I'd like to recommend the book "New Ideas from Dead Economists: An Introduction to Modern Economic Thought" found here:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0452280524/qid=1034347265/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-6684026-6623115?v=glance

It isn't just a 'rah, rah capitalism' book either it talks about Marx etc in depth as well.

Edit - oh, and btw, since it was thrown in at the end, I'm voting for whoever has the best chance of usurping Bush in the next election but still don't think it's fair to say the 'economy is bad because of Bush'. Fingers crossed for Howard Dean at the momen.

 

Laches wrote:

The problem is, fiscal politics is obviously only a minor point. The current administration is betting on this:

The problem is, how to finance the increase in goverment expenditure ?

 

The president may not control the economy, but policy has an impact on the marketplace and investment. Greenspan serves in his positition at the pleasure of the prez. Therefore, politics is a factor in how the Fed operates. Also, Bush is the current leader of the party in power. The republicans control both the House and the Senate, as I'm sure everyone is aware. As leader of the party, very little policy is in place that the prez (leader of the party) is not in someway in favor of. That does not mean that Bush gets everything he wants, he doesn't - but most of the budget and policy is shaped around his leadership.

 

Greenspan is slightly older than dirt. Might as well blame something he does on Reagan, or Bush I, or Clinton, or Bush II since they all named him Chairman.

Bush's tax cut went in under a 50-50 senate. Even now it is something like 47 or 48 Democrats so nothing gets done without getting some democratic support because you almost always lose some republicans.

I'm not saying the pres lacks the power to have any effect on the economy. I am saying his power is primarily in getting other people who have direct power to do what he wants - but they don't have to - and that his effect is vastly overrated. He gets too much credit and too much blame.

 

DMC - Agreed! Current government included.