Bush Not Reliving His Father's Economic Nightmare Consumer ratings depressed, not at 1991 levels

Gallup ^

[Recovering_Democrat]

PRINCETON, NJ -- The almost mythological spectacle of President George W. Bush's finishing a war begun by his president father 12 years ago makes comparing the two presidencies impossible to avoid. Each man emerged triumphant from a perceived military success in Iraq, only to face a struggling economy, and an election less than two years away. The elder Bush failed to convince voters he was up to the economic task at hand, and went down to defeat at the hands of Bill Clinton in November 1992. So, with similar economic challenges confronting the United States today, the natural question is: will the same forces that drove his father into early retirement dash Bush II's own re-election hopes?

The respective periods immediately following the conclusions of the first and second Gulf wars -- when the public's political and economic evaluations were at postwar-rally-high levels -- represent important points of comparison for the two Bush presidencies. For the elder Bush, this occurred around March 1991. For George W. Bush, it is now.

A review of Gallup polling data from these two periods gives us mixed indications of whether the current economic environment is as bad -- or is not as bad -- as it was in 1991. Public perceptions about the economy are certainly no worse today than they were in 1991, and in some respects they are better.

One of the most striking findings, and one with positive implications for Bush II, is that the number of Americans who believe the economy is in a recession today -- 56% -- compares favorably to the 81% who believed the country was in a recession in March 1991. Furthermore, only 35% characterize the situation today as a "serious" or "moderate" recession (as opposed to a "mild" recession or no recession), compared to a majority (59%) who felt this way in March 1991.

[Recovering_Democrat]

G.W. will not suffer the same fate as his dad.

[jazzlite]

I saw a Milton Freedman interview a while back and I cannot remember which channel or which reporter did the interview but this question concerning the health of the US economy was asked of him. He just laughted and stated that we have a good economy and proceeded to quote statistics to back up his statement. After that interview I have come to believe that the leftist media is pounding away at the idea that this economy is weakening because they hope to bring that exact result about in the hope that it will damage the popularity of George Bush. Just go to cnnfn.com and look at the headlines every day. It is obvious what they are up to. Our people have come a long way in their understanding of everything in this nation since 1991. We have had scandals which opened our eyes and caused us to use energy to pay attention and think about our leaders. We also understand the idea of "scapegoating" which is simply pinning the blame for something from where it belongs to some innocent place or person. The expense of Sept. 11 and the expense of fighting terrorism is not cheap. Add on to that the expense of companies having to defend themselves against trial lawyers who bring baseless lawsuits against legal products and the corruption of some CEOs and politicians who promote a bigger and bigger welfare state with more and more taxation plus the normal ups and downs of any economic system and there you have it. In my state, we had a great budget surplus, but it all disappeared and now we have a big deficit. No one can figure out what happened to the money. People here are understanding more since our Governor was nailed in a big sex scandal and it looks like our next Governor will be a Republican. God help him because of the mess he will inherit.

[gulfcoast6]

This is no more than the democracts putting this out, they are trying everything else, so why not, it might catch. THEY sure are trying everything possible to do this nation harm just to get at the president. Oh, forgot the republacracts who are helping them the scum of the earth, Sonavich, McCain, Collins, Snow, republicans? Don't think so, they are in bed with the demoflops.

[struwwelpeter]

Two words:

Ross Perot

[jazzlite]

I want to add to my post that today's cnnfn.com economic coverage is positive but most days are negative to the extreme.

[waterstraat]

Apparently Friedman is unaware of how many engineers, IT people, airlines people, retail, etc have been layed off and how many factories have been closed in the last few years. Friedman is also unaware of the dollar, the balance of trade, the federal and state budget deficits, the stock market, the number of corporate and personal bankrupcies, etc. Friedman is only looking at company profits, not jobless. People dont vote based on company profits.

[ClearCase_guy]

I remember when economists thought that a 4% unemployment rate was not good for the economy -- too low. Now we've got a rate that just hit 6%. Lower would be nicer, but we live in a strange world where 6% unemployment is considered a huge national problem. Sure, if you look at specific sectors you'll find the rate to be higher. But that just means you can look at other sectors and find the rate to be lower.

I'm in the technology sector. There are plenty of signs that it will be coming back shortly. Probably just in time for the election.

[warped]

Being a computer systems engineer, and being in the 3rd job this year (one voluntary change, one not), I can categorically state that any IT person or engineer who is out of work needs only to be willing to move, or isn't looking in the right place. There are TONS of jobs. I get recruiter calls on a regular basis. In fact, I make 20% more than when I lost my first job, and I'm 1/3 the distance away, cutting my commute from 1 hour to about 24 minutes.

The problem is that a computer professional in the age range of 25-45 spent the bulk of their careers in the mid-90's, where they could name their price. They never had to do a real job search, and they have unrealistic expectations of salary they should make. Case in point: I have a friend qualified to be a unix systems administrator. He was making 90K + for a dotcom, and is looking in that range. Realistically, he should be looking in the 55-70K range instead (I got offered 3 jobs in six weeks in that salary range when I got laid off).

[YankeeReb]

I got offered 3 jobs in six weeks in that salary range when I got laid off

What part of the country is this?

[smith288]

No kidding, I live in Columbus. This is supposed to be a good tech region. They have hundreds of posts out there but nobody hires.

[smith288]

...but nobody hires.

I should say "But nobody hires me." haha. Could be im just not what they want. They want a jack of all trades. Im probably only fit to be tech support. HA.

[Recovering_Democrat]

Just go to cnnfn.com and look at the headlines every day. It is obvious what they are up to. Our people have come a long way in their understanding of everything in this nation since 1991.

You are dead on target about that, jazz. I go to cnnfn. to check stox periodically, and it is damn laughable to see what new "negative" spin the editors of that website try to put on this economy day after day.

One day last week, some kind of positive report came out...and the web site said something like, "X happened...but is it too much of a good thing?" I wish a better biz web site that updated the markets quickly was out there.

[eureka!]

"After that interview I have come to believe that the leftist media is pounding away at the idea that this economy is weakening because they hope to bring that exact result about in the hope that it will damage the popularity of George Bush. Just go to cnnfn.com and look at the headlines every day. It is obvious what they are up to. "

Bingo. That's all they've got. And we have not seen anything yet. Here's hoping their lies are crushed by a real, true booming economy (versus the fraudulent bubble of the 90's)--for the children.....

[gbaker]

Another two words "Fox news" or "Nonmainstream Media".

[Moonman62]

The recession of 1991 was a regular recession. The recession of today is a severe growth recession of historic proportions. The consumer (voter), and thus demand held up very well, whereas business investment and spending fell off a cliff. This problem has been severely misdiagnosed by the Bush administration. At first they denied there was an economic problem, then what corrective measures they took were designed to boost consumer demand, which wasn't where the problem existed. And there was a bipartisan effort to villify businesses and investment leading up to last November's elections. This will take time to filter down to the voter, but it will as our economy keeps "bumping along."