Economic Policy
Mood:
spacey
Now Playing: John McCain's speech (re-run on C-Span)
Topic: Economy
Ben also seems to think that I am trying to evade responsibility (or helping Dubya evade responsibility for a poor economy).
Does any one
really think that the problems of the 70's and early 80's were the result of the party who controlled the presidency and Congress? Both parties had the presidency at one time. The Democrats controlled Congress. Certainly some of the policies hindered economic growth, but usually it was outside events (gas price hikes a couple of times) that were the main impetus.
Does anyone
really think that it mattered who was President or which party controlled Congress that accounted for the 90's boom? Clinton was President for most of it, but it started during Bush I, and the Republicans controlled at least one house of Congress during that time.
Does any one
really think the events of 9/11 had nothing to do with the last recession? It started two months after Bush took office--is he responsible? Really? Again according to the non-partisan
National Bureau of Economic Research, the latest recession started in March, 2001 and bottomed out in November, 2001. And according to the traditional definition of a recession (two consecutive quarters of falling GDP),
there was no recession. The definitions aren't mine, so don't beat me up over it. Show me something more logical.
I think we are in the process of beginning another recession, the economy being impacted once again by a spike in gas prices. I think we are already seeing it by less than stellar job numbers among other indicators that are not as robust as they should be. Is this Bush's fault also?
Now are there things governments can do to cause recessions? I think so. Poor monetary policy among other things. Are there things governments can do to influence growth? Yes, Reagan's tax cuts are a good example.
But overall, I think the influence of a President or Congress doesn't do as much as events.
Posted by Dean
at 11:28 PM CDT