| REVIEWER | RATING & REVIEW |
 | mike44 (0)
08/29/2005 | at this rate next year we will all live in caves and revert to a new economic policy reffered to as Barter
(0 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | Mr Evangel (5)
05/17/2005 | The only person that mismanaged the economy was Clinton and President Bush got stuck cleaning it up.
(1 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | MariusQelDroma (35)
12/19/2004 | Sorry, but I lost my job to Dubya's economics. Couldn't shake that fact from my mind when I went to the polls. At this point, it's all academic now. Hoping the majority had the right idea....
(1 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | TeachMeLove (0)
12/19/2004 | Perceived masculine strength in a president is much more important than his perceived depth of understanding relevant issues, in the eyes of voters. This is why Bush was marketed as the man who sticks to his guns. The only time this strategy was vulnerable was after the first presidential debate of 2004, where Bush came across as unsure of himself and unable to handle having his policies attacked. Democrats who harped on Bush's failures to broadly understand issues were simply spinning their wheels to voters that would hate voting some into office, whose IQ is too far removed from their own. If Dems shifted all their energy painting Bush as a short little monkey who can't make a single decision on his own, they would have made far more headway. The messaage should not have been Bush made the wrong decisions, it should have been I can plug the holes of weakness during this war, make our homeland stronger, and here's how.
(2 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
| sfalconer (21)
09/17/2004 | I think circumstances have more to do with our current economic issues then the Presidents policy and management of the economy. If Clinton had done something about Bin Ladden and Iraq in his 8 useless years may be things would not be the way they are. Clinton had numerous opportunities to take Bin Ladden and blew them all.
(3 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | CapAnson (1)
09/17/2004 | And yet unemployment is lower than is was under Clinton, the stock market is almost fully recovered from 9/11, and the only real reason we're not running surpluses are Bush's expansion of government (hint hint for a real issue), and the cost of the war. If 95% of people have jobs... sorry folks this issue won't fly.
(3 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | ronin (0)
09/06/2004 | I think the state of the economy speaks for itself-we are not better off now than we were four years ago. As someone else pointed out-we had a surplus and now a deficit.
(2 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | capri77 (0)
09/01/2004 | The stock market peaked over 11,000 in Clintons last year of office. It was steady around 10,900 when Bush took office. 9/11 took alot of that away, but look at the market, it's where it's at say around 1999, occasionally dipping in the 9,000's.
Outsourcing is a big problem, and the Bush Adminstration doesn't think it's a problem, they think it's great.
We went from a surplus to a deficit with no end in sight.
And who are getting these jobs? Not people where I work, who are far from lazy, bust their butts to find employment but come up empty, I guess you have to have connections.
If filing for Unemployment is down, it's because people have given up.
(1 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | scarletfeather (49)
08/27/2004 | Well, I'm no economist, but it's obvious we started with a huge surplus and now we have a huge deficit. In The Price of Loyalty, Dick Cheney as quoted as saying, Reagan proved deficits don't matter. Yeah, let's just keep barrelling down that highway to catastrophe!
(2 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | bibliophile (10)
08/26/2004 | I think the Bush administration has not only mismanaged the economy, they have sabotaged it. Many in this group subscribe to the peculiar ideaology that says, If you're poor, you have chosen to be poor. You deserve to be poor. You are lazy. God rewards people who work and are deserving, so if you are poor, there is no obligation to help you. Rich people deserve every penny of the money they have earned, and you get none of it!
(2 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | lincolnsandcadillacs (4)
07/15/2004 | As of right now with the economy improving, this would not be a way to defeat Bush. Employment figures are not bad and inflation is not a problem. Housing and auto sales are still hot.
(3 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
| THEBIRDOG (0)
07/11/2004 | Do some of you idiots live in a different country? The economy has been rising steadily for some time now and shows no sign of slowing. Pull your heads out, this is not an arguement, rather a coffin nail.
(3 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | Donovan (132)
06/29/2004 | The economy sored during the Clinton years because of Dot Com, Clinton himself said during an interview that the economy would suffer after he left, not because of him leaving but because it was the times in which we live. He went on to say that it would fail no matter who was president, it was going to happen. The economy was on a downhill spiral before the end of Clintons term.
(3 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
| Opie Onion (0)
06/16/2004 | The Republicans use a small portion of a Kerry speech where he says, I voted for the war before I voted against it... Democrats could say the same of Bush who now points out that the economy has been on a minor rebound the last 8 or 9 months. I imagine Bush saying, I helped keep the economy afloat, after I sunk it.
(1 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
| Fresnopip (0)
05/15/2004 | I don't know where people live but the economy isn't about numbers it is about lives. Until people's lives improve it isn't better. I live in a city of 31,000 people and we just lost a Thomson's (RCA) plant that had 1,600 jobs. Come tell us the economy is getting better. We lost it in April of 2004. Marion, Indiana. Go look it up.
(2 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
| DiamondDavid (0)
05/14/2004 | The economy is improving by the day. The jobs reports for March and April were stellar. The stock market is around pre-911 levels. Productivity and Corporate Investment are rising. Kerry has tried to make outsourcing the boogeyman, but that will be forgotten if jobs continue to return.
(3 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | trepryor (0)
05/10/2004 | The economy is improving monthly.
(1 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | jgls (12)
05/08/2004 | this is one of the major issues on which the president can be vulnerable. i am a strong supporter of the president mainly because i totally support his leadership in the war on terrorism, but i have to admit i am a bit uneasy when i see my portfolio hemmoraging money as it has done the last two months. personally i think that the economy is strong and improving, but the perception is that it is not. to paraphrase an old saying, perception is 9/10ths the law. that being said, in order for mr. kerry to capitalize on this issue he can't just bitch and moan at the horrible job president bush has done, he has to explain in detail what he will do and why his approach is better. it worked for bill clinton in 1992.
(2 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | VirileVagabond (36)
05/05/2004 | While blaming or crediting the current administration for the economy is rather foolish, the electorate is rather foolish at times so this issue has some legs. Fortunately for George Bush, he can mitigate the political damage somewhat by citing September 11th and overall market conditions. The truth is that the current economic downturn started well before the Bush Administration took office and that Bush's policies are long-term in design, meaning that we will not be able to tell whether these policies are successful or not for some time (assuming subsequent administrations even stay the course).
(1 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
| Redoedo (40)
04/19/2004 |  George W. Bush is hardly responsible for the state of the economy and the loss of jobs. While some may argue that his protectionist policies and misguided tax policies have perhaps prolonged the economic slowdown, Bush is not responsible for the economy. The economy was sliding into a recession shortly before President Clinton left office, so for Kerry and others to blame Bush for the loss of American jobs over the last three years is absurd. Unfortunately, Kerry will run with this political football, and the message will resound with a lot of voters who are under the misguided assumption that a President's policies affect the job market. Indeed the federal government can alter the state of the economy and possibly spur job development through incentives, but most often it takes nearly three or four years for a President's economic policies to affect the economy. Furthermore, any economist will tell you that when the economy begins to pick back up, which it appears to be doing now, job growth is usually the LAST thing to pick up.
(3 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | magellan (161)
04/08/2004 | Fairly or not, jobs is usually the make or break indicator in Presidential campaigns. While the obscene spending and protectionist policies certainly haven't helped the economy (at least the long term health of the economy), it's probably not entirely fair to blame GWB for lack of jobs - but that, of course, is irrelevant.
(3 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
| 1-21 OF 21 | View All |
