Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Bush economic team under fire, hands new ammo to Democrats

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
Judi Lynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 03:23 AM
Original message
Bush economic team under fire, hands new ammo to Democrats
Bush economic team under fire, hands new ammo to Democrats

TOM RAUM, Associated Press Writer
Wednesday, February 18, 2004

(02-18) 23:26 PST WASHINGTON (AP) --

President Bush touts his economic stewardship as a top re-election asset, yet offhand remarks and mixed signals by leading members of his economic team are proving politically embarrassing and handing fresh ammunition to Democrats.

The White House found itself in the awkward position Wednesday of backing away from its earlier prediction that the economy would add 2.6 million new jobs this year.

White House officials already were reeling from the assertion of N. Gregory Mankiw, chairman of the president's Council of Economic Advisers, that "outsourcing" American jobs overseas was good for the U.S. economy in the long run. Mankiw later apologized and said he had been misunderstood.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan blamed the optimistic jobs projection on bureaucratic "number crunchers."
(snip/...)

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/02/18/politics0214EST0433.DTL

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
pinniped Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 03:52 AM
Response to Original message
1. Let's play the, "Who are we gonna blame today game".
"White House spokesman Scott McClellan blamed the optimistic jobs projection on bureaucratic "number crunchers.""
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
radfringe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 04:18 AM
Response to Original message
2. not a statitician
to paraphrase an old cliche - bush* has more excuses than Carter has peanuts...

the latest excuse is that bush* is not a statitician

remember the scandals over Enron, Worldcom etc? remember the excuse the CEO's used regarding their companies financial reports? remember that the SEC now requires CEO's to sign off on those financial reports as a method to hold CEO's responsible and accountable?

The report released by Council of Economic Advisers has bush*'s signature on it.

This is the man that GOPer's tout as being a CEO - the first MBA pResident. The man they are now pushing as a leader...

Did bush* even read the report before signing? Did he understand what the report said? Did he ask any questions before signing off on the report? Was he engaged at all regarding the report?

whether or not the numbers were a result of bureaucratic "number crunchers" or whether or not bush* is a statitician doesn't make any difference - bush* signed off on the report. This makes him responsible and accountable for the report.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Journeyman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 04:25 AM
Response to Reply #2
5. Very good, radfringe. . .
let's put Smirk's toesies to the fire and hold him responsible for being our "CEO" since he so obviously can't manage as a "President".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kinkistyle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 04:54 AM
Response to Reply #2
8. I wonder if that would go over with banks, lenders, etc...
Hey, look I meant to pay off the loan, but come on - I'm not a statistician!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RoadRunner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 10:11 AM
Response to Reply #2
14. Another thing
Bush has an MBA from Harvard. Every MBA program requires competency in statistics. You either have to take a course in stat or test out. Guess he was AWOL from that too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProfessorGAC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #2
19. "The Buck Stops. . .
. . .over there somewhere!" so sayeth Li'l Georgie.

Besides, it's not any revelation that Junior is not a statistician. It's obvious he's dumb as a post. But, like you said, he signed it. If he signed something he didn't understand, he's an idiot. If he did understand what he's signing, but didn't understand how they got the numbers, he's an idiot. If he signed it but didn't understand any of it, he's an idiot.

There are your choices, boys and girls. A, B, or C?
The Professor
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Born Free Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 04:19 AM
Response to Original message
3. There is a pattern
Democrats need to point out the pattern of behavior here, in all the important matters that affect Americans this administration misleads, distorts and exaggerates.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lexingtonian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 04:25 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. it's a little more intricate

The Administration lies in ways that get things favorable to them quoted in headlines that their intended audience reads.

They retract it in ways that get mentioned in small print.

Voila, the useful idiots they need only catch the first version. Their cynical supporters tend not to care as long as it doesn't affect them personally.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
izzie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 04:43 AM
Response to Reply #4
7. Govt can not be run like a business and the GOP do not understand that.
Business is run from the top down and things done and said as the 'ruler' states and govt. is run from the bottom up, as the 'voters' say. If I have heard it once I have heard it 10,000 times that the govt. should be run like a business. It can not work that way in a country with our type of govt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lexingtonian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 05:34 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. Sure it can, but only for short periods of time

Large scale private business is predicated on exploiting/diminishing the collective wealth and common good for private gain. Good government is about increasing one, two, or all three of these to where they form a stable equilibrium. In large parts of the country the definition of good government has, however, often in the absence of possibility of the genuine article, been perverted in the public mind to mean 'screw the common good for OUR group's private gain'.

But sometimes there are serious national problems that require some serious destruction of wealth and shifting around of power and wealth to a few hands. E.g. wars, be they military or economic kinds or certain kinds of domestic social strife. Not that wise people really prefer this way of doing things, but sometimes things have to move fast and thus be taken out of the hands of the slow, error-filled but selfcorrecting, methods of committee-based public interest government.

Of course, the opportunity for large scale theft in this is why the dolt presently in office tries to be a 'war president' in the absence of a materially competent enemy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
74dodgedart Donating Member (513 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 09:45 AM
Response to Reply #7
11. It doesn't matter, because Bush can't run a business either.
All his companies go Ar Busto
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WhereIsMyFreedom Donating Member (605 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #3
18. Push the message
That this is the 'Blame Other People' President. We should compile a list of the issues that he blamed other people instead of admitting responsibility. Give the people a choice, is the President irresponsible (always blames other people for everything) or incompetent (screws everything up himself)?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 04:39 AM
Response to Original message
6. I just sadly shake my head and think...
"sighhh- they are lying to us...AGAIN..."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BruinAlum Donating Member (565 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 07:55 AM
Response to Original message
10. Another fumble for the Bush team. Let's keep approval ratings dropping
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
74dodgedart Donating Member (513 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 09:48 AM
Response to Original message
12. The scary thing is...
They had to know how bad it would look to side step the prediction,
so does that mean they think the real number is going to be considerably worse ?

They don't even believe their own spin anymore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
muriel_volestrangler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 09:59 AM
Response to Original message
13. You can tell Bush doesn't believe in evolution
because he's using a weird "reverse natural selection". Any member of his team who comes up with the true economic answer gets fired:

"Bush fired his first treasury secretary, Paul O'Neill, in December 2002 after O'Neill questioned the need for a fresh round of tax cuts.

Lawrence Lindsey was forced out at the same time as director of the president's National Economic Council after suggesting that a war with Iraq could cost $100 billion to $200 billion -- which turned out to be close to the mark."

At this rate, Bush won't have anyone with a higher IQ than him left by Nov 2004.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 11:06 AM
Response to Original message
15. the buck never stops at this white house.
you'd think the american would develop an allergy to repukes -- they can't take responsibility for not one fuck up they create.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bandit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 11:08 AM
Response to Original message
16. Why aren't they gunna add 2.6 million jobs? ~ Clinton added more than
that every year for eight straight years and these guys keep telling us they are so much better at economics that Clinton was.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
central scrutinizer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 12:24 PM
Response to Original message
17. I'm sick of this BS reporting
The reporter has a comfortable job so he writes about the political ramifications of the report - how the two sides will try to jockey for position. Everything is viewed through a political lens. That is the Karl Rove modus operandi and I am sick of it. Unemployment and lost jobs is not about numbers and projections - it is about hunger and homelessness. Why not do some real reporting on the millions of people who have lost their jobs and how they are trying to feed their children. Oh, but that would be class warfare and we must never do that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Robin Hood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 02:16 PM
Response to Original message
20. How can you misunderstand this statement?
"outsourcing" American jobs overseas was good for the U.S. economy in the long run".

Don't bullshit a bullshitter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 05th 2024, 10:23 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC