A question on the Bush economic "recovery"

[Bullshot]

Throughout this campaign, we've heard Bush tout the alleged economic "recovery" this nation is experiencing.

Question: Does anyone have access to information which can tell how much of this "recovery" (such as it is) can be attributed to the increased military spending we've seen under Bush? And how would the job and overall economic picture of this country look had it not been for the infusion of money spent on the military?

Perhaps the Kerry campaign can point out that a significant, if not major part of this "recovery" Bush is touting can be attributed to supporting a war, based on lies, that is losing public support with each passing day.

Is this a relevant point?

[noahmijo]

1. yea it is because a big part of economic performance

is based on GDP and given that govt spending is 18% of the GDP I would say * has allowed a rather substantial amount of govt spending lately...

Not to mention these new jobs created how many of them were private sector? I don't have proof but I suspect most of them are public sector jobs.

[Bandit]

2. Go to this site and watch our recovery in action

http://www.toptips.com/debtclock.html

[Mr_Spock]

6. That debtclock guy is a right-wing nut job.

Did you read the crap on his page?

[Bandit]

7. No I didn't read anything there just looked at the Clock itself

The Debt Clock and the Spending Clock. Fiscal Responsibility is not a partison issue. Or at least it shouldn't be.

[BillZBubb]

3. It is a big point, but a bigger one is the deficit spending.

Whether the money goes to the military or somewhere else, we are borrowing $400 Billion per year more than we take in to spend on government activity (a big chunk is the military).

Here's a link that discusses the military impact in the first quarter:

http://money.cnn.com/2004/04/29/news/economy/gdp/

[Bullshot]

4. It appears to me that my suspicions are confirmed.

There is already a net loss of jobs in this country since Bush took office. Can you imagine what the job picture would be had Bush not taken us to this war based on lies and exaggeration about Iraq's position to attack us?

I think the Kerry campaign needs to drive this point home. You're hitting two emotional areas to the voters: An increasingly unpopular war, and an anemic economy which owes much of the little growth it's seen to this war.

[unblock]

5. the biggest question is how are the benefits of "recovery" distributed

how much of the rise in gdp is translating into an economically better position for the poor, the average, or the rich?

the fact of the matter is that the economy IS growing, albeit not at a stellar pace. the problem is not that there isn't growth. the problem is that only the wealthy are benefitting from what growth there is.

the jobs aren't there and pay raises aren't there either. but the costs are rising.

the only people who are making out are the people rich people who make out through their investments.

oh, wait a minute, the stock market is 25% lower than its clinton peak, so they're losing money, too. damn, where's the money going?


oh, right, halliburton and republican executives with special purpose tax breaks.