home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky talk.bizarre:23047 alt.politics.bush:134 alt.politics.clinton:487
- Newsgroups: talk.bizarre,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
- Path: sparky!uunet!caen!batcomputer!cornell!chapman
- From: chapman@cs.cornell.edu (Richard Chapman)
- Subject: Re: BUSH
- Message-ID: <1992Jul23.183227.21088@cs.cornell.edu>
- Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept, Ithaca NY 14853
- References: <1992Jul22.032747.7660@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> <1992Jul22.142048.371@mag <1992Jul22.181221.5192@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> <1992Jul23.160636.26207@mksol.dseg.ti.com>
- Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 18:32:27 GMT
- Lines: 58
-
- mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
-
- >In article <1992Jul22.181221.5192@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> crussel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Carol A Russell) writes:
- >>
- >>The recession is easing? Where? Have you heard the latest unemployment
- >>figures?
-
- >Wherever did you get the idea that what the unemployment rate was
- >doing had anything to do with whether the economy was in a recession
- >or not? While the two tend to be linked, the unemployment rate
- >generally lags. What this means is that unemployment (in a 'normal'
- >recession) will continue to get worse even after the upturn, and the
- >amelioration of unemployment will trail along behind the improving
- >economy.
-
- >>I do applaud Bush for extending unemployment benefits....but that's
- >>where my applause ends.
-
- >Depending on the type of recession, this can be exactly the WRONG
- >thing to do (although I don't think that's the case with this one).
- >For example, a convincing case can be made that one of the things that
- >helped deepen and lengthen the Great Depression were FDR's enactment
- >of laws regarding unemployment benefits and collective bargaining and
- >such.
-
- >>Here in Ohio our economy is not any better than it was
- >>four years ago (or 12 years ago when Reagan took the helm) -- it is worse.
-
- >This sounds like a 'personal problem' for Ohio. Most of the country
- >has been pretty well off for the past 12 years, until this recession.
- >So just why are things no better in Ohio than they were 12 years ago?
- >What isn't Ohio doing that everygbody else did?
-
- I recall that four years ago the definition of "better off" that Bush
- used had to do with cash in your pocket today, not "the economy". Now
- he wants to tell us that even though we have no jobs, "the economy"
- is getting better.
-
- Are we better off after 12 Republican years? Not in New England -- a
- little bomlet and now it's worse. Not in the big industrial states
- like Ohio and Pennsylvania -- a continual story of loss of jobs. Not
- in the Midwest, according to farmers and factory workers. Not in the
- cities, to look at LA and Detroit and New York, for example. Not in
- rural areas, to look out my window. The sunbelt suburbs, maybe Grosse
- Point, Hollywood, and Westchester County, are the only places better
- off, as far as I can tell.
-
- If Bush wanted credit for how the economy was doing when it was good, he
- should also get the blame when it's bad. Fact is, he probably has very
- little control, but that's not the way politics works.
-
- Why did we go from being the world's biggest creditor to being the
- world's biggest debtor in 12 short years? I don't know if it is Bush
- or the Congress' or whose fault, but part of being in office is that
- you take responsibility for those things whether you have any control
- over them or not, and I plan on voting out every incumbent I have a
- chance to until I think this country is under control, including Bush,
- including my Democractic congressman and senators.
-