CNN poll: Should Bush get credit for economic upsurge?

[grasswire]

http://www.cnn.com/

Lower right corner of the page

[markus]

1. Still a fair fight at 44 Yes / 56 No

The Freeperizers must all be busy working on their Spam-O-Matic toolkits.

Can anyone point me back to sources (cited hear several weeks back) about GDP growth in the Great Depression (which was also stellar).

[Brotherjohn]

6. Yes, as I point out below, when the economy's this poor...

... it's easy to speed it up. All one has to do is, say, sign a $400B Defense Budget, for example.

[CWebster]

2. What economic upsurege?

Is that an option?

[gWbush is Mabus]

3. my thoughts exactly

[Donna Zen]

5. The increase debt

now showing up in the economy as "growth."

[Zero Gravitas]

15. just what I was about to say

An economic upsurge means little unless it generates decent jobs, which it is not.

[Brotherjohn]

4. Why? He didn't give Clinton credit for the good economic times...

...from 1992-2000. Remember? It was all due to Reagan and Poppy! Well, that stuff predated Clinton by anywhere from 1 to 12 years, so shouldn't anything Bush "accomplishes" during his first term (or even, God forbid, his second) be credited to Clinton? I mean, that's according to Bush logic.

Seriously, though, when you've driven the economy into the pits during your first two years, it has nowhere to GO but up. When it was up consistently during Clinton's term, it really couldn't go up much more, and certainly not at the current growth rates (remember all the worry about the economy "overheating"?). But when it's very depressed, simply regaining some of what was lost would require fast growth rates. Plus, the business & investment opportunities become cheaper and more available, so faster growth rates are more easily achieved.

[Scott Lee]

7. And remember, Poppy presided over a recession.

And they can't blame that one on a preceding Dem president because Reagan was the predescesor.

Dear me, they've cornered themselves.

[Gin]

9. What planet are we on????? CNN says 98% percent of people have

more confidence in the economy. They must have polled folks who build war weapons. If there is a true upsurge, it's the war spending.

[Howardx]

12. agreed

all i heard when it was bad was how little the president effects the economy

[Dr Fate]

8. Call me back when my rent , bills and expenses are cheaper...

...call me back when I get a raise in pay and benifits.

I see no economic upturn in my personal life- and Bush/media cant spin that away...

[Cocoa]

10. more fair to give credit to Rove

or to the ex-Andersen accountants who are now doing the books for the U.S.

[LeahMira]

13. Anyone see "Wall Street" the film?

... the ex-Andersen accountants who are now doing the books for the U.S.

The folks who pull Bush's strings are wealthy enough to put a bit of money in when needed to make him look good and then to take it out again when we all have "learned" that things are getting better.

[sandnsea]

11. Presidents don't create economies

Isn't that the way it's told?

[hatrack]

14. Why is CNN bothering to poll on the question?

After all, their stable of perky mumbling heads are all going to go out of their way to give Chimpy the credit anyway.

What's the frickin' point?

[okieinpain]

16. I say yes, so when the economy takes a dip in the next qtr

he can take responsiblity for it also. it's about time they got off clintons back, so I say let him take the reins finally.

[Think Globally]

17. What if it doesn't take a dip next quarter?

Giving Bush credit for the economy could get him reelected! It would be like admiting that tax cuts work! Forget it, it's just a recovery for the rich anyway, and the rest of us know better.

[Cocoa]

18. the "recovery" is already 18 months late

I don't believe it's here, or coming soon, but even if it does, they were saying the unemployment rate was supposed to peak in summer 2002.

[TacticalPeek]

19. Still 44% yes - 75614 votes

[ProfessorGAC]

20. THERE IS NO UPTURN!!!!

People are stupid. That's my explanation for the poll.

You can search DU for many posts in which i explain why there is no upturn, and why we're still in recession. I won't belabor it here.
The Professor

[Frodo]

25. Professor. I found you!

Care to take up our last conversation about how the GDP figures would definitely be revised DOWNWARD? I know you dropped the conversation right after I gave you some links and I was wondering if you had any new thoughts on the matter?

If there's more than one professor on the board I apologize.

[ProfessorGAC]

27. That Was Me!

The most recent figures i have from Dept of Commerce and Treasury show the number at 1.59% for Q3. That is an annualized 6.513% growth.

That's lower than what was reported.

I don't know a SINGLE economist personally (and i belong to the Economics Club of Chicago), that agrees with the number that was reported by the hyperventilating press.

Now, mind you, i am a member of the school of economics that believes that the definitions used by the other school, are inappropriately immutable. I think the conclusions should be based upon the findings of causative models and that changes, good or bad, need to statistically significant, based upon the past n quarters. There are lots of us who do it this way. Unfortunately, they don't ask those guys at Rand & Cato, and the other think tanks. They ask the guys who are using archaic approaches to economic monitoring and understanding, because they give them the answers the powers that be want to hear.

I will not get into further debate with you on this matter. My background and credentials are beyond reproach. I don't need to read any more links about what other economists have to say, because if i want to know, i can make phone calls directly. Or, better yet, they can call me and ask what i think.
The Professor

[Frodo]

29. Oh and you were off to such a good start. Then whammo!

Back to the "my credentials are above reproach". Credentials do not guarantee correctness professor, just that you can be wrong in an intellectually credible way. The people you disagree with also have advanced degrees and teach in major learning centers.

The argument was over the statistical likelihood that the GDP growth figure would be revised downward a month later. You based your argument on too small a data set and I pointed out that the entire set fell within an economic downturn. I asked you to re-do the analysis taking a longer time-frame into account. You gave me the same "do you KNOW who you are talking to?" blather.

Then I posted information from the source of the revisions showing that every category of revision (over a dozen) was historically more likely to be revised upward than downward. No response.

I now point out that, in fact, the number WAS revised upward (and outside the statistical norm for revisions) and you want to compare it to a DIFFERENT number? Can I bring in different data sets to prove my conclusions in your class professor? Can I say "well THIS number went up, forget what you put on the question"?

I wouldn't "go any further in the debate" with me either. I also try to avoid discussions that make me look foolish. But then, I don't go trumpeting my credentials as if they win the argument sans facts, so I can just say "whoops, looks like I was wrong" when I make a mistake. But I CAN work a calculator.

On edit - typos.

[Frodo]

32. Oh, and I'm afraid I can't resist one more jab.

Wouldn't 1.59% be annualized to 6.36% or 6.308% depending on how you run it? But hey... I was in the chess club... not the "Economics Club of Chicago" (which I'm pretty sure "just missed" the Nobel nominating committee level last year).

[KansDem]

21. "Yes" 44% 33915 votes ; "No" 56% 43624 votes (n/t)

[Jacobin]

22. Better Q: "Should CNN get credit for giving credit to * for illusory

economic improvement?"

I'd vote "yes" on that one.

[Ksec]

23. I say yes. Then he has to take credit for the fall coming soon

Giant deficits will wreak havoc on this economy soon

[Nederland]

24. No he shouldn't

Presidents shouldn't get credit for good economies and Presidents shouldn't get blame for bad economies. They are not even close to having significant power over economic performance. They are merely useful symbols for ignorant people too lazy to understand what really drives economic conditions.

[ACK]

26. 56% no

People are as stupid and useless as I thought.

[zinsky]

28. Absolutely Not! Thank Alan Greenspan.....

As I posted here earlier, Alan Greenspan has had his foot to the floor on the gas pedal of the economy, since the Usurper seized power. During the Clinton years, he had his foot on the brake the whole time, and he still couldn't slow Bill down.

Hell, interest rates are so ridiculously low that banks are practically paying you to borrow money! In fact, they are far too low, given the inflationary pressures we are seeing in energy, food and other products. Never forget that Greenspan is a dyed-in-the-wool Republican, despite that nonsense about the Fed being nonpartisan. It's a testament to how bad Dubya and Cheney have f*cked up the economy, that it took three years of intense monetary stimulus to even get the speedometer off zero!

No, it wasn't dipshit's tax cuts, most of which haven't even gone into effect yet, that got the economy moving. It was Greenspan.

Keep in mind there is healthy growth and there is cancerous growth. What you are seeing now is the latter, since we are essentially, "eating the seed corn"!!!

[randr]

30. Enron Accounting

I find it hard to believe anything that is coming out of any government office. I think we should just assume the numbers are as crooked as the reasons to go to war.

[newyawker99]

31. Hi randr!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[opihimoimoi]

33. 57 no 43 yes

The NOs have it

whatever surge there is, comes off the backs of our kids via the deficit spending/borrowing by the Bush Admins. Our kids will be paying the bill for the spending Bush is doing now. Its a smokescreen and 43% of the sheep out there are blind to it.

[Pastiche423]

34. Do you credit the Bush administration for the recent economic surge?

As of 4:35 PST

Yes 43% 58038 votes

No 57% 76548 votes

Total: 134586 votes