July 30, 2004

Nicely Done...

James Carville quote:

You know, back in 2000 a Republican friend of mine warned me that if I voted for Al Gore and he won, the stock market would tank, we'd lose millions of jobs, and our military would be totally overstretched. You know what? I did vote for Al Gore, he did win, and I'll be damned if all those things didn't come true.

Posted by DeLong at July 30, 2004 10:44 PM | TrackBack | | Other weblogs commenting on this post

Back in 1967 the joke went: I told my dad if he voted for Goldwater, we would find ourselves in a land war in Asia. He told me that if I voted for Johnson, we'd get runaway inflation and budget deficits. We were both right!

Posted by: Paul Gottlieb on July 31, 2004 05:45 AM


I always though the best version of this joke was a vote for the Clinton health plan would lead to a large bureaucracy telling you and your doctor what to do.

Posted by: spencer on July 31, 2004 06:37 AM



Comrades, John Kerry reopened the door of the Vietnam War by making his few months service there the centerpiece of the DEMOCRAT NATIONAL CONVENTION and his campaign, ignoring his accomplishment-free nineteen years in the Senate and his years as Lieutenant Governor under hyper liberal Michael Dukakis. His plan to fool America is working so far as illustrated by my experience two days ago:


Posted by: Adrian Spidle on July 31, 2004 07:34 AM


I don't see why the dismal performance of the stock market under Bush(negative returns over four years) isn't a bigger issue. I personally feel that part of this is due to an underlying lack of confidence in the Bush economic team. Our retirement nest eggs are basically going nowhere, and now face the threat of being totally undermined by inflation.

Posted by: Bob H on July 31, 2004 08:21 AM



It's obviously all Clinton's fault. The wingnuts tell me the Clinton prosperity was a bubble illusion, while the Bush prosperity has a solid foundation.

Posted by: richard on July 31, 2004 08:56 AM


Actually, before all of the corporate scandals came to light, the Clinton prosperity was due to Bush #1 taking a bold political risk, raising taxes to reduce the deficit.

It only became Clinton's doing after Enron, Tyco, Worldcom, etc.

Posted by: Hari on July 31, 2004 09:39 AM


re Clinton's fault
I recently listened to a wingnut explain to me, in all seriousness, that we are still suffering from the effects of Lydon Johnson's deficit spending. Kerry should forget about the "can't we all get along" approach. The challenge is to show the independent voters that the wingnuts are literally nuts.

Posted by: cj on July 31, 2004 09:46 AM


cj writes:
"The challenge is to show the independent voters that the wingnuts are literally nuts."
Don't you think Adrian Spidle and Patrick Sullivan do a good enough job demonstrating this?

Posted by: Lawrence on July 31, 2004 01:44 PM


You could say he same thing about Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly and Coulter. So, the answer is "no."

Posted by: Tom Marney on July 31, 2004 04:07 PM


Adrian, I think it's time to adjust your medication again...

Posted by: non economist on July 31, 2004 08:05 PM


I remember that during the campaign, before the recession of 2000-2001, the Bush team believed that the 90s prospertiy(whether due to Clinton or Bush I or whatever) was so solid that they could bank on 20 years of huge surpluses that could finance a bunch of programs *along with* a huge tax cut.

Then after the first several months of the recession, the Bush team was announcing that the a recession was coming and that they were adjusting their plans to prepare for it. Amazingly, after they thought things through, it turned out that the same fiscal policy and tax plan was appropriate!

Then after a few months or recession, they breathlessly announced that this recession was the mildest postwar recession on record and all traces of it would soon vanish.

Then we had the 9-11 attack, and it was convenient to blame a good chunk of the resulting economic damage partly to the previously mild recession. Suddenly the recession turned, overnight, into a pretty bad one that could explain a lot of the downturn! This very mild recession suddenly became part of the evil "trifecta" that would account for all economic woes.

Now, many Bush wingnuts dismiss the 90's expansion as a total bubble, completely unsustainable. Interesting that no one thought this before the bubble burst.

Their story changes every day. They sound like bad mechanics who produce a new diagnosis every time they look at your car, which they have not been able to fix.

Mainstream macro types like Krugman and DeLong, and Benjamin Friedman, etc. pretty much predicted what would happen with the misguided Bush macro policies, and it looks to me that they have a theory, and what the theory says should happen has mostly in fact has happened. And so I trust them, not the Bush partisans.

Now, new revisions indicate their might not have been an official recession at all -that is what I read in the yahoo news. So now we have a "bifecta" not a "trifecta" to explain the economic malaise.

And I hear stock market analysists on the radio worrying about whether the July employment to be announced next week will be around 250K versus 100-150K. THey are nervous it might get stuck in the 100s, which would be bad. Cross your fingers for at least a mediocre employment report witgh employment growth over 200K. From what I have read, I cannot imagine it will be "good" enough to keep net jog growth adequate for new job market entrants (like over 300K).

Posted by: jml on July 31, 2004 08:31 PM


Adrian Spidle writes: Comrades...

Your comrades are in Hell

Posted by: bonbon on July 31, 2004 10:13 PM


He's been telling this story for about 2 years. Originally it featured his wife.

Posted by: Stirling Newberry on August 2, 2004 08:59 PM


Post a comment