Brad, I already said it in my first reply, thanks for noticing.  I agree that the tech bubble bursting had a profound effect on the economy.  I know we usually don't agree but this administration is never accountable for anything and they rarely take blaim for anything, which consequently adds to my furor when they claim that the economy is doing so great because of them. 

Draginol

Also don't forget the Corp. scandels and the Asian Market Crash (one of our best buyers)

Enron (though rotten to the Core) was still a big job producer.

psychx: I am convinced that the Bush tax cuts helped the economy considerably.

Here's the deal: Trillions in capital evaporated. The tax cuts helped speed along the recovery.

Drmiler they were for using stem cells harvested from embryos that fertility clinics were going to throw away anyways.  I'm not going to get into this though because I can't devote the time or energy to argue my point.  That is where I stand though.

psychx: I am convinced that the Bush tax cuts helped the economy considerably. Here's the deal: Trillions in capital evaporated. The tax cuts helped speed along the recovery.

I respect your opinion, but I think they will hurt us in the long run because of the current record deficit.  I mean I'm a student who works full time I don't have a career yet and I am relatively young, I'm worried about inheriting these problems 10 years from now when I will have a career and will have to worry about how the deficit will be paid for.  Are these not legitimate concerns, just curious...

Bush is merely continuing a spending pattern started by Reagan and revived by Clinton. To blame him outright I think is not entirely accurate. Presidents merely inherent old problems from predecessors.
But since he is almost on his second term we can argue that:

-between medicare and social security, non-defense spending is up around 164ish billion. That's about 1/3 higher than normal and sets a record for highest single increase of any presidential term. Is giving into the people bad? No. Is giving into the people bad when there is no money to pay for it? Yes.

-He has dipped into the social security fund every year he has been in office. He has issued IOU's at a time when there will be an increased draw starting in 2008 with the baby boomers.

-he's increased subsidies of farm payouts at a time when many have called for a decrease.

-he has taken a decisively narrow view of international interevention. Good or bad, pre-emption is entirely his baby.

-he has stated his case many times on taking a tough stance on terrorists yet the definition of a terrorist is never defined. He has excluded america from inclusion of the war criminals act, and thereby granting troops a perk when compared to other peacekeepers. IE-no repercussions

-the department of homeland security - home to to such great ideas the national id card, racial profiling, patriot act and really- the same bunch of guys who used to work at the office of special plans until rumsfeld canned it.

More departments and none who are answerable to the public and are not required to justify any information that passes through their offices.

Add up more government, more spending, more global escapades and the annual operating cost has gone up substantially.

While he hasn't started the fire Bush has doused it with gasoline.

More departments and none who are answerable to the public and are not required to justify any information that passes through their offices.

Isn't the whole conservative ideology against big government? 

d3adz0mbie:

How do you explain why so many Republicans are upset with the President over the economy? Many are saying that regardless of the attacks on 9/11 that Mr. Bush has done a very poor job in this area. Other than Larry Kudlow (who once told an audience that I was part of that oil was going to $7 per barrel) many see the economy as teetering between disaster and "stagflated" with little growth potential. The Nasdaq is down 10% since January 2002 and the DOW flat.

Hardly an impressive performance after 9/11, is it?

Hate the President and the current administration all you want, but stop blaming the economy on the President.

A president is either responsible for the economy or he isn't. History in our country clearly points out that we hold the president responsible for the condition of the economy, regardless of whether he really is or not. If the economy is good the president gets credit, if it's bad he gets blamed. 9/11 or receiving advanced technology from space aliens isn't relevant.

When you start with finger pointing in a large bureaucracy it can go on forever and in the end nobody ends up being held accountable.

So for better or worse, the president is responsible for the economy.

Here is the irony, they used to be.

When the democrats were in office, the conservative thinkers were accused of being too introverted, to short sighted and too ineffectual. In short some people wanted more things to happen, and much more quickly.

Conservative thought broke off, combined with the more hawkish views of reaganism and sought an agenda based on change. Here is where the term neo-conservative is based from. Conservatism based on change. Basically start from Irving Kristol era forward and use the more affluent execs from Haliburton's ala Dick Cheny as the vehicle to make things happen. Whether you argue if the change was good or bad is not really the issue. Change regardless of the consequences is.

Viewed from this perspective - their ideas have worked well. Here's an example right from the j.o. dialogs. Why would people waste their time arguing if invading iraq was wise or not when it has already been done? Old news. Focus on the here and now. Then throw in some Iranian discontent as a possible secondary target. Now people are talking about iran and not iraq. Keeping the public busy has been one of the selling points of this admistration. They are not as dumb as portrayed.

I did not read all of your post.. I can bet you did very little research for your article. (No insult intended) There is not one thing that happened in the US economy that hurt us greater then the stupid policies that this President has dished out. Our main problem with our economy is tax cuts, outsourcing of our jobs, and the war in Iraq. (There are a lot more things I could easily list) The attacks of 911 did hurt us but not as bad as the RIGHT makes out. No this election cycle the Republicans are simply being liars to maintain power. I am not normally against republicans but this time I sure am.

If Bush happens to get re-elected history will show how bad and horrible he was to this country. Abe Cubbage says it for me!

The whole fact that this CONSERVATIVE President has increased the government and spent more money then any Democrat ever has. I guess that moots the thing about liberals being spenders?

Keeping the public busy has been one of the selling points of this admistration. They are not as dumb as portrayed.

I agree.  It seems in this media influenced society 30 second sound bytes are more effective than a 20 year voting record.  Sad times indeed.

Abe,

You are right the president does get the held accountable and that is why good men can look bad and bad men look like war heroes. People have notoriuosly short memories. Let's see if Bush's second term ends as rosy as Clinton's. I mean really, even after the Monica incedent he was still applauded bigtime at the dem convention.

The man who has the most control over the economy is not the President (though he is responsible for it). The economy goes up and down, but short of a radical government change (i.e. Capitalist to socialist or communist) the President has no effect on it. Roosavelt's programs, while good for the country to soften the pain, did not realy change the economy in the US, it was a natural down turn then a slow up turn IMO.

If there is one man in our Government that has any control over the nations economy it is Allen Greenspan. But it is hard for us to even think of him not being there. He has sit in his chair for so long that some poeple voteing now can't remember him not being there.

I know this is just a little off the subject, however, out sourcing is not the fault of the President. It is the fault of the American people. Why is it that the Mexicans cross the U.S. border? A simple questions to answer; because we the American people will not do the jobs that the illegals will do, which is working out in the fields. And, please not give me that old line that the farmers and corporations which own these farms will not pay enough.

And, this is also the reason we Americans will see a good deal of out sourcing. The jobs being out sourced are jobs we Americans will not do because we feel that the pay is not enough. We just will not work forty hour weeks for a mear $6.25. Why do you think the fast food business has such a great turn-around; it is because the kids and young adults who work in these places learn real fast that it is not a job that fulfills there needs.

When you look at out sourcing there are a good deal of state and local government from states using out sourcing. Why? For the simple reason it is more cost worthly. It helps cut down on the tax that would have to be charged to the state and local population.

So before complaining about out sourcing think hard about whether you are willing to do the work being out sourced, or if you think that illegals are taking our jobs; again think hard about whether you are willing to do the back bracking work of working in the fields. And, of all the people who are now unemployed are they willing to do these jobs? I would have to say no. Why, because if they were then we wouldn't out be sourcing, and the illegals would not be out there helping bring in the crops that are going to end up on your table.

Pam