GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

Bush Economy Steams Into Full Throttle

by

Interesting…. the Dow Jones average is flirting with 11,000 for the first time since the 9/11 attacks…

Wal-Mart is reporting two million shoppers in the first hour of “Black Friday” today…

And energy prices are on a steep decline since the highs of the media-hysterical, post-Katrina days…

If Bill Clinton or John Kerry were President, the CBS Evening News would change their theme music to “Happy Days Are Here Again” and CNN would have 24-hour live team coverage of the booming economy from every corner of the nation.

Here is the front page of the CBS Evening News homepage. You be the judge of double-standards.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Comments

  1. Oh, for heaven’s sake, let’s get some comments going for this boy, who’s writing his little partisan heart out here with no one paying attention. So here goes (and you can thank me later GP):

    GayPatriot’s feeble attempt to inject some success into the Bush legacy makes me titter, but also leads me to remember the previous President and his extraordinary stewardship of the economy. Did you know that during the Clinton Presidency, unemployment dropped from 7.5% to 4%, the Dow Jones Industrial Average of stocks rose from 3,200 points to over 10,000, and the federal budget rose from a quarter-trillion-dollar deficit to a surplus nearly that large? All this despite a constant torrent of partisan attacks (joined no doubt by GayPatriot) and an impeachment and failed partisan attempt at conviction.

    By comparison, we are now saddled with The Worst President Ever, who has completely reverse economic numbers to those posted by Mr. Clinton and who in addition, has managed to destroy the country’s international reputation and lied us into a war and occupation of a country that posed no known threat to us (resulting in over 17,000 total American casualties and the loss of unknown tens of thousands of Iraqi lives — and more than a few bruised Chickenhawk egos).

    Maybe that growing record of incompetence, deceit, and failure by The Worst President Ever is why no one other than GayPatriot is getting excited at the annual news stories about Black Friday shoppers.

  2. I have a lot of problems with George W. Bush and his Administration — and disagree with him more than I agree with him — but the economy is booming. If it was fair for Kerry et al to blame him for sluggish times after 9/11 and the start-up of the war, it’s only right that he get credit for a boom.

    Our local economy never did hit the skids, which may explain why Bush got 71 percent of the vote in ’04, and now that gasoline is closer to $1.90 than $2 it’s a bitch to find parking spots in the retail lots.

  3. What policies of the Clinton administration, during his “extraordinary stewardship of the economy”, led to lower unemployment, a rise in the stockmarket and a federal budget surplus?

  4. #1

    Hoo boy! Talk about deceit? Mary you can’t even be honest with yourself if your life depended on it.

    Yeah. Some hillbilly ass clown claiming the Reagan/Bush economy as his own and then driving it into a recession while he’s pocketing millions from the Chi-Comms. Only a worthless liberal would call that a “steward of the economy”. Only a liberal would defend a worthless SOB with a long history of abusing and raping women.
    Failure? The guy who won two consecutive elections is a failure while one clown couldn’t cheat his way into the White House and the other couldn’t have it bought for him by George Soros are winners? What kind of miserable liar believes this crap?

  5. P.S.

    (resulting in over 17,000 total American casualties and the loss of unknown tens of thousands of Iraqi lives

    Really? Is that anything like the 2 million, then 3 million, then 6 million, then 4 million people that were supposed to be without jobs? You liberals suck at numbers. You just can’t stick to one lie. Ask you tomorrow and it’ll be millions of Americans and billions of Iraqis.

    Besides, since when do liberals give a good damn about American soldier’s lives? Listening to the liberal rhetoric, it brings you joy and orgasms to hear of soldiers dying.

  6. Oh yeah the great Clinton economy…the stock market boom where everyone got on board to invest in overhyped .coms only to lose it all when the bubble burst.

    Jobs? Here in NYC between 1996-1999 thousands of bogus .coms opened up million $ businesses, jacked-up the price of real estate (imagine paying $450,000 for a 700 sq ft apt), the stock market and everything else, only to build worthless companies, end up bankrupt and jobless.

    Some ecomony that was, all image but no substance.

    The recession began in 1999 when solid companies began laying off employees but somehow it’s Bush’s fault. Don’t forget Enron cooked- the-books while Clinton was in office.

    Unlike the unreal economy during the latter part of the 1990’s, this market is built upon reality.

  9. But Bruce, One expects a good economy from a Rep president. It’s not news. Conversely, one expects a bad economy from a Dem, so that was news, sorta. Well, toward the end of Billl’s reign the MSM had to hype it a little. Again, nothing new there. But, no matter what they are told, people seem to have a pretty good idea when they can spend or not. Early indications are that the people think it’s a good time to spend. State governments somehow seem to be awash with money, also.

  10. 9: I don’t think so. Looking back the years of Reagan/Bush we know that people were partying on a government credit card and it took years well into the 90s to repay. That was done with cooperation of Republicans and Democrats, by the way. Republcians espouse fiscal conservatism, but the truth is that they’re not exactly spend-thrifts. Under the current Bush and the republican led congress, we are now saddled with more government debt than ever in our history. Government spending has increased exponentially, yet taxes are being cut further and further and mostly for those who are the biggest share. If the money coming in isn’t enough to cover the money going out, then we’re amassing a huge credit card bill. Who’ll end up paying for it all?

  11. and mostly for those who are the biggest share.

    S.O.B! You mean the people who pay the most are getting the biggest share??? Why that’s a travesty. It should be the people who pay the least who benefit the most from tax cuts, right?

    The rich liberals are still paying their full taxes, right? Even on the stuff that they have set up in offshore accounts?

  13. Actually my grammar was incorrect in that one….should have been “those who are able to pay the bigger share, because they make more money”. The richer someone is, the more resources they have at their disposal (ie well paid tax accountants) to take advantage of shelters, loopholes, trusts, corporations, etc so they pay less in taxes. That’s just a simple fact of capitalism that’s gone on for years. What’s troubling is that these tax cuts have been coupled all these increases in spending. Just doesn’t make any sense.

  14. #10
    This is the second post I’ve read of yours regarding the National Debt. Your chicken little comments show a lack of understanding of the bigger picture. The amount of the debt is important but it is only half the equation. You must compare total debt to total GDP. It’s the difference between saying I owe $10,000 on credit cards and make $50,000 a year and saying I owe $20,000 on credit cards but make $200,000 a year. You leave out the very important income side of the equation. Here is great site that explains it better.

    #14
    So you think the rich pay less in taxes. Why is it then that the top 1% of taxpayers pay over 1/3 of the of the total federal tax burden. Obviously all those tax accountants aren’t doing them much good. There is a large percentage of Americans who pay no tax at all and still get a refund when they file through the Earned Income Credit. If you are saying they pay less as a percentage of total income, I’m more than willing to debate the “fairness” of progessivity in taxation.

  17. 16: Is it possible you could make a comment on here without name-calling? So, why don’t you explain how we’re supposed to get out of this budget mess if we continue on this course. Then again, maybe a Democratic President will be at the helm to fix it like last time.

  18. Easy. We keep spending money on things that help make money, like our transportation infrastructure, and help defend money, like our national defense. We stop using money to manipulate those who refuse to work and to facilitate class warfare, like the Democrats want. End result….the economy grows.

    One must always remember that Democrats, by and large, inherited their wealth from others; Republicans earned it. Thus, Republicans know that one can make money through wise investment and business growth; Democrats think one gets money only through stealing it from others.

  19. Didn’t you all know that everything bad is Bush’s fault while credit for anything good – including a white hot economy – goes to the Democrats? Dear Lord! Didn’t you get that Memo???

  20. #17

    Is it possible you could make a comment on here without name-calling?

    I just calls ’em as I sees ’em. How long did you cry over it before you got the nerve to reply?

    So, why don’t you explain how we’re supposed to get out of this budget mess if we continue on this course.

    Well, for one, you could support folks like Rep. Pence who are working to cut a lot of the pork, then again, that’s like holding up a cross to a vampire. Or a liberal in this case.

    Then again, maybe a Democratic President will be at the helm to fix it like last time.

    See. You fit the mindless tool label perfectly. A liberal president didn’t “fix it like last time”. The last liberal president screwed it up, just like everything else he touched, last time. Claiming credit for a recovering economy, inflating it based on .coms and then flushing it down the toilet for the next guy is NOT “fixing it”.

    Perhaps if you came out of your hiding place, you’d be able to grasp reality. Maybe. I promise. You won’t be seized and placed in a gay death camp. Then again, MorOn.org might dispatch Michael Moore to your house to kick you until your dead for daring to take your lips off of their tit.

    BTW, is it possible you could make a comment on here and be able to back it up for a change?

  21. Ok…here ya go: Stop making comments that you consistently blame on liberals when conservatives share the blame too. A perfect example is the transportation spending bill passed in August and contatining huge amounts of pork, inserted by Republicans and Democrats alike:

    http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/08/04/the_republican_pork_barrel/

    Links in the article go to the line items for each state. My favorite is the mile-long bridge that would serve 50 people and cost $223M.

  22. 18: Uh…yeah. so by your equation of inheritance=theft, then family owned businesses passed on to family members are only a form of theft? Come on, where exactly are the figures that show wealthy democrats mainly inherit money and republicans mainly make the money on their own? Does that mean that wealthy republicans are therefore breeding democrats to whom they leave their money? On the other hand, didn’t GWB get most of his money money via family trusts? The guy was never a great shake at business on his own.

  23. 18: Uh…yeah. so by your equation of inheritance=theft, then family owned businesses passed on to family members are only a form of theft?

    Of course, Kevin. Why else do you and your fellow Democrats demand that these inheritances or bequests be taxed so heavily?

    Come on, where exactly are the figures that show wealthy democrats mainly inherit money and republicans mainly make the money on their own?

    John Kerry. Teddy Kennedy. Nancy Pelosi. Mark Dayton. Care to tell me from where their money comes? What companies have they headed, or businesses have they worked for?

    Does that mean that wealthy republicans are therefore breeding democrats to whom they leave their money?

    If those Republicans are careless enough to give their children a sense of entitlement, of course. However, it rarely if ever falls that way.

  24. Errr….Beg to differ.

    The Rockefellers – a wealthy Republican MADE his money (in the best, most legitimate sense – see here, and also here); then left it to increasingly liberal generations of politicians, the most recent ones being outright loony Democrats.

  25. #22 & 23

    Let’s not forget that Kerry benefitted from a former rich wife and is now benefitting off the wife of a dead Republican.

    The guy was never a great shake at business on his own.

    I’d like to see just one liberal tool back that up without the worn out lies.
    I DARE you, Kevin.

  26. Really, Sally? You mean the SEC, which is part of the executive branch of government, wasn’t able to investigate? The President CAN order them to do that, you know. Or maybe all the money flowing into Democratic coffers from Enron, WorldCom, Global Crossing, and the like blinded them?

    Meanwhile, while I enjoy manipulations created by Democrats, what you conveniently overlook is the assumption used in your link that Presidents are responsible for economic conditions 3- 5 years after they leave office. That lie allows Democrats like you to ditch Carter’s abysmal economic performance, but is exposed when you try to blame the Clinton-created recession on Bush. Furthermore, if you were to apply that rule to Clinton, the first President Bush would then be responsible for the economic expansion under Clinton all the way through 1997.

    Also, the selectiveness of your information is blatantly obvious even on the first thing cited.Why was Democrat Harry Truman excluded, even though the cited data source was for all postwar Presidents? Because his numbers dragged Democrats down and ruined the preconceived judgment that Democrats were better than Republicans.

  27. #27

    If I may add, you have to spend money to recupe from liberals in office. For example, repairing a vandalized White House, raises for the military, funding for the military so they can (at the very least) have bullets that they couldn’t afford previously, etc.

    Oh, and cleaning up after the lib’s buddies al-Qaeda comes to town ain’t cheap either.

  29. Comment 26 – Enron comment –

    There are so many things wrong with that one comment, it’s hard to know where to start.

    – PAUL KRUGMAN of the New York Times was a key adviser to Enron, and several Democratic politicians were in bed with Enron. Is that a good place to start?

    – Enron’s philosophy of “If we create a ‘narrative’ that we are good, and simply get the world on board with it, that will make it true, because narrative is reality” is an example of Post Modern philosophy as taught by today’s Left-dominated universities. There. Moving right along.

    But there are still several more things wrong. Oops, this could take awhile.

    The way Capitalism (or a free-market, de-regulated economy) is supposed to work, is this: People vote with their dollars – in the stock market, as in anything else – and thus punish bad companies. The market itself imposes regulation.

    Did it happen in Enron’s case? YES.

    Remember, Enron’s shenanigans were discovered and exposed by analysts in the market – Not by government. And the stock went from $92 to under $1, as the shenanigans were exposed. Now that’s punishment.

    So, the market did the job. The SEC investigates stuff after the fact. Government almost never detects or exposes a Worldcom or Enron.

    But the larger point is: Capitalism does NOT promise that there will be no bad companies, or for that matter, no bad people – no criminals. The idea that “Well the existence of 4-5 bad companies like Enron or Worldcom, out of thousands, proves that Capitalism is a failure” is fatuous Leftism.

    OK, well, was Enron punished by the market fast enough? Arguably yes. Arguably no. (i.e., it’s arguable) The key concept to understand here, though, is that government regulation drives out self-regulation.

    In other words, the more heavily government regulates how companies conduct themselves, the more “relaxed” investors and analysts are about bad companies – the less vigilant they are – it’s just part of human nature – and the longer it takes for the badness to be exposed.

    The net tragedy is that government regulation delays, not hastens, the market’s discovery / exposure of Worldcoms and Enrons. Enron would have been exposed (by the market, again – Government had nothing to do with it) that much faster in Singapore, a less regulated, more free-wheeling Capitalist economy.

    Now let’s look at WHY Enron, etc. engaged in the behavior they did.

    Everything Enron did (that was fraudulent or illegitimate in some way) had to do with trying to game a complicated, punishing tax code. That should be an important clue for you.

    Another aspect of how Capitalism is supposed to work, is that companies are supposed to be “free to be good” – not taxed to death on everything they create, produce, or do. Heavy, complicated taxes provide the overwhelming financial incentives that sooner or later create an Enron.

    Yet we are told – by comment 26, by Sarbanes-Oxley, etc. – that more government control and interference in companies is somehow the answer!

    It’s like, Hey America – are you suffering from heroin? Have more heroin. Suffering from poison? Here is more of the poison. That’ll fix yer.

    So, to summarize:

    (1) Government action – accumulated layers of regulation and taxation – created Enron (i.e., drove ambitious, but philosophically weak people to do what they did there).

    (2) Government regulation, if anything, served to delay the market’s discovery, exposure and punishment of Enron.

    (3) Yet the market still discovered, exposed and punished Enron anyway, while Government did nothing.

    (4) Yet we now are told that we must “prevent” future Enrons with MORE government regulation.

    Such is the world we live in. Such is the crazy, frequently monstrous world the Left has made.