Horrible concept - Reaganomicx working?


Diabloii.Net Member
Horrible concept - Reaganomicx working?

There's been a string of real setbacks for the DNC, as I see it. I'd like to know what they plan to do about it.

I noticed the U.S. National unemployment rate a few days ago. Then I read something about the increasing problems with the European economies, blaming them in no small part on the super-socialist agenda combined with low productivity (on many levels).

Then to top it off, these two doom & gloom issues came up on Yahoo! news:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. trade deficit narrowed unexpectedly in May to $55.3 billion as exports rose slightly to a record and imports retreated a bit from the record set in April, a U.S. government report showed on Wednesday.

The smaller-than-expected trade gap suggested stronger-than-expected U.S. economic growth in the second quarter and could help persuade the
Federal Reserve to remain on a path of steadily rising interest rates.

* AND *

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House on Wednesday slashed its forecast for the fiscal 2005 budget deficit by nearly $100 billion after the government raked in unexpectedly large tax revenues in recent months.

The Bush administration projected a deficit of $333 billion for the fiscal year ending Sept. 30, according to the Office of Management and Budget's "midsession" update.

So what's the dillio? I'm lucky I can spell economics, much less that I passed both my undergrad classes (without cheating, mind you). Is the "it's the economy, stupid" saying being completely ignored, or is it just that there's nowhere else to look?

I don't buy the "just wait & see, you'll be sorry" answer as legitimate, since if you wait long enough and reach far enough you can pretend anything causes something else. So there's got to be other explanations for what appear to be economic success because of the Shrubbery. Don't there?


Diabloii.Net Member
From the articles you just quoted, on the first point;

Democrats noted that Bush, who inherited record budget surpluses when he took office in 2001, presided over a shift to record deficits that have shown improvement only recently.

Rep. John Spratt (news, bio, voting record) of South Carolina, the senior Democrat on the House of Representatives Budget Committee, said the news "needs to be put in perspective."

"Over the last three years the Bush administration has posted the worst three deficits in American history and even with this slight improvement, 2005 remains the third biggest on record," Spratt said.
Improving from the 'worst ever' records that you've broken three years running doesn't seem to me like proof that the economy is being well handled.

On the first point;

The deficit was still within sight of the $60.1 billion record set in February, which some analysts expect will be broken in coming months, and it is on track to break last year's record of $617.6 billion. But the unexpected narrowing in May helped boost the value of the dollar in early trading.
Again, 'we're on track for the largest deficit ever, again, but hey, at least this month wasn't so bad' is hardly a ringing endorsement.


Diabloii.Net Member
All things considered, I would just as soon reelect Clinton and go back to the days of 30% return in a year.

Or we can all wake up and realize what the President does is a drop in a rainstorm.