the economist on economists on Bush-Kerry

[buster]

from http://www.economist.com/world/na/PrinterFriendly.cfm?Story_ID=3262965

[nathanielmark]

yeah i was looking at it over the weekend.  its no surprise to me.  its too bad most americans dont realize that bush has not been a good steward of our economy.

[buster]

Actually, I do think most Americans have a general sense of that, but hard-core Republicans are not going to be swayed by it and others, I think, have decided that this time 'round national security trumps the economy. (Whether or not that particular concern justifies support for Bush is another question, of course.)

yeah i was looking at it over the weekend.  its no surprise to me.  its too bad most americans dont realize that bush has not been a good steward of our economy.

[WULaw]

I don't support Bush at all, but we need to be honest about some of those poll items.

Budget deficit:  The only reason Clinton ever had a budget surplus is because of stock market bubble.  It is no coincidence that not until 1996 (the beginning of irrationl exuberence in the stock market) did we make much progress in reducing the deficit.

Current account deficit:  This has been a problem for a while, due largely to our trade deficit.  Unfortuanately, it is now in vogue for the "left" to support free trade, which is leading to this large deficit.  Neither Kerry nor Bush will do anything os substance to stop it.

Outsourcing:  What would any of the candidates have done to stop this?  Nothing.

Baby-boom retirement:  Unfortuanately Kerrry would only make this problem worse by increasing spending in Medicare to "improve" (read: spend more) Bush's prescription drug plan.  Ironically, Bush's plan is going to be very expensive, but will allow the Medicare system to drag on a few years longer that Kerry's plan would.  Both plans will bust Medicare long before I will see a dime.

Health care:  Anything short of single-payer will only make things worse and not even Howard Dean (the REAL Democrat) was willing to come close to proposing that.

I'm just trying to make the point that neither Kerry nor Bush will do anything to address the fundamental issues facing our economy.  So I just can't see what all the hype is about.

By the way, has anybody been watching the third party presidential debates.  Now there's a contrast!

[nathanielmark]

I don't support Bush at all, but we need to be honest about some of those poll items.

Budget deficit:  The only reason Clinton ever had a budget surplus is because of stock market bubble.  It is no coincidence that not until 1996 (the beginning of irrationl exuberence in the stock market) did we make much progress in reducing the deficit.

WRONG! his willigness to tax at the rate necessary to cover expenditures was the chief reason


Current account deficit:  This has been a problem for a while, due largely to our trade deficit.  Unfortuanately, it is now in vogue for the "left" to support free trade, which is leading to this large deficit.  Neither Kerry nor Bush will do anything os substance to stop it.

agreed, but if kerry invests more in energy policy and other noteworthy causes, it could help reduce long term trade deficit

Outsourcing:  What would any of the candidates have done to stop this?  Nothing.

true, but at least kerry will attempt to tinker with the tax code and reduce insurance costs to help the problem.

Baby-boom retirement:  Unfortuanately Kerrry would only make this problem worse by increasing spending in Medicare to "improve" (read: spend more) Bush's prescription drug plan.  Ironically, Bush's plan is going to be very expensive, but will allow the Medicare system to drag on a few years longer that Kerry's plan would.  Both plans will bust Medicare long before I will see a dime.

Kerry also wants to use government bargaining power to lower drug costs, this could at least offset his "improvements"

Health care:  Anything short of single-payer will only make things worse and not even Howard Dean (the REAL Democrat) was willing to come close to proposing that.
I dont think the public is ready for single=payer, but i think kerry's plan is a step in the right direction

I'm just trying to make the point that neither Kerry nor Bush will do anything to address the fundamental issues facing our economy.  So I just can't see what all the hype is about.



By the way, has anybody been watching the third party presidential debates.  Now there's a contrast!

[WULaw]

First of all, about the deficit, you are living in a fantasyland.  To say that the stock market bubble was not the prime reason for the budget surpluses is pure fantasy.  Clinton raised taxes in 1994 and all budget projections until around 1997 forecast "deficits as far as the eye can see" (remember that line from the mid-1990's).  Suddenly, around 1998, the governemnt was flush with revenue.  1998...hmmmm.

In fact, many of the Democrats fought against Republican tax cut during the 1990's because they knew that budget projections have a history of being highly inaccurate.  They said that the surplus projections were phoney.  Then Bush gets in and all of a sudden the projections were real the whole time and Bush squandered 5 trillion.  Come on.

By the way, your point about investing in energy policy was EXACTLY the same promise Clinton made in 1992 and George Bush Sr. made in the 1988 debates (which was aired recently on C-SPAN).  Also, Charley Gibson pointed out during a question in the debate that the wage differences between India and the US are so vast that a few tax credits are hardly enough to offset the incentive to move offshore.

But whatever.  I think Kerry has got the election wrapped up, so we shall see.  I won't hold my breath.

[FSF17]

Let's not forget that Bush's policies have been tried. Kerry's are mere speculation.