I think it's entirely accurate, Dean, to say that both the politically-entrenched right and the politically-entrenched left care very little for the suffering of the downtrodden if it doesn't serve their immediate political goals. It seems that conservatives have recently discovered the hypocrisy that liberals have previously discovered in conservatives. Both equally guilty, because both are equally invested in a two-party system that values money and influence over the good of the populace. In general, politics tends to benefit the people in spite of itself.

The economy belongs to Bush, good and bad.

We've had 3 years of crappy numbers followed by a couple of quarters of good numbers.

Draw your own conclusions.

Just so we are straight on this, that would mean that Clinton was responsible for the economy in the 90's, not anything that Reagan or Bush I did.

"The economy belongs to Bush, good and bad."

Completely and utterly untrue. We live in a democratic country that operates with a relatively free capitalist market. The entire idea of capitalism is that the market operates independently of the government, with as little regulation as possible.

How is it, then, that we can be exporting democracy and capitalism around the globe, when our own economy is "owned" (rhetorically I'm sure) by the figurehead of a government?

The only answers are: either the credit/blame for the economy does not actually belong to Bush or we do not actually operate a capitalist system.

I hate to get all Ayn Rand here, but the government only has as much control over the economy as business gives to the government.

Now that is a load of crap from Kos. The guy is either blinded by partisanship or is a complete blithering moron. A quick glance at leading indicators show that the economy was definitely on a downhill slide in 2000, link.

P.S. They (the Left) don't really care about the poor and downtrodden. Not unless it's convenient and beneficial. And Bush is Bad.

Ouch, I think that might be overly broad. How about we put the words 'some on' in there so that it reads

P.S. They (some on the Left) don't really care about the poor and downtrodden. Not unless it's convenient and beneficial. And Bush is Bad.

For example, Kevin Drum has noted that he hopes that unemployment comes down. It doesn't mean he loves Bush (far from it), or that he endorsed Bush's policies (again, far from it).

We've had 3 years of crappy numbers followed by a couple of quarters of good numbers.

Draw your own conclusions.

Depends on what numbers you are looking at. If you are looking at say unemployment and business investment, yeah they haven't been good. If you mean personal consumption expenditures, they haven't been crap.

Just so we are straight on this, that would mean that Clinton was responsible for the economy in the 90's, not anything that Reagan or Bush I did.

Yes, and no. Yes, Clinton gets credit for taking a recovering economy and keeping it going. Also for turning deficits into surpluses (which is actually easier to do during expansions than contractions). However, he does NOT get credit for turning the economy around. The recession ended in March of 1991, and unemployment started falling in about the middle of 1992. You can see the latter in the data if you look at it. Remember, President's take office near the end of January of the year following the election.

That is fair Steve and I will correct it.

Ara:

Are you starting up again? We're still waiting for you to extricate yourself from beneath the rhetorical dogpile on the "Exploding the Myths" thread.

No ice cream until you finish your broccoli.

We've had 3 years of crappy numbers followed by a couple of quarters of good numbers.

Well, check your numbers. How about two straight years of growth? Leftists will deny it, but that's because they'd rather believe the world is crashing down around us. It makes it easier for them to complain (or cheer, I can't tell sometimes).

(Link courtesy Hobbs Online, a must read for anyone with questions about this economy, hell, a must read anyway)

Did any of you read the reader comments on that web site?

Man, what a bunch of cold-hearted, hate-filled bastards.

Its all for the good, however; this shows the depths the other side is plumbing, and it will just run up the GOP numbers next year.

I honestly believe John has the right of it: Presidents don't control economies, unless they make major regulatory or tax changes. And I do mean major.

I joke about the Bush tax cuts. Mind you, I am unequivocal in my support for them as a good idea, and there is no rationally doubting that tax cuts are a form of fiscal stimulus. But the business cycle honestly explains where we're at better than anything that's been done in public policy over the last four years.

Mind you, it is true that the recession began before Bush took office. So if people are going to claim Bush "owns" the economy, and Clinton "owned" his, then a fair analysis would be that Bush inherited a declining economy and oversaw a recovery.

But whatever. I think we've bought into this "it's the economy stupid" stuff way too much. If the economy controlled elections, Franklin Roosevelt would have been thrown out on his ass in 1936, and Harry Truman would have taken a beating from Thomas Dewey in 1948. Reagan won in 1980 in large part on a hard-line defense stance, and economics was only secondary; indeed, Reagan trailed Carter during the entire 1980 campaign, never once even pulled even with him, until the week before the election in 1980, despite the bad economy, and only came roaring into the lead after the debates (just a week before the election) made Carter look very weak on defense.

The faith the Democrats have that the economy rules everything, inherited from James Carville, is not in their long-term best interests I think.

Dean,

I would not be surprised to learn that Carville's message was somewhat different. There are only a couple of issues that will clearly trump the economy, and national security is one of them. However, as I think Carville intended to point out, if national security is not in play as a significant issue (true in 1992, for instance), then the economy is likely to be one of the most significant measures by which a President is judged.

I think a President can do a lot to wreck the economy, if he really tries, but it's mostly out of his control, and any positive impact he might have is just tinkering around the edges. It really is mostly the business cycle, although the electorate often seems to ascribe more influence to the President.

Sam,

I think you've got it right: it was the economy, stupid, in 1992 - because there was no other issue the Democrats could run on plus there was no other pressing issue on the horizon (we know better now, though, don't we?).

Nothing fails like success, and because it was the economy, stupid, in 1992 and the Democrats squeeked out a win, its going to be the economy, stupid, until the time comes when the GOP wins the White House in a genuinely bad economy (which may or may not happen within the next 20 years); you'd figure that 2000 would have instructed them that it isn't the economy, always...but, whom the gods would destroy, they do make mad....

I honestly believe John has the right of it: Presidents don't control economies, unless they make major regulatory or tax changes. And I do mean major.

Dean, that is a reasonable position, but I would amend it by saying that while Presidents don't control the economy they do have an ability to influence via fiscal policy as well as via regulations.

And you're right elections are not determined solely by the economy. There are other issues as well that people care about and can affect how they vote.

It really is mostly the business cycle, although the electorate often seems to ascribe more influence to the President.

And some economists...*cough*cough*Krugman*cough*cough*.

I lay the blame for a good or bad economy at the feet of Alan Greespan. He is the man behind the curtain. I blame him for raising interest rates in 1999 and 2000. I feel it made the ensuing contraction worse that it needed to be. I also blame him for not pushing interest down sooner and morer.

Let us not forget that the market colapse wiped out $5 trillion dollas in wealth. I think that's something like one year's GDP. That's gotta hurt too. I think when you take that big a hit, it just takes time for people to rebuild their wealth so they can start spending again.