Investor's Business Daily Gets It!
This January 31, 2007, editorial summary of W's accomplishments with our economy should be read by every American!
posted by Jim | 2:34 PM
POLIBLOG
POLLIWOG (Tadpole): the early stage of an animal that will eventually become a frog, hoping to be kissed by a princess, turning into a prince! POLIBLOG (Political Blog): the early stage of a center-right political blog that may eventually become a full blown blog of the center-right. Join in if you find any merit in the comments. If you are on the left and disagree, feel free to straighten me out! Who knows, with effort from all of us this blog may turn into a prince!
- Another Dean Barnett Analysis of worth!!
- Dean Barnett explains W's Troop Increase
- Jimmy Carter: An Opinion That Makes Sense!
- Is the West on the road to extinction? Mark Steyn...
- Shall we talk of "Social Security" again?
- Dean Barnett Points Out a Huge Problem!!
- Shelby Steele Understands. Do we?
- TO MY EGALITARIAN FRIENDS: CAPITALISM IS THE ANSWER!
- VERY INTERESTING VISIT TO RAMALLAH - A MUST READ
- IF OUR LEFT FRIENDS COULD ONLY MAKE SENSE!
4 Comments:
It's clear that the Bush Administration has not come close to destroying the economy, that's clear, and in fact by many measures things are doing pretty well.
But - let's face it - the President really doesn't have a lot of control over the economy (the Fed Chief has a bit more, but it's also limited). I don't think anyone could have avoided a slowdown in the 2000-2002 period, and after that some recovery was almost inevitable.
So if we want to really judge the recent period, I think we should compare it to other recovery periods. My sense (not a scientific analysis by any means) is that this recovery has been pretty average in terms of employment growth and so forth. But if you know of a good study on this, let us know!
Curt,
I am reading Mediated on a regular basis. Keep up the good work. Particularly liked your blog on Mose Allison - one of my favorites from College days to today - yeh, he was BIG back then! I tried to send you an MP3 of "Seventh Son" the other day but your server or mine wouldn't handle the large size. That is my favorite.
Larry Kudlow did some analysis of the economic numbers yesterday here:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/bullmarket_cheers_for_bush.html
Hope you don't have to type that all in!
Your answer to the article sounds like me when the lefties promote President Clinton's economic policies! If your President does it it is not his doing but the cycle or something. If my President does it he is the reason for the growth. The answer is somewhere in between.
President Clinton moved rapidly to the center after Hillary Care got shot down in 1993, and he promoted policies that helped the economy - a President can't have too much effect directly on the economy, but he does set the tone in which the bureaucracy operates. W has set the right tone, in my opinion.
Read Kudlow's article and tell me what you think of the comparison of the two time periods. I found it interesting!
I agree with you on the notion that the President can set a tone, and certainly enact policies have certain effects (often more widespread and contradictory than intended is my sense). But the economy is a huge thing made up of millions of decision-makers, and they are responding to all sorts of signals.
So while it's good to cheer the good news, and there certainly is some, I think it's also worth pointing out that some of it was achieved with heavy deficit spending and with interest rates that were taken down to 'emergency' levels (which have on one hand fueled homeownership and on the other hand has increased foreclosure rates and localized housing market bubbles).
My feeling these days is that politics is a very 'tribal' thing - it leads us all to overestimate the good things our tribe does, and overestimate the bad things the other tribe does. If we're going to give Bush the credit for the economy, then all presidents get the credit, regardless of their party and policies. But as you say, I think the right answer is somewhere in the middle.
President Clinton had a great ecomony - until the last year of his presidency - due to a move to centrist policies, being forced to work with a Republican congress, and probably the greatest decade of technology growth in our history. I can give him full credit.
President Bush II has a great economy due to his center right policies, and a friendly congress. This is really even more impressive after 9/11. I am waiting for him to get credit from the left - in fact I am waiting for the left to even admit the economy is strong! The ability of Democratic politicians to criticize this economy with the numbers as they are is absurd!
Post a Comment
<< Home