I'm not saying President Bush should get credit for lower gas prices, a record Dow, or rising home sales. But there was plenty of blame going around when--for a while--things seemed to be headed in the opposite direction. If those who criticized Bush are to be consistent, shouldn't they give Bush some credit for improvement in the US economy?

Gas prices steadily falling:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2006-08-29-gas-price-usat_x.htm

Dow hits record high:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/03/AR2006100300934.html

Home sales are up:

http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2006/10/pending_home_sa.html

In 2005, by the way, the so-called experts at CNN were flat wrong with the following prediction of $4 per gallon gas prices for this year:

http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/31/news/gas_prices/

10/13/2006 4:36:20 AM

only the super super rich are buying houses....all thd poor people are being forced into the gutters by the millions becase of bush policies...

10/13/2006 6:37:58 AM

Way to attribute market prices to the President. He has a TON of control over these things, afterall.

Who was blaming him for this stuff in the first place?

DOW-- there was that huge dip he had to deal with in mid-2004, but he hasn't caught any flak since
Housing-- it was never significantly down. Certainly not down far enough for people to get upset about it. Heck, most I've talked to consider the cooling down a good thing.
Gas prices-- since when do liberals care about high gas prices? It's ya'll who were pissed.

OMG LIBERALS!1

10/13/2006 6:38:47 AM

Quote :

"Who was blaming him for this stuff in the first place?"

wow

10/13/2006 6:44:33 AM

boonedocks, I agree with everything you said, except that plenty of people were blaming Bush for those things. Specifically the gas prices, and yes, liberals DO care about gas prices.

10/13/2006 7:06:14 AM

if bush gets credit for those things clinton gets credit for the economy under him

my point should be obvious

10/13/2006 7:16:29 AM

I'm pretty sure this is a common problem for all presidents. When things are going smoothly people just go about their lives. When things start to decline people want someone to point the finger at.

10/13/2006 7:28:59 AM

Quote :

"Housing-- it was never significantly down. Certainly not down far enough for people to get upset about it."

People in the bay area, SoCal, Boston, D.C., south florida and the tampa bay area would disagree.

10/13/2006 7:30:16 AM

HAHA, you linked to the NAR report about home sales, oops.

10/13/2006 7:54:16 AM

Quote :

"if bush gets credit for those things clinton gets credit for the economy under him my point should be obvious "

Agreed, neither of them deserves credit/blame for the way the economy performed during their tenure. They can indeed affect some things, but it generally is a little later and even then is swamped by other factors.

10/13/2006 7:58:38 AM

Here's is better commentary about the home sales

http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2006/09/home_prices_dro.html

With a comment about the very tidbit that you linked to

Quote :

"Most astounding of all, the National Association of Realtors somehow spun the data as Bullish: David Lereah, NAR’s chief economist, said home sales appear to be leveling out. “After a stronger-than-expected drop in July, the fairly even sales numbers in August tell us the market is at a more sustainable pace,” he said. “It keeps us on track to see the third highest sales year on record, but we do expect an adjustment in home prices to last several months as we work through a build up in the inventory of homes on the market.” Kevin Depew pointed out the absurdity of this: "Just ask the chief economist for the realtors group: 'The price correction is a welcome development,' he said, because it stops the bleeding. 'Sales have hit bottom,' he said. 'Sellers are finally getting it.' " Given that Realtors routinely describe tiny apartments as "cozy," and manage to use the phrase "Handyman Special" to describe houses which you and I would call "shit-holes," perhaps we shouldn't be all that shocked by any spin from the group's chief economist . . ."

10/13/2006 8:38:00 AM

I honestly cant wait untill a democrat gets elected president so we can say that trikk and treetwista obviously hate our country and just want to ruin our supreme leaders rep.

and im an indepedent!

10/13/2006 10:12:49 AM

First of all, I agree with these guys that Bush shouldn't get credit or blame for any of these things.

But for the sake of argument, lets assume that he does. Gas prices may be falling, but they are nowhere near where the were when Bush took office. So if you have to give him credit, he gets credit for a net rise in gas prices.

Second, the Dow is not a very accurate measure of the stock market, as it is greatly influenced by a few key companies. The S&P is a much better instrument. So let's look at the S&P, which is doing well, and climbing back towards its high, but has still not yet reached the highs it attained back just before and after Bush took office. So, again, Bush would be credited for a net loss.

10/13/2006 10:52:14 AM

^wow

10/13/2006 10:52:50 AM

Would you like to comment instead of just trolling? Are you capable of an intelligent rebuttal, or do you just see anti-bush and get upset?

Because generally speaking, what he posted is all factual and correct.

10/13/2006 10:55:12 AM

i actually was agreeing with him....


are you really treetwista??

[Edited on October 13, 2006 at 10:58 AM. Reason : adsf]

10/13/2006 10:58:12 AM

Quote :

"wow1 /wa?/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[wou] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation Informal. –interjection 1. (an exclamation of surprise, wonder, pleasure, or the like): Wow! Look at that!"

There is really nothing about the expression "wow!" that implies agreement.

10/13/2006 11:00:28 AM

Quote :

"pleasure /'pl???r/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[plezh-er] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, -ured, -ur?ing. –noun 1. the state or feeling of being pleased."

troll....

[Edited on October 13, 2006 at 11:02 AM. Reason : asdf]

10/13/2006 11:02:28 AM

^^other than the fact that he clearly said that was the intent.

10/13/2006 11:04:57 AM

Yea, after I called him out on adding nothing to the thread. Have you been paying attention Mr Tilley? trikk hasn't added shit to TSB, so its more or less certain he was trolling when he posted that response. Are you as dense as he is?

10/13/2006 11:09:31 AM

^case in point

10/13/2006 11:10:09 AM

^^From what I have seen his additions are no worse than your last few comments Mr 409c

[Edited on October 13, 2006 at 11:14 AM. Reason : s]

10/13/2006 11:14:17 AM

^yeah....i say "wow" because that post made sense and was true...

State409 immediately begins the trolling...i suppose the best thing to do is just ignore him since all he does is follow me around from thread to thread and troll...

10/13/2006 11:17:55 AM

Quote :

"^^From what I have seen his additions are no worse than your last few comments Mr 409c"

You'd have a point, except I add a ton more insight than those last few posts you reference, while trikk never does. Does it hurt when you make someone else's point for them?

Quote :

"^yeah....i say "wow" because that post made sense and was true..."

Well, considering you really don't add much to these threads except to troll, and are an ardent Bush dick rider, I can't be at fault for assuming a "wow" comment following a disparaging remark about the Bush party was a troll. Does that logic fail you?

Quote :

"i suppose the best thing to do is just ignore him since all he does is follow me around from thread to thread and troll..."

Furthermore, I had two posts in this thread which had nothing to do with anything you said before I started "trolling" you.

[Edited on October 13, 2006 at 11:22 AM. Reason : a]

10/13/2006 11:22:25 AM

plenty of people blame Bush for anything bad, because as President, he is ultimately responsible for everything

why not give him credit for everything good since he is ultimately responsible for everything

10/13/2006 11:24:57 AM

Quote :

"Quote : "Housing-- it was never significantly down. Certainly not down far enough for people to get upset about it." "

Quote :

"People in the bay area, SoCal, Boston, D.C., south florida and the tampa bay area would disagree."

Exactly what I was about to say. Except maybe add something about living in the boondocks. I've seen houses near DC go from asking 800K based on comps to selling 7 months later at 630K.

10/13/2006 11:24:59 AM

Quote :

"Second, the Dow is not a very accurate measure of the stock market, as it is greatly influenced by a few key companies. The S&P is a much better instrument. So let's look at the S&P, which is doing well, and climbing back towards its high, but has still not yet reached the highs it attained back just before and after Bush took office. So, again, Bush would be credited for a net loss."

You're right about gas prices, but I don't think its ok to debit from Bush the crash that happened before he took office.

The S&P 500 on that day was at 1,342.54 (1/20/2001)
The S&P 500 closed yesterday at 1,362.83

Now that isn't a BIG jump, obviously. But it isn't a net loss. Again, he really doesn't get the credit anyhow, but lets not be incorrect in our hypotheticals.

Also, the P/E valuations of most stocks are MUCH lower (safer) than they were in 2001. Most of that is due to the tremendous earnings over the last several years in most companies. Could part of that be due to the president? Maybe, but most of it is probably due to the general economy.

10/13/2006 11:26:16 AM

Quote :

"I can't be at fault for assuming a "wow" comment following a disparaging remark about the Bush party was a troll."

yeah you can...and you are....stop being such a partison hacking troll and you wouldnt make these mistakes and then get called out and look like an idiot in front of everyone

Quote :

"The S&P 500 on that day was at 1,342.54 (1/20/2001) The S&P 500 closed yesterday at 1,362.83 "

i was actually just about to post this

the stuff about the gas prices is correct....i am not sure what the job numbers are either...but i remember for a long time Bush was at a net loss ...if you are going to hold him to those standards then that would be relevant....he might be at a net gain now though...i dont really want to look it up

10/13/2006 11:33:18 AM

^Trikk and State409c, I assumed it was a trolling "wow" too

I think its ok to say "we had a miscommunication on that one, I was wowing in agreement"

You don't have to bicker.

10/13/2006 11:35:20 AM

I would agree with that logic, either way I still don't think Bush has anything to do with P/E ratios...he may be able to influence the market positively by announcing that we killed the Hussein brothers or negatively by just saying something stupid, but in the end I don't think he has very much to do with how companies actually perform, and maybe even less to do with home sales.

Probably the strongest connection you could make of these three examples would be to link him to oil prices, but I attribute that much more to the oil companies themselves.

10/13/2006 11:35:28 AM

Doesn't he appoint the person that sets the interest rate though?

10/13/2006 11:44:09 AM

Shit, Bush's environmental policies were even blamed by some wackos for causing Katrina:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=19348

If that blame was proper, shouldn't Bush get credit for an unusually mild hurricane season--especially given Al Gore's dire predictions?

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/oct2006/2006-10-12-09.asp#anchor1

10/13/2006 11:44:49 AM

^thats true too

I dont know whether Bush or Clinton should be blamed for alot of things that happened during thier presidencies....but you cant claim that liberals have not tried to pin like...everything ...on bush...

and im not saying that that doesnt go both ways...but boondocks made the comment soo...im just saying

[Edited on October 13, 2006 at 11:48 AM. Reason : asdf]

10/13/2006 11:45:52 AM

Indeed.

10/13/2006 11:51:39 AM

Quote :

"Agreed, neither of them deserves credit/blame for the way the economy performed during their tenure. They can indeed affect some things, but it generally is a little later and even then is swamped by other factors."

correct

10/13/2006 11:54:54 AM

And on an Oprah show during which "Truth in America" was supposedly examined, Bush was blamed for nearly everything wrong in Iraq:

http://www2.oprah.com/tows/pastshows/200610/tows_past_20061012.jhtml

But a soldier who had served in Iraq stood up--and got a standing ovation--and asked why the media does NOT report the schools that are being built and the hospitals that are being built and all the Iraqis who come to thank the Americans for what they are doing to help them. No good answer was given.

[Edited on October 13, 2006 at 12:07 PM. Reason : [i]]

10/13/2006 12:05:13 PM

^the anti-war media HATES an actual soldier speaking on good things that have happened as part of the rebuilding

they cant pull any of their trademark cards

10/13/2006 12:07:10 PM

Yes.

10/13/2006 12:08:02 PM

I don't think it is a case of an anti-war media. I think it's more of an issue of how the news industry is in the mindset of only reporting on negative things.

10/13/2006 12:16:00 PM

b/c something bad happening somewhere else makes you feel good about yourself and the fact that it's not happening to you....


something good somewhere else means you aren't benefiting from it....

10/13/2006 12:18:53 PM

it was a little annoying. but i liked that gas prices were so high. i heard every day people talking about changing the way they did things: buying locally, living closer to where they worked, walking places, using public transport, etc.

i wish that people could see the value in these things without being forced into it. but that's not the way it works.

and yes i realize that lots of things in the economy take a hit when gas is high. but it's exactly what we need to change our unsustainable ways.

10/13/2006 12:20:54 PM

Quote :

"But a soldier who had served in Iraq stood up--and got a standing ovation--and asked why the media does NOT report the schools that are being built and the hospitals that are being built and all the Iraqis who come to thank the Americans for what they are doing to help them. No good answer was given."

I'll conceed that I don't think the media gives the positive stuff enough air time, but should it? The standard to bear should be all these things, but when you look at the entire picture, and see what is going wrong, then I think this is where the focus would be. In business, you wouldn't have a meeting just to tell people they are doing everything right, and to keep doing it.

....

After I just posted all that (well, the first line), based on the assumption that maybe there was a bias from the general media and good news was left unreported, I went looking for some good news.

I found this
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=33761

Quote :

"Across the Euphrates River from the city sits Fallujah General Hospital. Built in 1964, the hospital was unable to function during either U.S. siege because it was being occupied by the U.S. military. Doctors were reluctant to talk to IPS unless promised anonymity. "It is more a barn than a hospital and we are not honoured to work in it," said one doctor. "There is a horrible lack of medical supplies and equipment, and the Ministry of Health is not doing much about it," added another doctor, also speaking on condition of anonymity. When IPS mentioned a new hospital under construction in the city, one of the doctors replied, with irony, that half of the people of Fallujah would be dead before that hospital project was completed. "

And in regards to your comment about Iraqis thanking Americans for coming, we overstayed our welcome apparently

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5217874/site/newsweek/

10/13/2006 1:19:45 PM

Quote :

"In business, you wouldn't have a meeting just to tell people they are doing everything right, and to keep doing it."

correct...but you also wouldnt just tell them all the things they are fucking up on or need to approve on

you'd mention both the bad and the good

10/13/2006 1:29:31 PM

The point is, you don't need to mention the good. If you tell people to do a series of tasks, whatever those may be, you don't need to say anything about the ones they are doing correctly. There is nothing to be fixed, nothing to be said, when the job is done, then dole out the commendations, the parties, etc. But if they are doing things incorrectly, well then of course you have to correct that.

Sure, positive reinforcement is fine and dandy, but as a taxpayer, I assume the stuff I don't hear about is going well, I want to know what isn't working, and you should, too.

10/13/2006 1:40:48 PM

You probably should have some positive reinforcement. Otherwise you won't know what you are doing correctly. Doesn't apply to the news that much anyway since the news is a unidirectional communication of information.

10/13/2006 1:50:13 PM

Quote :

"The point is, you don't need to mention the good"

fuck that, your point is dumb and wrong

would you enjoy busting your ass at work and never getting one single "thank you"?

10/13/2006 1:56:40 PM

i'm still paying over 2 bucks a gallon for gas. that is NOT cheap.

10/13/2006 1:57:24 PM

Quote :

"fuck that, your point is dumb and wrong would you enjoy busting your ass at work and never getting one single "thank you"?"

Let me fix this analogy for you.

If I am on a team, and coworker X is doing a good job, I don't need to know it, positive commentary in regards to what he is doing really doesn't effect me much other than maybe give me some confidence that the team is on a good path. But it isn't essential information to me. No news is good news. If he is not doing a good job, I want to know about it, because I might not want him on my team if that were the case.

If you can't wrap your mind around that one, I'll draw the lines for you.

Quote :

"fuck that, your point is dumb and wrong"

Haha, you mean my opinion is wrong, right? Why did you not chose to reply to me with the trikk alias?

[Edited on October 13, 2006 at 2:10 PM. Reason : a]

10/13/2006 2:09:19 PM

oh yeah you are still assuming that we are the same person because you just cant grasp that more than one person has a different opinion than you

10/13/2006 2:17:13 PM

I think giving Bush credit for those things would just be patronizing. I mean, he knows they aren't due to him. How sad is that? He has screwed up sooo bad that we have to grasp at things to him points for.

10/13/2006 2:23:13 PM