Bush did not say all ins well, he said:

“I’m concerned about the economy. I don’t think we’re headed to recession. But no question, we’re in a slowdown.”

You say:

“At the White House news conference, Bush also claimed that the dollar was still strong:”

But what Bush said was:

“I believe that our economy has got the fundamentals in place for us to … grow and continue growing, more robustly hopefully than we’re growing now. So we’re still for a strong dollar.”

He did not say the dollar IS strong but that he is FOR a strong dollar.

If you re-read his statements without the Bush hater glasses on you will be able to understand his comments better.

In general, I agree with your estimation about presidents and the credit-blame they get with regards to the economy. I also tend to agree that economic patterns are cyclical.

However, in the case of Bush, he has made some very troubling decisions regarding how our money is spent, to whom it goes, and so far I’ve seen little to indicate that those have been wise monetary policies. Also, his lax regulatory policies have allowed some sectors of the economy to suffer greatly at the hands of charlatans with little possible recourse.

The War on Terror has spent trillions of dollars now with few tangible results, unless you count our national reputation being tarnished greatly as a positive result.

The cutting of federal oversight agencies have led to tainted products in agriculture that have cost untold millions in commercial output, among other things.

The federally mandated education plan from Bush has led to no real increase in education scores for our children but has hamstrung local school budgets who must now tie spending to score performance just in order to keep what federal funds they receive.

The no-bid, outcourced functions once performed more cheaply and efficiently by government agencies has helped bleed the treasury dry.

These are specific actions taken by Bush, and by no means could be considered a complete list, that have harmed the economy of our country and caused economic strife for millions of Americans.

I don’t blame Bush for the normal cyclical changes of the economy- as agreed upon, these are normal for our type of economic system. But I can, and should, blame Bush for all the bad decisions he’s made to exacerbate what would probably have been a momentary economic downtick into what may well end up being a repeat of the horrible 70’s economy.

And on top of that, I certainly call call him an idiot for pretending that all is well in the land when too much evidence exists to say that isn’t the case.

Actually the claims of of a looming recession are from the media, not economist:

“Media Nearly Unanimous: ‘Recession’ Inevitable
Networks overwhelmingly predict recession in 2008 but ignore surveys of economists showing majority do not expect recession.

1/16/2008 1:40:50 PM

Recent polls of economists by leading financial publications have predicted a less than 50-percent chance that the U.S. economy will enter a recession in 2008. But the media’s coverage of “recession” makes it seem inevitable.”

http://www.businessandmedia.org/printer/2008/20080116131609.aspx

“The broadcast media mentioned the economy or a recession in 54 stories during the first two weeks of 2008. The segments predicted a recession or reported fears of a looming recession four times as often as they reported optimism about the New Year, even though recent surveys of economists put the chance of recession at 40 percent to 42 percent.”

“A survey of 62 economists conducted by Bloomberg News and released January 9 showed those economists predicting 1.5-percent growth in the first half of 2008. While that rate of expansion would be the weakest since the last nine months of 2001, it would still be growth. The economists also put the chances of recession in 2008 at 40 percent.

A similar survey by the Wall Street Journal found comparable results. In that poll economists put the chance of recession at 42 percent and predicted growth of less than 2 percent.”

Then there is this concerning the role of the media and ‘creating” the recession they keep predicting:

“Media outlets largely fail to recognize their role in paving the way toward recession. With incessant negative reporting, dotted only sporadically with positive reports, the media are contributing to consumers’ fears. But analysts recognize the correlation.

“We have to hope that the consumer doesn’t decide there’s a real recession coming because then they’ll close their pocketbook and we’ll really have one,” Bill Seidman, an NBC financial analyst, said on the January 10 “Nightly News.”

Your opening line should have read:

Denying the claims of MEDIA PUNDITS nationwide, President Bush today said that HE doesn’t think the nation is headed towards recession.

Who’s preditions on the economy would you value more, an economist or a news anchor?

The unemployment numbers measure the people who are getting unemployment insurance from the state. So after 6 months in Ny when I still did not have a job I was no longer counted in the unemployment numbers.

You always hear about the invisible hand and how the government should not interfere with the economy. Yet I do not hear wall street complaining when the Feds interfere by lowering interest rates. For years I hear the mantra of the Fed was to control inflation by adjusting the interest rates. This would provide a stable environment for the economy to grow over the long run. The current policies mirror the 1970 that led to huge stagflation. I see no reason to assume that the results will not be the same