What issue will hurt G. Bush the most?

[Siege40]

Based on the ever popular "What issue will hurt J. Kerry the most?" thread I decided it was time to balance things out. If the Democrats' man was going to be slammed why not the Republicans'?

So What is it ladies and gentlemen? What will hurt the Republicans the most?

Siege40

[Gustaf]

Job loss in the economy.

[M]

At present, job loss. Things could change for better or worse by November, however.

[7,052,770]

Job loss

[zachman]

I voted job loss, but I think his lack of honesty and particularly lack of a good economic strategy will hurt him the most.

[Wakie]

It's the economy.

[zachman]

Its his Hooveresque lack of a plan.

[Brambila]

Job loss? What? We have the lowest unemployment rate since Reagan!

I think Diplomacy will hurt him a bit. Even though it shouldn't matter.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

What will hurt the Republicans the most?

Everything.

[Wakie]

Job loss? What? We have the lowest unemployment rate since Reagan!

Not sure where you get your #'s but here's a government resource ....

http://data.bls.gov/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=LNS14000000

If you go in there and extend the query back to 1980 you will find that the lowest unemployment rate since Reagan came at the end of the Clinton administration when it was 3.9%.  Since then it has been on a steady increase.

[opebo]

Job loss? What? We have the lowest unemployment rate since Reagan!

Not sure where you get your #'s but here's a government resource ....

http://data.bls.gov/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=LNS14000000

If you go in there and extend the query back to 1980 you will find that the lowest unemployment rate since Reagan came at the end of the Clinton administration when it was 3.9%.  Since then it has been on a steady increase.

Yeah he was wrong on that one - but the general point might be that unemployment isn't very bad.

[Brambila]

Job loss? What? We have the lowest unemployment rate since Reagan!

Not sure where you get your #'s but here's a government resource ....

http://data.bls.gov/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=LNS14000000

If you go in there and extend the query back to 1980 you will find that the lowest unemployment rate since Reagan came at the end of the Clinton administration when it was 3.9%.  Since then it has been on a steady increase.

That's odd... I was almost positive it was...

Well at any rate, the unemployment rate is very low right now, and is one of the lowest since Reagan. What's interesting is that in 2000 when the unemployment rate was low, the stock market went way down. I suppose my point should have been that we've had the strongest economy since Reagan, including unemployment. I mean, Clinton's highest point was at the end of 1999, and then it crumbled in 2000, especially in the internet industry.

[Siege40]

I think Diplomacy will hurt him a bit. Even though it shouldn't matter.

When you lead the world's only superpower, spearhead the war on terrorism, stand for Western values and democracy, violate international law, snub international officials and collapse alliances centuries old... I think diplomacy matters.

Siege40

[CTguy]

I voted for the War in Iraq because that is what hurts him the most with me personally.  But I think job losses are going to hurt him in the states that matter...  like Ohio and Michigan.

[Wakie]

Job loss? What? We have the lowest unemployment rate since Reagan!

Not sure where you get your #'s but here's a government resource ....

http://data.bls.gov/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=LNS14000000

If you go in there and extend the query back to 1980 you will find that the lowest unemployment rate since Reagan came at the end of the Clinton administration when it was 3.9%.  Since then it has been on a steady increase.

That's odd... I was almost positive it was...

Well at any rate, the unemployment rate is very low right now, and is one of the lowest since Reagan. What's interesting is that in 2000 when the unemployment rate was low, the stock market went way down. I suppose my point should have been that we've had the strongest economy since Reagan, including unemployment. I mean, Clinton's highest point was at the end of 1999, and then it crumbled in 2000, especially in the internet industry.

I disagree with your statement that "unemployment is very low right now".  That is not true.  The Feb unemployment # was 5.6%.  Since 1948 the avg unemployment in America is 5.6%.  However, unemployment has been on the rise since the end of 2000.  If the unemployment rate continues to rise through this Summer then Bush will lose this election.  If it falls he will be reelected.

The economy is going to be the biggest factor in this election.

[zachman]

The reason why the average unemployment was 5.6% after WWII was because of technical unemployment, caused by a modernizing economy. That has become less severe in the last few years, and the increase is due to a slumping economy.

[YRABNNRM]

Definatly unemployment unless something disasterous happens in Iraq(Civil War).

[Brambila]

Job loss? What? We have the lowest unemployment rate since Reagan!

Not sure where you get your #'s but here's a government resource ....

http://data.bls.gov/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=LNS14000000

If you go in there and extend the query back to 1980 you will find that the lowest unemployment rate since Reagan came at the end of the Clinton administration when it was 3.9%.  Since then it has been on a steady increase.

That's odd... I was almost positive it was...

Well at any rate, the unemployment rate is very low right now, and is one of the lowest since Reagan. What's interesting is that in 2000 when the unemployment rate was low, the stock market went way down. I suppose my point should have been that we've had the strongest economy since Reagan, including unemployment. I mean, Clinton's highest point was at the end of 1999, and then it crumbled in 2000, especially in the internet industry.

I disagree with your statement that "unemployment is very low right now".  That is not true.  The Feb unemployment # was 5.6%.  Since 1948 the avg unemployment in America is 5.6%.  However, unemployment has been on the rise since the end of 2000.  If the unemployment rate continues to rise through this Summer then Bush will lose this election.  If it falls he will be reelected.

The economy is going to be the biggest factor in this election.

It's been rising since the end of 2000 (Clinton was still in office...), true, but that is largely due to the internet crash (which happened around April of 2000). Also, since the end of 2003 the unemployment rate has been falling.

[Wakie]

Well, technically the unemployment rate started climbing in Jan of 2001.  We can spend all day arguing the who's, how's, and why's of it.  The reality is that unless declines throughout 2004, Bush will lose the election.

Right now we hear about an economic recovery.  And I sincerely hope that  there is one.  But 2 months really isn't an economic recovery.  This administration has talked a lot about other things (health care, education, and WMD's).  I've learned to wait until I see results to believe them.

[Beet]

Right now monetary and fiscal policy is at its loosest is more than a generation. The gap between nominal GDP growth and the federal funds rate is bigger than at any time since the oil crises of the 1970's. The Federal Reserve, the Congress, and the Presidency, are borrowing, spending, and basically doing everything possible to grow the economy.

The problem is the economy is growing but not generating any jobs. The reason is a massive surge in productivity. Standard economic theory says that this is good in the long run. Yet this recovery is unlike anything we have already seen. At this point in previous recoveries, some 4-5 million new jobs should have been created by now. Real income should have grown twice as quickly as it has been growing. Instead, increases in household disposable income has been to a great extent due to the housing boom.

Personally I think that the housing boom is a massive bubble and when it bursts there will be a lot of pain.

[Brambila]

Well, technically the unemployment rate started climbing in Jan of 2001.  We can spend all day arguing the who's, how's, and why's of it.  The reality is that unless declines throughout 2004, Bush will lose the election.

Right now we hear about an economic recovery.  And I sincerely hope that  there is one.  But 2 months really isn't an economic recovery.  This administration has talked a lot about other things (health care, education, and WMD's).  I've learned to wait until I see results to believe them.

Even if it did begin climbing in January of 2001, it couldn't have possibly been Bush's fault. But you're correct- this is in itself a completely different debate with not revelence to the issue. The point is Bush has promised a recovery, and for once the economy is recovering. It will, according to economists, grow steadily.

[zachman]

Bush's economic plan is a joke. Whether or not BUsh is responsible for the economic downturn, he has not offered a plan that will help build economic growth. I

If any of you have it, read Paul Krugman's NY Times article from March 9th. Look at his job estimates. He always estimate the same linear job growth, and it has never been achieved. I wish nytimes.com wouldn't archive articles after a week.

[Brambila]

It took Clinton 6 years to recover the economy, and he had lower approval ratings than Bush (42% was his lowest, it was in 1993 or 4. Bush's lowest was a 46 or 47). Don't expect the economy growth to be so sudden.

[zachman]

Clinton had a strategy that paid off. Bush's strategy is to abandon control of the economy, and let it settle on its own. That is not guiding the economy. I don't expect the results to be quick, and we haven't had much of an economic change in NH, but you need a strategy to guide the economy and science.

[Brambila]

He has a similar strategy to Reagan's and Bush's after Carter was in office- with inflation rate at 18%, if you can remember that. Reagan's obviously worked, and Bush Sr. continued it onto Clinton's administration.