Even if the economy is good, here's how you hit Bush.

[Zynx]

I personally don't think the economy will be on a path to sustainable improvement for some time to come, but there will be patches, like the third quarter, where it appears to be doing well. However, I think in this quarter growth will be in the 2-3% area and hardly anything to crow about.

That being said, I have been attempting to figure out a way to hammer Bush over the economy because there is plenty to hammer him about, and sure enough Howard Dean provides a method for taking Bush on even if the economy shows signs of improvement that people seem to believe in. This is from the Dean blog:
----------------------

Ankeny, Iowa--Governor Dean issued the following statement today:

"This administration has compiled the worst economic record since the Great Depression and it is going to take more than one quarter of growth to dig the country out of this hole. This administration can revise the numbers, but they can't hide the fact that three million Americans who lost their jobs under this administration are still out of work. We won't have recovered economically until each one of those people has a job again.

"Furthermore, this growth is built on a foundation of reckless and irresponsible tax cuts and record-setting levels of debt. This president's approach is the equivalent of mortgaging your house to get spending money for the weekend. Unfortunately, the Bush administration’s fiscally irresponsible house of cards upon which this ‘growth’ is built cannot continue forever."
-----------------------------

Basically the argument to be made is that anyone could produce growth by using deficit spending as much as Bush has. The issue is that we aren't getting much bang for the buck out of his "stimulus". By most economic models give 4% of GDP growth in government spending since 2001 and 2% of GDP in tax cuts along with massive monetary stimulus from the federal reserve, we should be averaging near double digit growth.

Feel free to find comments from other candidates along the same lines if they have made roughly the same statement. I'm sure some have.

Do you guys think this is a good method for taking Bush on or not?

[Eric J in MN]

1. No hot checks argument. Ineffective.

No hot checks argument. Dukakis and Bentsen tried that in 1988 and it failed.

Criticize the jobs going overseas. Criticze H1B tech-worker visas. That's what people care about. Maybe they should care about the deficit too, but most don't.

[Zynx]

2. However, in 1988 Reagan had a huge net gain of jobs.

Bush doesn't.

[Liberal_Andy]

3. Yes, Zynx! Sound arguments!

"Growth through deficit spending." That's gold.

As long as we're going to deficit spend, why not use the money for much needed public works projects and create some jobs while we're at it?

LA

[Zynx]

5. Not only deficit spending. HUGE deficit spending.

I truly believe that at the very least we can neutralize the economy as an issue for Bush if it is strong. If it is only growing an average of 2 or 3% then this argument is even better.

[incapsulated]

4. The problem is..

People generally don't pay attention to the deficit unless the economy is bad. If there is a turnaround that continues through the election, I don't think the deficit will play that well. People will be grateful just to be doing better, if they are, and won't want to hear about gloom and doom in their future.

However, even with a turnaround, there is no way that all the jobs that were lost are going to be replaced. A lot of manufacturing jobs, jobs that entire communities depended on and can't replace, are not coming back. If they regain employment, it will likely be for a lower salary and less benefits. Jobs in general lag behind any recovery and it has only been very recently that they have shown the slightest of upturns.

That said, I think the war will be the number one issue for the eventual nominee, regardless. I think things are going to look a whole lot worse six to ten months from now in Iraq.

[Zynx]

8. I should have been clear. He will have job losses with massive deficits.

That's the difference between him and Reagan.

[sandnsea]

6. Trickle down economics is dead

I read where he said that at some gathering or other. Yeah!!!

How we hit Bush? We just say, Remember the eighties? That's what you say to anybody over 40 and if they say Reagan was great, rah, rah, say "Remember the national debt clock? Remember 7-9% unemployment? Remember the 1987 stock market crash? Here we go again!"

[quinnox]

7. This is not the right message

Too complicated. Edwards has the best message of all the candidates to take on Bush, wealth vs. work.

[Zynx]

9. This is not that complicated. However, wealth vs. work is a good message

too. We should find some way to get the best arguments on the economy together for a coherent and blistering attack.

[Liberal_Andy]

10. Edwards is the anti-bush

That's the most attractive part of his message. Still more hawkish than I like, but he wants SC bad.

[NewJeffCT]

11. I think

We can hit Bush on the environment... expose all his nicely named programs that really just promote pollution and desecration of our lands.

[Nederland]

12. Wrong message

This administration has compiled the worst economic record since the Great Depression

This is a blatant falsehood and an insult to anyone who suffered through the Reagan recession of 1980-83. Unemployment hit 10.8% then, nearly twice what it is now. You don't get people to vote for you by lying to them. I agree with the above poster that Edwards has the right message. Its all about wealth versus work.

[Julien Sorel]

13. From Walter Mondale's

acceptance speech for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1984:

First, there was Mr. Reagan's tax program. What happened was, he gave each of his rich friends enough tax relief to buy a Rolls Royce - and then he asked your family to pay for the hub caps.
Then they crimped our future. They let us be routed in international competition, and now the help-wanted ads are full of listings for executives, and for dishwashers - but not much in between.
Here is the truth about the future: We are living on borrowed money and borrowed time. These deficits hike interest rates, clobber exports, stunt investment, kill jobs, undermine growth, cheat our kids, and shrink our future.
To the corporations and freeloaders who play the loopholes or pay no taxes, my message is: Your free ride is over.

To the Congress, my message is: We must cut spending and pay as we go. If you don't hold the line, I will: That's what the veto is for.
When the American economy leads the world, the jobs are here, the prosperity is here for our children. But that's not what's happening today. This is the worst trade year in American history. Three million of our best jobs have gone overseas.



http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/conventions/chicago/facts/famous.speeches/mondale.84.shtml

Read the whole thing. Substitute 'Bush' for 'Reagan,' make the necessary cosmetic changes, for example, the war on terror is now analogous to the Soviet 'threat' of 1984, and that speech, which is pretty good for what it is, might as well have been written yesterday. The anti-deficit, anti-globalization, anti-corporate trinity is there. Hey, Fritz is still around, maybe we should bring him back, too. Dean/Mondale?

[tritsofme]

18. Tell me what exactly happened in 1984?

If the message didnt work then, why is going to work now?

[the_real_38]

14. The economy is not good....

... one small group of people is getting richer faster than the rest of us are getting poorer.

And productivity is growing too rapidly too create significant job growth.

and foreign purchase of securities is dropping like a stone - a rise in long-term interest rates is iminent.

[alcuno]

15. Special Interests

I watched a Frank Luntz focus group and that's the thing that got them. This administration is awash in special interests.

[the_real_38]

16. I saw that...

... it looked like the way to go. The Republicans have always suffered historically when they've been tied to big business interests.

[Pompitous_Of_Love]

17. Time will tell

Right now, every financial journalist and federal economic statistic is pumping out 100% happy crappy about the nation's economy. You'll notice that this comes in advance of our annual celebration of conspicuous consumption. There will be sobering "re-adjustments" of the stats after the New Year.