A resounding majority of Americans — 81 percent — think the country is “pretty seriously†on the wrong track, according to a CBS News-New York Times poll — up from 69 percent last year and 35 percent in 2002.
Only 4 percent thought the country was better off now than five years ago. And two-thirds of respondents said they thought the economy was already in a recession.
That was before Friday’s announcement that employers slashed 80,000 jobs in March — the most in five years. And on Wednesday, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke acknowledged for the first time that the country might be heading into a recession.
Voters wanting a change in direction, the economy sliding — it’s not a good general election scenario for incumbents.
72 Comments
The direction they seek escape from is the one they chose– Rumsfeldt..
No matter what, we’re going to get a change in direction. Too bad it’ll be over the financial cliff if indicators are any gauge. But what about choices? do we really have any good choices coming in November, or will we see more of the samo-samo in Washington no matter who we elect? I’ll predict Republican or Democrat, we’re going to see the same Pablum for the masses we’ve been seeing for the last several years. And while we’re distracted by more important things like who Brittany is sleeping with, the corporate types will finish depleting the public pig trough.
So it goes.
I emphatically disagree with your “it doesn’t make any difference for whom we vote” message, Nano. As soon as we elected a Democratically-controlled Congress, we got the first raise in minimum wage in 10 years. The new Congress reformed and made more affordable college tuition assistance, established important ethics reforms, and a number of other changes. Unfortunately, without 60 votes in the Senate, more could not be accomplished, like ending the bloodbath in Iraq.
The new Congress has distinctively demonstrated what direction it will take with a Democrat in the White House, and better yet 60 Democrats in the Senate.
Hope is here already, and real change is just around the corner from the ballot box in Novemeber.
I do not want a change in direction, I’m happy with the way things are. Please no new reforms, emissions taxes and social taxes. If the newspapers would look at the positive side of where we are instead of going after doom and gloom stores then everyones mind set would be better. Democrat fixes and so called changes are not needed. The economy go up and down just like it always has and always will. Newspaper are laying off people and cutting jobs because of a change is that for the good or better? The web is a big wide world out there.
Kelly I hate to burst your bubble, but since they have the majority in both house. If the Democrats wanted real change they could have had it long ago. You pointed to the 60 vote majority, I point to it may take a 60 vote majority to pass a bill. It also takes a majority to fail a bill, the desire just is not there! The Democrats in the houses are more concerned with saving party face then the nation. But when it comes to votes, the Blue dog Democrats are the party’s worse enemy. They vote with the Republicans far more then their own party. But even with that the Democrats in the houses when it comes to Iraq ARE still supporting of Bush.
They mouth the words then vote for the funding and do not stand on principle when it comes to the underhanded use of the “emergency funding”. Which puts that funding outside of the restrains and rules that govern Congressional funding. That tells me they have no interest in curtailing the Bush agenda and forcing a fair and above board actions concerning the Iraq war.
Think your paycheck is getting smaller? Elect Democrats and they will sure it will shrink even more when they raise your taxes and add all those fancy new with holdings. You’ll be pleading for the Newt to come save you.
George is right! We can’t handle the truth, lie to us, tell us the Titanic is not sinking we are just making a course change! The Government need to spend the money it takes to support the American people with a boat load of “rose colored glasses”. They have already said “the check is in the mail!”.
Had this been the Clinton years, the cons would be going ballistic (they did do that then, didn’t they). Guess what? It’s the Bush years, and we’re getting what we deserve because that pukes been in the white house for 8 years. Recession, job losses, war, housing collapse . . . anything I’m missing?
Good morning J M (pukes, McBush, Iraq, whine, moan, complain) Walker. :D
Kelly, Kelly, Kelly,
“As soon as we elected a Democratically-controlled Congress, we got the first raise in minimum wage in 10 years. The new Congress reformed and made more affordable college tuition assistance, established important ethics reforms, and a number of other changes.”
You’re kidding, right? Minimum Wage? Nobody really cares. It was time to raise it, it had been held in check for long enough. How many people does Minimum Wage directly impact, unless you count the impact on everybody’s wallet? Not saying that’s a bad thing, but it’s a point. And I wonder how many people who supported minimum wage would still support it if somebody came to their door and collected the cost of Minimum Wage per year in one chunk?
College tuition? Big deal.
“established important ethics reforms” Excuse me? Like what?
Since Democrats took control, they haven’t impeached any body and they haven’t ended any wars. Wasn’t that the idea if you’re liberal?
Different party, same general policy.
. . . anything I’m missing? O, good morning Reg(bush is good; bush is great; all hail the decider)ular.
“Think your paycheck is getting smaller? ”
I hardly think a welfare case should be offering anyone advice as to paychecks!
Change IS coming. I hope the greedy have enjoyed the ride the last many years. ‘Cause now it is time for them to pay for it.
“I hardly think a welfare case should be offering anyone advice as to paychecks!”
Then why did you offer advice?
Unlike you James, I am not on welfare.
The poll shows that people are primarily concerned about the economy, followed by the war in Iraq, and the poll shows that people see a connection between the two. In addition, the poll shows that people consider high fuel prices to be a consequence of the war, and they believe high fuel prices hurt the economy.
Although McCain is favorably regarded in the poll, only a small percentage of those polled believe that he understands the economy.
As the Democratic contest winds down in June (read Bob Shrum’s column in yesterday’s NYT), the Republican nominee will face quite a challenge from his opponent in these areas.
*********************************
The president is Commander-In-Chief. It’s up to the president to devise a political and a military strategy. The current president’s strategy is clearly to stall until the clock runs out in November, at which point he will hand the mess that he created to his successor.
Most people understand that the new president will not be able to withraw 150,000 troops straight away.
The new president, however, should consider implementing a benchmark system for withdrawing
the troops. This system would at least put some goals on the table and get the various players focused on a solution. The troop withdrawal would be used as leverage to accomplish the benchmarks.
In addition to the benchmark system, an answer is needed for the neocon argument that disaster will ensue if we withdraw.
The new president, then, should have an overall plan for keeping the region from spinning totally out of control. This will entail a rigorous diplomatic effort in which the various countries in the region form a league to address the hot spots and the hot issues.
I keep referring to Fred Kaplan at Slate, but so far, his columns on this subject are the only clear-sighted arguments that I’ve found. His suggestions at least form a base from which to approach the matter.
JM, you miss the skyrocketing cost of food.
And… both parties are STILL ignoring the looming water crisis.
Gee I thought that the Democratic majority in congress two years ago was suppose to have started the change.
I mean haven’t they raised minimum wage and talk to some baseball players and watch the economy go to crap and …
Oh well. “Heckuva job you’re doing Nancy”
Oops, I meant to say Walker, not JM. Sorry.
…and where are grmie and paulie to tell us how good the economy is, how we just dont look at the positive, and how the sky is really NOT falling?
This poll should be bad news for McCain. Once the Democrats get the last of the primaries and convention behind they can focus on the real fact that McCain will simply be more ’stay the failed course’ and not any sort of change. McSame, McBush, it doesn’t matter. He will continue the same tired policies that ‘moderate’ George Bush did.
There was a time when John McCain was independent and a maverick. However, he has delivered himself into the control of exactly those elements of the Republican Party who have shaped policy for the past 7+ years.
Kelly–Great post.
Regular–sure, you got your gov’t check. What do you care about the rest of society?
Gene–The Dems have done a lot, but they can’t do much with Worst. President. Ever. in charge. Your guy, remember?
Nano–Can you believe for one second that things would be as bad as they are right now if President Gore hadn’t been stripped of office by the CONs?
The Bush Presidency is exactly why elections matter.
Otherwise, we get
Worst.
President.
Ever.
Have you notice that ever since a Democratic Congress came in, the economy has turned bad? I’m pretty sure there is a historical precedent of Democratic controlled Congresses and recessions.
Everybody blames the President, but we should be blaming Congress.
The Dems are simply a better deal for the American people than the Repubs, even if they’ve spent the past 20 years trying to pass for Republican lite, while snorkeling corporate cash from many of the same sources. We, the people, will have to work on that.
The harsh reality is that George W. Bush finished the Reagan revolution. It’s not just that Bush followed the basic Reagan playbook: expen$ive militarism, huge tax cuts (and deficits), loony judicial nominees, industry cronies as “regulators” etc. etc etc. Nearly every thing that the Reaganites tried to do but couldn’t, W. did .
And now we’re seeing the quite preditable results: unmitigated disaster.
#
ksfarmgrrl
Posted April 5, 2008 at 8:54 am | Permalink
Oops, I meant to say Walker, not JM. Sorry.
Quite alright lady . . . we all know the nick jm is dead:-)
But I did forget shoddy FEMA management, among other, lesser and greater known foul ups:-)
CTbest
Posted April 5, 2008 at 9:44 am | Permalink
Have you notice that ever since a Democratic Congress came in, the economy has turned bad? I’m pretty sure there is a historical precedent of Democratic controlled Congresses and recessions.
Everybody blames the President, but we should be blaming Congress.
Wow, what did I tell you: it’s Clinton’s fault all over again!
door king
Posted April 5, 2008 at 6:19 am | Permalink
The direction they seek escape from is the one they chose– Rumsfeldt..
That kind of makes sense, if people start clammoring about a recession then it will probably further enhance the makings of a recession even more instead of being positive about it. Its kind of like oil speculators scaring investors on the price of oil. Except with the economy its much bigger.
There was a time when John McCain was independent and a maverick.
I suspect we’ll see more of that come out, as he tries to appeal to swing voters. But the 800-pound, “100-year” gorilla will remain in the room.
The first time I saw John McCain was in 1986, on C-SPAN, shortly after a helicopter carring Eugene Hasefus was down in Nicaragua. This was the event that lead to the Iran-Contra scandal. The House hearing, chaired by Michael Barnes, had some compelling and unnerving testimony about what was really going on. One general testified, heatedly, that there was no way a helicopter could leave a U.S. military base without the U.S. military brass knowing!
John McCain was a congressman in attendance.
The actual words are lost in my memory, but boy did Mr. Integrity squawk and jeer about the “unfair” hearing! The only thing that distinguished him from the other Reagan zombies present was his relative calm, and his smile.
He’ll use both in the coming year, I’m sure.
According to a recent poll the majority of Kansans want four more years of economic decline and war. Things might start to change when we have larger lines at soup kitchens and kids have to stand in front of a draft board.
My guess is, Republican strategists recognize that the war and the economy are problems for them. They can read the above-mentioned poll. The strategy, then, will be to distract the public from the issues at hand. The more ridiculous assertions will be introduced in the heavily populated Republican fringe areas by low-level operatives, and then piously denounced by national Republican figures in order to draw attention to them. The TV people, who always love a good flufftactular, will pick up the ridiculous assertions and denouncements in an attempt to drive up ratings. The TV people will end up carrying the distracting message by choosing to focus on it. The “maverick” McCain will then stroll on stage and theatrically denounce these developments as beneath the level of public discourse, thereby reinforcing his “honorable” status. And then the cycle will resume once again. The strategy will be to fear-monger by simultaneously making it appear as if the Republican nominee is not a part of the strategy, but rejecting it.
Democrats will, for once, need to stay on message. Refute the ridiculous fear-mongering assertion while simultaneously directing the topic back where it belongs, which is on the economy and the war, as indicated by the concerns expessed in the poll. Democrats should also go to some lengths to make the public aware of the Republican strategy before it begins.
Think about it. Congress has a lower approval rating than President Bush. That is saying something.
I’m a life long Democrat and I’m starting to question how our representatives are really doing the job that we sent them out to do. What has really changed in the last two years since we took over? Really think about it.
In this same poll 72 % of respondents said that their financial situation was very good or fairly good. Also 71% said they were getting ahead or staying even. Why the desparity in the numbers. Could be that every negative things that can be printed is. Might be what newspapers can’t give their product away.
Yes the economy is in a downturn. Is it terminal? I don;t think so. We are in an election cycle and we need to not be sheep being led to the shed to be fleeced. Think people.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/politics/20080403_POLL.pdf
The approval rating for Congress is lower than the approval rating for the President.
How about a thread on that fact?
Wow I check in and find that Farmie has been missing me and my optomistic forcasts. Well have faith Farmie the numbers still say we are not in a recession. The less well informed the electorate the more they can be dumbed down. I think we have an epidemic of misinformation. The numbers as pointed out by Just when looked at in their totality just don’t support ‘the sky is falling’ scenario presented by Randy.
Their personal experience says we are doing OK but the new media keeps saying the economy so it must be true. No!
We tend to have at least one recession every decade.
No matter who is in the White House.
No matter which party controls Congress.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions
Hey, those who want Hillary to win think we are on the “wrong track” because Obama is ahead.
Those who think we should get out of Iraq NOW are of course thinking that we are on the wrong track.
Those who think that America will be handed over to the Party of Surrender and Defeat (The Democrats) also think we are on the wrong track.
Those who think Global Warming is a fraud think that the country is on the wrong track.
Republicans who are not thrilled with John McCain think that the country is on the wrong track.
(Journalists who can not investigate news and understand issues, without polling us to death, are the people who are on the WRONG TRACK!)
Amen Econ – what happened to those naysayers who think the nation is spiraling down? Hit them with fact and they just fade into the scenery.
I’m a life long Democrat and I’m starting to question how our representatives are really doing the job that we sent them out to do. What has really changed in the last two years since we took over? Really think about it.
The Dems have been mostly impotent. Part of the problem has been the political realities; nothing happens without 60 votes in the Senate and, even then, 2/3 of both Houses are required to override a Bush veto (notice how he found his pen?).
Still ending the $2000-a-second debacle in Iraq was theoretically within their power. After it was clear that Bush wouldn’t sign anything that didn’t continue his agenda, they should have called his bluff, and cut off the funds.
If you look at everything leading up to the current recession: the corporate scandals, the housing crisis, the huge level of both public and personal debt, the offshored-and-outsourced jobs, etc. etc. etc., it’s pretty damn hard to hang this one on the Dems that just took over Congress in 2007 (and whose first budget–subject to bipartisan negotiation–wasn’t due until October of last year).
At best, you can make Econ’s “recessions happen” argument. But is our country in any shape now to deal with a recession? The answer to that question tells you, pretty clearly, who’s to blame.
Might be what newspapers can’t give their product away.
What you fail to recognize is that the influence of the NYTimes and other flagship u.s. papers is actually growing thanks to the web. The big papers get millions of hits per day, and the stories they write are distributed everywhere by readers.
“We tend to have at least one recession every decade.
No matter who is in the White House.
No matter which party controls Congress.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions”
Notice which years didn’t list a recession? 1992-2000. Guess who was in office then? Only until Reagonimics was brought onto the scene do we get recessions more and more often. That’s the failure of supply side economics and huge deficit spending. But Paul, you have proven you know about as much about economics as McCain.
My point exactly DK. When dishonest info is distributed what is the result? Disorder and chaos. Wrong thinking and misdirection. Even Rage thinks we are in a recession which we clearly are not simply because the media keeps telling him we are.
When we start to think for ourselves and elect those who will support agendas which will grow the economy we will make progress. This election doesn’t look as if we have many choices for that growth.
Doug if you insist in ignoring the Clinton recession which was clearly alive and well when Bush took office you really have no business taking part in a discussion on economics.
Doug
While Wiki was helpful as a way to show historical recessions, it is the stock market which is a historical “leading indicator” of recessions.
The stock market began to tank, and the dot-com bubble began to burst, when Bill Clinton sued Microsoft.
George W. Bush inherited a very weak economy from Bill Clinton.
And, of course, I still contend that the President has very little to do with the economy.
And Doug
The Post World War II Baby Boom had EVERYTHING to do with the booming Post WWII economy.
That, and the fact that raving lunatic greens were not killing our economy, back then!
Now, we have the Unibomber and Charlie Manson BOTH getting what they want, in the form of Al Gore and the greens on this Blog!
The stock market has nothing to do with recession. It has to do with negative economic growth. While the Clinton administration had some of the longest economic expansion that expansion was limited by Greenspan who increased the federal reserve interest rate in order to promote, as Greenspan put it, job insecurity. Greenspan viewed budget surpluses as a bad thing
The fact is, there was no Clinton recession. Economic decline happened because of the Bush tax cuts for the rich and huge deficit spending. The fact is so obvious that a complete financial moron like Paul and his fellow neo-cons would disagree. Judging by how piss poor the Republicans run the economy no Republican has standing to claim their economic policies work.
“The Post World War II Baby Boom had EVERYTHING to do with the booming Post WWII economy.”
Wrong again Paul. The government invested heavily in the nation’s infrastructure and through the GI Bill the socialist Democrats created the growing middle class. Your hero Reagan has been working hard to dismantle the Middle Class and New Deal economics. Hence the reason the infrastructure is falling apart, one in 10 people are on food stamps, wages don’t keep up with productivity, poverty rates increase and so on and so on. Yours is disaster capitalism and it does nothing but create misery for the many and great wealth for the few. Face it, your regime is a failure and we’re reaping the benefits.
Market Indicators Confirm Recession Started On Clinton’s Watch. According to the Council of Economic Advisors, “it was widely recognized that the economy was weak coming into 2001.”
* The NASDAQ peaked on March 10, 2000;
* The S&P 500 peaked on March 24, 2000;
* The Dow Jones peaked on January 14, 2000;
* Manufacturing employment started falling in August 2000;
* Industrial production started falling in July 2000; and
* Manufacturing trade and sales started falling in April 2000.
(Council Of Economic Advisors, Talking Points, 9/20/02)
Congress’ Joint Economic Committee Says Signs Of Economic Slowdown Were Apparent In Mid 2000. “By mid-year 2000 … signs of an economic slowdown began to proliferate; it became apparent that an economic slowdown was underway. A number of key economic and financial indicators provided evidence of such slower growth and suggested that future growth could weaken. A brief summary of important elements of this evidence, for example, would include the following:
* Real GDP slowed from a robust 5.6 percent annualized growth rate in the second quarter of 2000 to 2.2 percent and 1.0 percent in the third and fourth quarters, respectively, before rebounding modestly to 1.2% in the first quarter of 2001.
* Key components of GDP such as real consumption expenditures slowed after mid-year as real income growth moderated, stock market values fell, employment gains lessened, and consumer confidence stalled and then deteriorated. Movements in retail sales generally corroborated these developments.
* Gross private investment also contributed significantly to this general slowdown with most key investment categories registering actual declines by the fourth quarter and advances of non-defense capital goods (ex-aircraft and parts) orders falling sharply after mid-year (on a year-over-year basis).
* The index of leading indicators trended down after January 2000.
* Employment advances slowed dramatically after mid-year. Gains in total non-farm payrolls, for example, averaged about 256,000 per month for the 2 1/2 years prior to mid-year 2000 and 44,000 per month after mid-year 2000. The average workweek also decreased after mid-year.
* The manufacturing sector also has weakened significantly since mid-year 2000. Industrial production, capacity utilization, the Natural Association of Purchasing Managers index, as well as manufacturing employment and workweek have all registered significant declines since mid-year 2000.
* Financial equity markets began to deteriorate about mid-year 2000 as well.
In short, there can be little doubt that a significant economic slowdown or retrenchment began about mid-year 2000 in the last quarters of the Clinton Administration.” (“Assessment Of The Current Economic Environment,” United States Congress Joint Economic Committee, 7/01)
Clinton’s Chairman Of Council Of Economic Advisors, Joseph Stiglitz, Said Recession Started During Clinton’s Tenure. “It would be nice for us veterans of the Clinton Administration if we could simply blame mismanagement by President George W. Bush’s economic team for this seemingly sudden turnaround in the economy, which coincided so closely with its taking charge. But … the economy was slipping into recession even before Bush took office, and the corporate scandals that are rocking America began much earlier.” (Joseph Stiglitz, “The Roaring Nineties,” The Atlantic Monthly, 10/02)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/860170/posts
Doug you seem intelligent enough. Bet you have seen this info before. Just hard to admit it when our heros have feet of clay.
Clinton’s Chairman Of Council Of Economic Advisors, Joseph Stiglitz, Said Recession Started During Clinton’s Tenure. “It would be nice for us veterans of the Clinton Administration if we could simply blame mismanagement by President George W. Bush’s economic team for this seemingly sudden turnaround in the economy, which coincided so closely with its taking charge. But … the economy was slipping into recession even before Bush took office, and the corporate scandals that are rocking America began much earlier.” (Joseph Stiglitz, “The Roaring Nineties,” The Atlantic Monthly, 10/02)
Doug just in case you miss this part. This man was the main man for your hero.
Doug
You have made one of your famous ridiculous comments:
“Doug
Posted April 5, 2008 at 11:56 am | Permalink
The stock market has nothing to do with recession. It has to do with negative economic growth.”
—–
The stock market and economic growth are DIRECTLY linked.
This is why the stock market is considered a “leading economic indicator” — it is not always a perfect indicator, but a decline in stock values often predicts a recession.
Negative Economic Growth = RECESSION!
Doug, you do not know what you are talking about.
Not even a little bit.
Again Doug, read and learn. The educated will be happy to welcome you to the table:
“LEADING INDICATORS. Four of the ten indicators that make up the leading index increased in February. The positive contributors — beginning with the largest positive contributor — were real money supply*, interest rate spread, manufacturers’ new orders for nondefense capital goods* and manufacturers’ new orders for consumer goods and materials*. The negative contributors — beginning with the largest negative contributor — were average weekly initial claims for unemployment insurance (inverted), building permits, vendor performance, index of consumer expectations, and stock prices. Average weekly manufacturing hours held steady in February.”
Of the 10 LEADING indicators, the Stock Market is INCLUDED!
http://www.conference-board.org/economics/bci/pressRelease_output.cfm?cid=1
Tell me again how the stock market has “nothing” to do with the economy or recessions?
The stock market TANKED in Bill Clinton’s last term in office. That recession started on the day that Bill Clinton sued Microsoft.
And again, this is comming from someone who thinks believes that the President plays only a very small role in the economy.
econ101 posted April 5, 2008 at 11:03 am
“Those who think Global Warming is a fraud think that the country is on the wrong track.”
Those people do not know how to think.
If it’s true that a recession started during the latter part of the Clinton years, what is Dubya’s excuse for doing nothing? Well, nothing except making it worse. We haven’t had REAL job growth since 2001. A few here and there, but we haven’t even come close to recovering job losses early in Dubya’s first term, much less increased the original base.
As for the poor ratings for Congress, let’s not forget the it’s nearly evenly split between Republicans and Democrats. If the Dems held 65-75% of the seats, THEN you could say it was all their fault. If the people vote their conscious, that percentage of Dems will rise in the next 4 years. The economy, war, questionable practices of this administration may have voters wanting new faces, instead of the same so-so candidates they’ve continued to vote for, even though they weren’t the best choice.
As Obama says, there is hope. But anyone with any sense at all can see that things can go badly quickly, yet it takes a long time to right those things. Try a little patience and stop expecting instant turnarounds. Ain’t gonna happen.
This is not an example of the stock market “tanking”.
http://allfinancialmatters.com/2008/02/11/looking-at-the-clinton-and-bush-presidencies-and-the-stock-market/
Paul, as usual you are incompetent and a liar.
RD
We had 52 consecutive months of improving employment numbers, up to the end of last year.
Ah, the usual bullshit from the right – we’re not in a recession – but if we are – it is the Democrat’s fault – it’s Congress’s fault – except when Republicans control the majority – it is the President’s fault – unless he is George W Bush then he has nothing to do with it.
And last and most importantly – it’s the media’s fault for not being a cheerleader for the Republicans!!!
Doug
Again, start with the fact that a President has very, very little to do with the Economy.
The President is a player, but the President comes in far behind several other factors.
Demographics played the primary role, in the economy, under Clinton.
The baby boomers entered their peak investment and spending years, due to entering their peak earning years.
Traditionally, those years are between ages 50 and 55.
Now, those folks are starting to hit retirement.
The economy was bound to have some changes, both positive and negative, due to simple demographics.
Now, added to the demographic issues, Clinton also benefited from the supply side tax cuts of Reagan. Rates were still much lower than they had been, under Jimmy Carter.
Add to this the technology boom, which was forcast in books like “Future Trends” and “Mega Trends” before Clinton was even in office.
The President represents one of the few variables, as far as economics goes, that any of us ever has any control over.
However, our control is minimal, and even if we get the President we want, that President is very limited as far as real economic power is concerned.
Clinton did not creat the hube “bubble” of Baby Boomers.
Clinton did not create the dot-com bubble, which was the primary driver of much of the stock market increase, under Clinton.
Clinton did not have anything to do with the economic policies of Ronald Reagan, but he did leave most of those policies in place.
(Clinton did reform welfare. Clinton did support Free Trade. I will give him credit for that.)
But, again, the presidential role in economics is vastly over stated.
They want everyone to think all the indicators must be in place before a recession can be a fact – THIS TIME!
But when the recession that OFFICIALLY began in March of 2001 when all the indicators were finally in place and bush was president — they want that one to be Clinton’s fault.
And they don’t even recognize they are seeing it differently depending on who is president. They must have their eyes crossed for luck that all those indicators don’t come together until after their hero is out of office. Hard to see clearly with your eyes crossed.
And who cares what they think, what they have convinced themselves of? It isn’t reality!
None so blind as those who refuse to see.
There will be a new direction. 289 days, 8 hours, 14 minutes till the adults take over.
If McCain and his national Republican associates take the stance of, “Recession? What’re you talking about? Everything’s fine,” then you can bet that this will be easier for Democrats than we even thought.
Or McCain saying, “The war’s fine. Don’t worry. No, it’s not affecting gas prices and driving up interest rates,” would help a lot as well.
Dig the poll. People already made their minds up about these issues. Denial will only make McCain seem even more sluggish and out of touch. I can only hope that he pursues such a course.
Bently,
You are oh, so right.
Paul,
I call BS. Talk to the people in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and the surrounding states. Ask them about unemployment. We still haven’t seen an overall increase after the horrible drop in 2001. And then we need to look at UNDERemployemt. McDonalds can only hire so many. Bush has had 7 years and we haven’t GAINED jobs. We’re still trying to catch up.
You all need to stop gauging everything on how YOU’RE doing. This isn’t about YOU, but about OUR country and everyone in it. Kansas and especially Wichita aren’t seeing much of the recession…yet, if in fact we do, which depends on how long it lasts and how widespread it becomes. Leave it to Dubya to make it last just long enough to blame it on the next administration. (Yes, Linda, you said it first. I’m only repeating it. :) )
The “Stimulus Package” was just a method to attempt to postpone the inevitable until Bush leaves office – then the recession/depression will set in.
Unfortunately, the Democrats bought into the plan.
The Decider will continue to be the Denier. What can be expected from someone who has done it all his life? Irresponsible. Is this what you want to see in your children?
The Crawford ranch is a JOKE. I have a friend who lives near there, and the people in Crawford are sick of their famous pResident. He’s already looking to move to Dallas, ASAP, but rest assured it won’t be until after he’s out of DC. Don’t want to lose that laughable cowboy image. The man is AFRAID OF HORSES. All hat and no cattle, that’s Dubya.
WS,
What do you expect? It’s an ELECTION YEAR, defined as the time they all get STUPID, if they weren’t before.
“What do you expect? It’s an ELECTION YEAR, defined as the time they all get STUPID, if they weren’t before.”
That is not true, RD, and you know it.
This is the time they all get STUPIDER, and the really stupid ones morph into James Inhofe.
Dumb, dumber, Republican from Oklahoma.
James Inhofe is a bump on the head away from being a geranium.
Econ,
You now say the recession isn’t Bushes fault, but I would bet a dollar to an empty shopping basket you were slamming Clinton for the early 2001 recession. Dumb!
Again, start with the fact that a President has very, very little to do with the Economy — Decon 101
Except when you cut taxes and unbalance the budget, plus commence an unpaid for war, weakening the dollar and bringing about inflation. And don’t give me that crapola about “core” inflation. I mean the things people buy, like food, gas, and health care; all up about 75 percent since punko took over. Salaries haven’t kept up; everyone maxed out their cards and mortgage, and now the piper must be paid.
The only way out this time is austerity and about a generation of sweat.
One Good Reason
Oil Behind Israel’s Iran Links
Richard Silverstein, The Guardian
If you’ve ever wondered about the definition of hypocrisy you’ll find the answer right here. Last month the Swiss foreign minister visited Iran and, together with President Ahmadinejad, attended the signing of a multibillion euro contract for Iran to supply Switzerland with large amounts of natural gas over the next 25 years.
The US State Department immediately condemned the deal. Israel complained too, describing the Swiss minister’s visit to Tehran as an “act unfriendly to Israel”. Various Jewish groups also joined in the protests.
This righteous indignation was entirely predictable but more than a little odd nevertheless. On March 30, the Swiss newspaper Sonntag retaliated with the revelation that Israel, supposedly observing an ironclad boycott of all things Iranian, has been buying Iranian oil for years.
The story is in German but Israeli journalist Shraga Elam has provided me with a translation which I’ll quote from here:
“Israel imports Iranian oil on a large scale even though contacts with Iran and purchasing of its products are officially boycotted by Israel. Israel gets around the boycott by having the oil delivered via Europe. A reliable Israeli energy newsletter, EnergiaNews, reported this last week (March 18) …
“EnergiaNews got the information about the Iran trade from sources with ties to the management of Israeli Oil Refineries Ltd … According to EnergiaNews the Iranian oil is liked in Israel because its quality is better than other crude oils.
“The report by EnergiaNews editor Moshe Shalev states that the Iranian oil reaches various European ports, mainly in Rotterdam. It is bought by Israelis and the necessary European bill of lading and insurance papers are supplied. Then it is transported to Haifa in Israel. The importer is the Eilat-Ashkelon Pipeline Co (EAPC), which keeps its oil sources secret.”
EAPC was established in 1968 as a joint Israeli-Iranian company to transport oil from Iran to Europe. After the fall of the Shah, Iran ceased to play an active role in its affairs and there are ongoing legal disputes between the two partners.
The Swiss report continued:
“It is not clear if the Iranian exporters know about Israeli purchases of their oil. At the other end, the Israeli buyers and governmental offices are well aware of where the high-grade oil comes from, although it is a blatant defiance of the boycott. The EnergiaNews article even made it through Israeli censorship, which asked only for some changes in the text. The fact that the report cleared the censors increases the credibility of the information. In the past, such reports were forbidden.
“When questioned by Sonntag, an energy expert of one of the leading Israeli papers confirmed the EnergiaNews report: Israel has been importing Iranian oil for many years. The expert stressed, however, that the purchases were made on the free market and not directly from Iran.”
Sonntag quoted a spokesman for Oil Refineries Ltd as denying that his company imports and processes Iranian oil. However, Sonntag pointed to a report in Haaretz newspaper last October which said that an Israeli energy company called Paz would be refining Iranian oil and supplying it to the Palestinian Authority from the start of this year.
This begs the question: If Iran is, as Bibi Netanyahu argues, an existential threat to Israel, why does the government allow such trade? Would Israel have the US attack Iran’s nuclear program and provoke a potential regionwide conflict while it cannot seem to wean itself from high quality Iranian crude? You’d think if Israelis are cowering in fear from an Iranian bomb and the arch anti-Semite Ahmadinejad, they wouldn’t want to trade with such an enemy. When is a boycott not a boycott? If Israel doesn’t honor its self-declared boycott of Iran, why should the rest of the world honor its boycott of Hamas and Gaza? If Israel doesn’t honor its own boycott, then why should members of Congress vote with AIPAC when it proposes a measure that even Israel honors only in the breach?
It’s interesting to note from a discussion (in Hebrew) on the Kedma website that Israel does not formally define Iran as an “enemy nation” and therefore in a strictly legal sense such trade is permissible. Ironically, Iran too has a boycott against Israel in place and is violating its own measures in that regard. Furthermore, the same commenter notes that Israel last week dismissed attempts to engage Syria in a diplomatic process as a failure because Syria refuses to renounce its ties with Iran. Do I hear the word “hypocrisy”?
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7§ion=0&article=108602&d=5&m=4&y=2008&pix=opinion.jpg&category=Opinion
DOUG, that is a little too simplistic, Kansas is for the most part primarily a mixture of Republican and Conservatives. It make not make sense to those of us whom watch, listen and pay attention to the minute details. But for them it is still party and what ever they hear on the two second sound bite. Plus the has-been concept of what the Republican party use to stand for. I chuckle when ever I hear some Republican talking about how fiscally conservative the Republican party is and how the Democrats are the tax and spender. It like they have been sleeping through the last 17 years!
But it is not a wanted desire or open choice, they simply are clueless as to the out come and still see that the best hope it the current Republican party. This mean there are several possible futures for Kansas:
One could be that the Republican party continues its current course, this would end with Kansas moving more Democratic.
Two would be that the party does change and once again be the purse holders and more in line with the Lincoln Republicans. The three would be that Kansas is turned purple, where it is not the party but the people that matters. A balance of fiscal responsibility and social awareness.
ICTBest writes I’m a life long Democrat and I’m starting to question . . .
You’re not a life long Democrat — you’re a POS lying troll.
But thank you for playing . . .
*****
JustWondering looks at eight years of massive job growth, increasing wages for the middle class, falling percentage in poverty, and all-time stock highes and says Look at that Clinton recession.
Dear Lord,
Please send us another Clinton recession very soon.
Amen.
America
Econ keeps pounding the “baby boomers are retiring” as his meme d’jour to explain Worst. President. Ever’s. economic disaster for our country.
Let’s do the math, shall we.
WWII ended in 1945.
1945 + 65 years to retirement = 2010
The very first baby boomers won’t start retiring until two years from now.
Obviously that has nothing to do with the past seven years.
Better stick to writing those life-insurance policies, Econ.
I pity the fool that listens to your financial forecasts . . .
Capn – I’m one of those baby boomers Paul blames for economic woes – also a group targeted by certain insurance-based investment scams. Interesting …