It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Incumbent's Edge

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 2 2004 @ 08:55 PM
link   
Reading the American Institute for Economic Research February research reports (nope, no life here, move along) I came to a very interesting blurb titled The Incumbents Edge. For all the Bush haters (myself included), you do not want to hear this:

"Conventional wisdom has it that the state of the economy could make or break President Bush's bid for re-election. However, in the current situation the advantages of presidential incumbency may prove overwhelming. Only eight elected incumbent presidents have been turned out of office in U.S. history. These were John Quincy Adams, Van Buren, Cleveland, Benjamin Harrison, Taft, Hoover, Carter and George H. Bush."


Reading through the article the economists and political statisticians share overwhelmingly, the belief that economic issues that we here at ATS make a big deal about, dont really matter to the general populace. President Bush's defeceit will be the largest in American history in terms of notation; however, the defeceit under Reagan were larger in terms of the proportion of GDP. He was re-elected.

Say hello to Bush next year, he'll be back (as will his 512 billion defeceit). Makes sense now after he's been leading up to it with his other notable behavior (asking for money from congress to train his advisors and telling every reporter under the sun that he will be back). He will be back.

[Edited on 3-2-2004 by insite]




posted on Mar, 2 2004 @ 10:18 PM
link   
It's not that nobody cares about the economy, it's that no one cares about the deficit, (they should allow our children and grandchildren to vote
)

Otherwise, I think it'll be a big issue for Bush. Look at the close 'red' states that Bush narrowly won in the last election, then look at the net job losses in those states. Lets say that those that lost their jobs in those states vote for a dem, and everyone else votes the same, those states will go to the dems.

So, insite, don't get depressed yet



posted on Mar, 2 2004 @ 10:41 PM
link   
You're right Bob. I should have phrased that differently as there are far too many economic issues impacting the population right now for me to get uppity and arrogant enough to label the whole population clueless. Investors are obviously confident that the government will pay back it's debts and the majority of Americans don't know what a deficit is anyway (there I go assuming again, but, you know...).

I actually think Bush has take a lot of positive actions to help the economy out. I hope the Democrats wouldn't think of repealing some of the things he's set up (yeah, that issue). This is just too much confusion and crap to be dealing with



posted on Mar, 2 2004 @ 11:01 PM
link   
whether or not they know about the deficit, insite, is probably moot. It's probably more of their personal deficits that they care about more. And the dem nominee, Kerry, has said he would not repeal the middle-class tax cuts - yet I haven't heard him say what exactly he means by middle class. though he'll repeal the tax cuts for the wealthy. I guess in Kerry's view the wealthy just sit on that money, they don't invest it, spend, etc, like the rest of us? I have to wonder if the money of the 'wealthy' people is better in the hands of the government, OR if it's better off in the hands of the market, where it could grow, expand, and create more jobs.



posted on Mar, 3 2004 @ 06:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bob88
I guess in Kerry's view the wealthy just sit on that money, they don't invest it, spend, etc, like the rest of us? I have to wonder if the money of the 'wealthy' people is better in the hands of the government, OR if it's better off in the hands of the market, where it could grow, expand, and create more jobs.


I think the "wealthy" the Dems are targeting are the ones that the people you and I consider wealthy would consider wealthy (follow me?). True investing would NOT be punished, but by definition "sitting on wealth" would... through closure of loopholes and increased capital gains on incomes over $300,000 (which is about the interest earned on $3 million dollars sitting in the bank). Obviously if you're paying a mortgage, actively running a struggling business and putting 3 kids through college...you get loopholes; this doesn't affect you if EARN your $300,000.

Even though if they are OBSCENELY wealthy they could do things like come to my town and open a mill to avoid higher tax rates. I'm sorry but the "market" argument has lost impact for me. Investing in companies then going to shareholders meeting screaming for more profits achieved by outsourcing DESERVES to be punished monetarily. It's blood money IMO.

When we talk about the "wealthy" here paying more of their share, I dont know who you envision as that noble billionaire employing everyone across America like some selfless Johnny AppleJobs, but it helps me to envision Paris Hilton. Tax the bitch.




top topics
 
0

log in

join