posted on December 22, 2000 06:10:14 PM
Politicians will say anything, Bush is no different.
During the post-election period, James Baker and the rest of the Bush crew said that the markets were going down because of the uncertainty of the presidential election results, and you heard that parroted all over the place.
If Bush et. al were telling the truth then, then the market downturn now must be caused by the certainty of the presidential election results.
posted on December 22, 2000 08:38:56 PM
Mmmm Bush or is that James Baker wants to take credit for Christmas?
Bush better get himself a good tarot reader for the next four years LOL!
posted on December 22, 2000 08:52:52 PM
Now krs you just have to learn to take a right turn, and start wearing those button down collars, and start listening to Rush Limbaugh. Then this will all make sense. LOL!
[ edited by zeldas on Dec 22, 2000 08:57 PM ]
posted on December 22, 2000 09:18:17 PM
Bush probably will take credit for Christmas, unless you don't get what you want. Then it'll be Clinton's fault.
While we all have different views on different subjects, I believe we're all in this together...financially speaking....and I believe we ALL hope the economy gets better, no matter who says what.
[ edited by Linda_K on Dec 23, 2000 05:58 AM ]
posted on December 23, 2000 11:16:12 AM
I heard one of the experts on tv saying something like this -
"There's no way George W. Bush can talk down the economy and affect it. If he could, it would stand to reason that someone could talk up the economy and affect it that way also, and that can't be done."
That might sound good if you don't think about it, but if you do think about it, it doesn't make sense. It's much easier for people to not spend money that they do have, than to spend money they don't have. When people stop spending money they do have, the economy tightens up, and then it comes to where people don't have money to spend any more.
If we've learned anything in the last month or so, and the last couple of years or so, it's that plenty of people will believe anything politicians say. So I believe it's a real possibility that George W. Bush and gang can damage the economy just by talk.
And I think we can see that people are already believing it, just by what Linda_K says - "I believe we ALL hope the economy gets better."
Regular people begin to believe it, they spend less. They spend less on Christmas, they put off buying that new car, don't go on a vacation, etc. etc. Enough people do that and it all catches up. Companies have to lay off, more people have less money to spend, there's your cycle.
posted on December 23, 2000 12:00:24 PM
The prospect of a Bush administration has the economy tanking, and the GOP wishes to blame Clinton. That's not news.
posted on December 23, 2000 01:00:35 PM
Bottom line is that with higher energy costs, the Ecomomy took a hit. But, without another simular hit, our economy will rebound by this time next year. It just has to work its way though the cycle of adjustment and inflation. Tweleve months from now, we'll be wondering what it was all about.
Of course, with the very well predicted effects by ecomonic acamedicians and professionals of the up-coming Tax-Cut for the Wealthy, it's no wonder that we'll have a lingering recession.
Of course, blame OPEC on Clinton, the devastation of the upcoming recession on Clinton's administration - tarnish his economic reputation too.
Has anyone even asked themselves WHY the GOP wants a recession?
posted on December 23, 2000 06:52:57 PMIt's much easier for people to not spend money that they do have, than to spend money they don't have.
Not if you look at Americans' abysmally small savings rate (actually a NEGATIVE rate for the past 2 months: -0.8% in November, 0.7% in October) and consumer debt (21% national average 2/00, of which 43% is from credit cards), in which case I'd say exactly the inverse of your assertion is true.
posted on December 23, 2000 08:43:20 PM
"I'd say exactly the inverse of your assertion is true"
Nah, I think what you're saying is that it's much easier to find yourself in the position of not having any money, than it is to find yourself in the position of having money, which I do agree with.
posted on December 23, 2000 09:04:23 PM
Thanks for that, krs.
Actually, as anyone who has been reading my little posts can determine that I see things in a much more sinister light.
I was thinking of the Nazification of America by New Republican Fascists in our government. For people to become that sort of people, they tend to have some common elements: ignorance, looking for leadership, and [b]high unemployment[b]! I watch the History channel a lot as well as read history books. You know, what has hurt the American Race-Hatred movement more than anything else is the great economic expansion. You can't have many dissatisfied under-class when they work and are a part of the community. But with a recession and high unemployment - there's the golden opportunity!
Why now?
Because starting in the mid-1980's and in particularly with the New Republicans entering in the 1990's, the hate-groups in America have gone for political power. They have infiltrated the GOP and the seats of power in our government under the guise of Good. Now all they need is a small army of hoodlums, like the Brownshirts back in 1930's Germany (or, like in Florida this election when the GOP HIRED thugs disguised as disgruntled voters to go intimidate and bully the Democratic process. The media reported the hiring). Not much longer now, folks, and we'll all be doing the Goose-step and making America Safe For White Only (straights, not gays; Protestants, not Catholics or Jews, ad nauseum).
That was my little thought. But of course, with only a lot of evidence to back up my grandiose suspicions, who would ever believe me?
posted on December 23, 2000 11:09:38 PMI was thinking of the Nazification of America by New Republican Fascists in our government.
When you object to a republican administration it's a good idea to retain some degree of credibility by not using words like "Nazification" and "Fascists". Some people with their feet on the ground and even a hint of knowledge on history might view you as an alarmist.
posted on December 24, 2000 12:22:11 AM
So? Alarmism, though unfortunately belated, is a very appropriate stance for anyone not carried away in love with their party like a preteen girl with a first case of puppy love.
When you object to a republican administration it's a good idea to retain some degree of credibility by not using words like "Nazification" and "Fascists". Some people with their feet on the ground and even a hint of knowledge on history might view you as an alarmist.