oh i get it now , the economy would only be good right now if a democrat was in office , right ?

Answer 1

Congratulation!! You do get it. Remember how great we had it during the Clinton administration. Oh course it will take some time for the next president to clean up the mess Bush made. I think we will even get our civil liberties back. You know those things the constitution guarantees us.

Answer 2

This is a question up for debate. By asking it on this forum, you will only get partisan answers. That statement is wrong however, because you say the economy will improve ONLY if a democrat is elected. There is a fair chance that the economy will improve under a Republican

if you mean, "which would be better for the economy?"
The wise person of average knowledge would answer, "I don't know" given that each candidate is employing some of the best spin doctors in the business on their $25 million campaigns. an also, most people issues other than the economy.

I would like to point out though that the war is only costing us about 2% of our GNP. Since someone is bound to bring up the war. Though I'm sure the war has had other effects.

Answer 3

Probably not, but George Bush has installed a Democrat's agenda for spending and increasing the national debt. He's been promoting inflationary monetary policy, and our country is WAY on the wrong track economically. Sad thing is, the worst of it won't be visible until after his term ends.

I can't see many Democrats who would return us to the Bill Clinton type of economic policy, which wasn't so perfect, even though it was vastly better than what Bush has dished out. Perhaps Bill Richardson's economics might be similar to Bill Clinton's. Hillary, on the other hand, if you read her writings, is far to the left of Bill, and would offer a far more socialist system, so she's not the answer.

Personally, my support goes to Dr. Ron Paul, who is the only Republican running who I believe understands economics. It is possible that some of the others might do a decent job economically (Brownback, Gilmore, even possibly McCain, Thompson, or Giuliani), but Paul is the one with the strongest economic background, so I'm going with experience. The economy is too important to risk a "maybe". I definitely would NOT support Romney, who doesn't seem to know WHAT his position is.

Answer 4

The Libbies actually believe that.

In reading the responses to your question, it is obvious that very few people responding have a clue about the economy and how little influence government and a President have upon it (outside of the mostly negative influences caused by the ignorance and stupidity of politicians when they meddle in things they do not possibly understand). Raising taxes would be one way they screw things up (just look at greedy and idiotic Dems in CT. who have a surplus, yet still want to soak the wealthy.). Another Dem recipe for economic decline.

The only good thing that govt. can do for the economy is to lower taxes. Dems never seem to understand that tax revenues can be increased through tax cuts. There-in lies the problem. By the way, who is the real Monkey Libbies?

Answer 5

Thats when things started going to hell. Slick Willie signed the NAFTA agreement just before he left office. The only reason he had a good term is because he rode the coat tails of Reagan anb Bush senior. So no , it would not be better. Things would be worse.

Answer 6

Well lets think about this. First the Republicans put us in war and then the Democrats vote to continuing funding it with no time line. Hmmm Now we have a Republican written immigration "amnesty" bill waiting for votes... Lets see what the Democrats do with that. Right now I don't have faith in either party.

Answer 7

http://money.cnn.com/2007/05/31/news/economy/gdp/index.htm?postversion=2007053116

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The economy grew at its slowest pace since 2002 in the first three months of the year, according to a government report Thursday that was weaker than Wall Street expectations.

The Commerce Department's gross domestic product report, the broadest measure of the nation's economic activity, showed an annual growth rate of 0.6 percent in the first quarter. That's down from its initial estimate of 1.3 percent growth.


The nation's economy grew at its slowest pace since the end of 2002 in the first quarter.
Economists surveyed by Briefing.com had forecast the growth rate would slow to 0.8 percent.

It was the slowest period of growth since the fourth quarter of 2002, when the economy showed only a meager 0.2 percent rise. A pickup in imports, which subtract from the nation's economic activity, is one of the reasons that the reading was revised lower.

The slump in the nation's housing market subtracted about 0.9 percentage points from growth, but that's a slight improvement from the month-ago reading, when it was estimated to have cost the economy almost a full percentage point.

The report's closely watched inflation readings were little changed. The measure of prices paid by consumers in the quarter, known as the PCE deflator, showed a 3.3 percent increase in the period. That's a bit of an improvement from the 3.4 percent increase in the initial first quarter report a month ago. But the core PCE deflator, which strips out the volatile prices paid for food and energy, showed the same 2.2 percent increase as the earlier reading.

The core PCE deflator is seen as one of the key measures of inflation viewed by the Federal Reserve when the central bank policy-makers weigh whether to raise rates to keep prices in check or cut rates to spur sluggish economic growth. The Fed is generally believed to want to see the core PCE in the 1 percent to 2 percent range.

Wednesday, the Fed released the minutes of its May 9 meeting, which showed that policy-makers were concerned about slowing economic growth when they gathered three weeks ago but that they believed the downside risks to the economy "were judged to have diminished slightly."

Since that time there have been a number of reports showing greater weakness in the economy, particularly in the housing and homebuilding sector. There has also been a spike in gasoline prices to record levels, which can both slow the economy and feed inflationary pressures at the same time.

Answer 8

You only have another year and a half to find out.

No one is going to hand the republicans another four years to carry on this never ending slow motion train reck.

I hope there's plenty of room in the private sector for all the Bush White House insiders who are already jumping off.

Answer 9

THE ECONOMY WOULD BE BETTER IF WE HAD SOMEONE "COMPETENT" IN OFFICE WHO SHOWED THE ABILITY TO ACTUALLY CARE THAT SOME AMERICANS ARE STRUGGLING WITH THE LOSS OF THEIR LOVED ONES, EITHER BY DEATH OR DUTY, WHO ARE ON INTEGRAL PART OF THEIR INCOME AND SUPPORT. IF OUR LEADERS CARED, THEY WOULD TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THAT THERE ARE MILLIONS OF AMERICAN CHILDREN WITH NO HEALTH COVERAGE, AND HOW MUCH OF A STRAIN THAT PUTS ON MILLIONS OF FAMILIES ECONOMICALLY AND MENTALLY. HOW IN THE HELL CAN PEOPLE MAKING MINIMUM WAGE LIVING BELOW THE POVERTY LEVEL, SURVIVE, WHILE GAS PRICES ARE NEAR EQUAL TO THEIR HOURLY WAGE? I REALLY DON'T CARE IF THERE IS A DEMOCRAT, REPUBLICAN, LIBERTARIAN, OR AN ALIEN, AS LONG AS THAT PRESIDENT CAN SEE WHAT'S HAPPENING TO OUR UNITED STATES, AND THEY CARE ABOUT MAKING A POSITIVE CHANGE FOR ALL.

Answer 10

Well, if a Democrat was in office, we wouldn't be in this stupid war, would we?


You keep trying, but nothing is going to work. You still look like you are a bushbot.