* The Dow Jones Industrial Average trades above 12,000. Wall Street is bullish on America. The burgeoning Investor Class, the 53 percent of Americans who own stocks, is enjoying higher returns on mutual funds, IRAs, and 401Ks.
* Unemployment is just 4.6 percent, a five-year low. Republican incentives have helped create 7 million new jobs since January 2001.
* At 2.1 percent, 12-month inflation is tame.
* Average gasoline prices hit $3.04 per gallon last summer. They now average $2.23, and are falling.
* Fiscal Year 2006’s deficit fell to $248 billion. When we pledged to halve FY 2004’s $521 billion deficit by FY 2009, Democrats laughed. But, as we promised, tax cuts stimulated the economy, and revenues flooded the Treasury. We bisected the deficit three years early.
* http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjE2ZTlhMWIyMDhiODM4YTU0ZmU3NzJjZDE5ODQwYjE=
2006-10-27 06:57:20 · 11 answers · asked by C = JD 5 in Social Science ➔ Economics
You don't acknowledge that Bush's tax cuts helped economic growth?
2006-10-27 07:10:53 · update #1
Bush probably does deserve more credit than he is currently receiving (which is practically no credit). However, I have always believed that people put too much emphasis ona relationship between the president's actions and the state of the economy. For example people lauded President Clinton because the economy soared during his second term. Presidents, however, do not have a magic wand that they can wave to transform the economy, and even if they did the effects of their actions won't appear until years later. Therefore, the idea that it was President's Bush's fault that we went into a deep recession during his first term is absurd. That recession needed to happen in order to tame an unrealistic market that had emerged under President Clinton. I am not, however, blaming President Clinton. My point is that neither of them can claim credit or should be blamed. The macroeconomy is a complicated web and the President's influence is extremely limited. Tax policy is probably the way in which the President can most affect the economy. This, however, takes time to actually show material results. Therefore, the economic expansion in which we have been since 2003 probably had something to do with the 2001 tax cuts, but there are so many other factors that we should be reserved in the credit we give to President Bush. Similarly, if the economy was tanking, our criticism of the President should be reserved as well.
2006-10-27 07:43:37 · answer #1 · answered by jthomas1279 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The president has very little to do with the economy. So I don't care. Amber Alert doesn't seem like it does anything. It was a nice thought though. I don't have a problem with pilots with hand guns but I don't really consider it all that important. I can agree with increased military pay. The only times I've ever heard of mothers getting partial birth abortion was when their lives were in danger. Great that two lives taken instead of one. I don't see how cutting visas is a good thing unless you hate foreigners. Tax are great, but only if you practice fiscal restraint. He didn't so those tax cuts only hurt us now. I can't argue about the aid for Africa though. That was a great deed.
2016-05-22 01:07:26 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, I will be happy to give Bush credit for our economic status. Poor people have gotten poorer, the middle class is becoming the new poor class. Stock market does great if you any money left over after your bills to buy anything. When Bush came into office we had a surplus of money instead of debt. Bush wiped that out almost immediately with Bush dollars. How much did you benefit by the Bush buck? Then there is income tax...who gets the breaks since Bush? You must be one of the new rich who has benefited by the so-called breaks to the poor.
2006-10-27 09:47:49 · answer #3 · answered by juncogirl3 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Presidents have NOTHING to do with economic performance. The U.S. is an open economy with floating exchange rate. Standard economic theory (the kind Robert Mundell got a Nobel for in 1999) says that under these conditions, an economy is not responsive to fiscal policy (which is controlled by President and Congress); it responds almost entirely to monetary policy (which is set by Federal Reserve)...
2006-10-27 11:31:57 · answer #4 · answered by NC 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
You are not taking into account that though unemployment has gone down--many former welfare recipients who now work are working at minimal, non-fulfilling jobs--making as little as when on welfare--and needing to leave their children with total strangers.
I don't believe that you are taking into account either, that the gap between rich and poor as widened--this is a ludicrous injustice, in my opinion.
2006-10-27 07:22:21 · answer #5 · answered by Holiday Magic 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
they sure gave Clinton credit ! Guess this only works for dems (sarcastic)
Oh, and oil prices are not regulated by the government (in response to first poster)
2006-10-27 07:07:31 · answer #6 · answered by mei-lin 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Most of those things have little or nothing to do with Mr. Bush. So, No!
2006-10-27 07:04:53 · answer #7 · answered by Barak 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
oil prices soared fuel companys made oh gee 3rd quarter profits 10.49 billion !! funny how things start to decline when elections are near.... to much negitive for me sorry
2006-10-27 07:01:32 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
No. No. NO! GW had nothing to do with it do a little research and you will realize that.
2006-10-27 07:06:23 · answer #9 · answered by rabbit0102030 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Yes, our president deserves this credit, and much more!, Too bad so many people are sheep to today's mainstream liberal new broadcasts
GOP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2006-10-27 19:23:45 · answer #10 · answered by supervfive 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋