Repeatedly, Bush talked about how the economy was in trouble. Arriving in office following the longest continuous economic upturn in generations, President Bush seized on a stock market that had faltered some in the uncertainty following the 2000 Presidential election.The bad economy, he talked about. Again and again. The bad economy.You know what happened as a result? First, people held off on hiring and purchases to see if the President's bleak prediction would come true. When this happened, Less hiring and corporate spending created a measurable slowdown in the economy, which led people to say, "Hey, maybe the President is right," and tighten up even more. Each report grew worse and worse due to this, and a nation that was being told to expect the worst slowly came to believe it.So, to put it simply, President Bush's constant talk about the economy being bad led it to be so. two wars didn't help. Is that right 333386?
Blacken the Plagiarizer !!!
Read the words below in
Red, do they look familiar to Blackens above post ?
http://www.moderateindependent.com/v1i2news1.htm" This economic downturn, quite simply, is the fault of President Bush.
It wasn't his tax cut, as the Democrats claim. The tax cut has not had enough time to have any positive or negative effects it will have.
What caused this economic downturn goes back to when George W. Bush was merely President-elect, waiting to take office, and continued on through his first six months in office.
Repeatedly, President-elect, and then President,
Bush talked about how the economy was in trouble. Arriving in office following the longest continuous economic upturn in generations, President Bush seized on a stock market that had faltered some in the uncertainty following the 2000 Presidential election.
The "bad" economy, he talked about. Again and again. The "bad" economy.
You know what happened as a result? I can tell you from my personal experience, the CFO of the corporation I was working for called a meeting and said, "The President keeps talking about the economy being 'bad.' Now, things don't seem bad, but let's just hold off on any new hires until we see how this pans out. And, let's hold off on all non-vital purchases, just for the time being."
And you can see right there how simply the words of President George W. Bush started slamming the breaks of the economy.
This, of course, all snowballed. First, people held off on hiring and purchases to see if the President's bleak prediction would come true. When this happened, it became a self-fulfilling prophecy. Less hiring and corporate spending created a measurable slowdown in the economy, which led people to say, "Hey, maybe the President is right," and tighten up even more. Each report grew worse and worse due to this, and a nation that was being told to expect the worst slowly came to believe it.
So, to put it simply, President Bush's constant talk about the economy being "bad" led it to be so.
The argument that Clinton is somehow to blame is the most comical thing we at The Moderate Independent have heard to date. The people who make this argument - partisan Republicans - invariably also claim that Clinton was not responsible for the prosperity during his two terms in office. That, they say, was just lucky timing.
Think about this: they say Clinton was not responsible for the economy while he was in office, but is responsible for the economy when he is not in office. Anyone with a basic grasp of logic knows these two things can not go together. Either the fate of the economy is luck or someone's responsibility. To make this argument, that Clinton, who presided over prosperity, should not get credit for that, but should get blame for a recession under President Bush is clearly unsupportable, illogical, and just childish partisan nonsense.
http://www.moderateindependent.com/v1i2news1.htm
