Tax cuts + spending != a healthy economy.

[Seran]

Anyone wanna guess how long it'll take before we get a President who see's the truth behind that statement?

Does it take take an economics major to realize that what our country is doing will shortly lead us to disaster, especially when combined with the travesty (read: conspiracy) of oil futures?

I wonder how long you or I might last running amock with our personal debt, before our credit is taken away, and our purcheses are similairly revoked.

[Back]

Some economist is going to come up with smoe kind of obscure theory why its good. No doubt.

Guess who economists work for? Yep.

Nationalization of a countries resources is the way things should go, and people need to realize that.

Greenspan may be fiscally conservative, but he is the man appointed by the Dems to keep a finger on the economy.

[Gan]

Originally posted by Seran
Anyone wanna guess how long it'll take before we get a President who see's the truth behind that statement?

Does it take take an economics major to realize that what our country is doing will shortly lead us to disaster, especially when combined with the travesty (read: conspiracy) of oil futures?

I wonder how long you or I might last running amock with our personal debt, before our credit is taken away, and our purcheses are similairly revoked.

Just plain wow. I dont know where to begin. Tax cuts and spending encourages the flow of money in the market place, encourages people to spend and keep the money supply in circulation instead of pulling it out and inhibiting M1/M2, at least according to the Friedman school of thought that the Republican leadership tends to follow. Much dislike the mutated Keyensian fiscal policy of taxation that is followed by the Democratic party.

Conspiracy of oil futures? Care to enlighten us on this, I'm curious to see you flesh this one out instead making it sound like 'the sky is falling'. If you mean that oil pricing and the oil industry needs more regulation - yes and no considering that its non-US suppliers that have a large say in how much is produced and at what price. I'd like to see some accountability from the US distributors of retail gasoline but I dont think its a 'conspiracy'. Perhaps I'm wrong...

Originally posted by Backlash
Some economist is going to come up with smoe kind of obscure theory why its good. No doubt.

Guess who economists work for? Yep.

Nationalization of a countries resources is the way things should go, and people need to realize that.

Greenspan may be fiscally conservative, but he is the man appointed by the Dems to keep a finger on the economy.

Actually, The Fed works independant of the executive branch.

Nationalization of national resources is a very bad idea, and it has failed in every instance (Russia, Venezuela, and China).

And Greenspan was appointed by Regan in 1987. Then re-appointed by Bush Sr., then Clinton, then by Bush jr. I dont think he would classify himself as the Democratic 'watchdog' of the US economy since he's politically neutral and was introduced to the position of Chairman of the Fed Reserve by a Republican President.

Just a few thoughts to help this thread along.

:banghead:

[Terminator X]

1900+ troops dead today after "Mission Accomplished."

This president is a douche, why has he not been impeached?

[Gan]

Originally posted by Terminator X
1900+ troops dead today after "Mission Accomplished."

This president is a douche, why has he not been impeached?

Because, thankfully, generic broad blanket moronic statements like the one above arent sufficient enough to call for a vote of impeachment.

:banghead:

[Parkbandit]

I was going to add some comments, but I already saw Ganalon treat you both like his economic bitches.. I guess I'll let you be.

[Warriorbird]

Tax cuts are fucking stupid and Keynesian. Wanting it to be so doesn't bring them out of that bubble. Examine Virginia's government pre and post car tax if you want a cogent example of the problem.

With that said...

...they have little to do with why our economy is so fucked up. I'm not even going to claim that one.

[Drew]

Well, looks like Ganalon has this thread under control.

[Wezas]

I honestly think the best thing the President can do now, budget-wise is to eliminate the tax cuts he set in place.

That will cushion the blow to the deficit that these hurricanes and the Iraq war will assault. But, likely he'll do one of the following:

1) Just let the spending continue, keep the tax cuts, and let the deficit skyrocket.

2) Start cutting. Everything. Everything but his tax cuts. Education, environment, etc.

Taking away the tax cuts will be too much of a risk to the next election. Sure, he's not running, but the conservatives who who were pushed off the fence to the right side by the promise of tax cuts will have second thoughts.

[Sean of the Thread]

Originally posted by Parkbandit
I was going to add some comments, but I already saw Ganalon treat you both like his economic bitches.. I guess I'll let you be.

What you said.

[Warriorbird]

I love the new outbreak of conservative dittoism.

[Wezas]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
I love the new outbreak of conservative dittoism.

^ What he said. :saint:

[Warriorbird]

Clearly. We must adopt this scintillating strategy.

;)

[Back]

Heh, I love the bandwagon jumpers. It takes quite a bit of thought and individuality to follow.

Ganalon was right about Greenspan, and thanks for pointing it out. I had read an article about Clinton that mentioned his appointing him but didn’t follow up on his history.

Another interesting fact about Greenspan. He supported Clinton’s economic policies while not one republican voted for it. Thats too bad, otherwise republicans could have taken some credit for the most unprecidented economic growth in this countries history. Don’t even think about trying to bring up the internet bubble crap. Clinton economics were much much more than a public internet share frenzy.

There isn't one honest person out there who can say with any validity that the Clinton years were not an economic boom. When was the last time you heard budget surplus? Oh yeah, thats right, the year Bush Jr. took office.

And the reason I bring up Clinton is... unfortunately its the only thing we have to compare to. Sucks because its a hard act to follow. Its shameful how everything that Clinton built up was spent away by this administration, and it isnt even going to stop there.

On China, Venezuela and Russia... well, I don’t see how you can possibly say the first two don’t work. And the question is, work for who? China as we all know is booming. Venezuela isn’t going anywhere any time soon. They've narrowed the gap between the rich and the poor in just a few years. The Soviet Union may have fallen, but Russia is still a superpower.

Nationalizing resources at this point is just a matter of opinion. Its my opinion that it is the right thing to do, profits be damned.

[Edited on 9-23-2005 by Backlash]

[Sean of the Thread]

Michael Moore is fat.

[Warriorbird]

Doubled government spending does not equal being fiscally conservative. Tax cutting on top of that is a ridiculous notion.

[Atlanteax]

Originally posted by Backlash
On China, Venezuela and Russia... well, I don’t see how you can possibly say the first two don’t work. And the question is, work for who? China as we all know is booming. Venezuela isn’t going anywhere any time soon. They've narrowed the gap between the rich and the poor in just a few years. The Soviet Union may have fallen, but Russia is still a superpower.

Nationalizing resources at this point is just a matter of opinion. Its my opinion that it is the right thing to do, profits be damned.

[Edited on 9-23-2005 by Backlash]

China is trying to avoid an economic implosion and is dependent on foreign investment to keep the wheels creased. When foreign investment ceases, China will completely break down into the "haves" coastal region vs the "haves not" interior region - as the SOE employing the masses will be forced to shutdown as they cannot compete on the international market if China adhers to WTO rules.

Venzuela is benefiting from high oil prices at the moment, but it has effectively gutted future industry growth and the rest of its economy is stagnating. Once oil falls below $40/barrel, Venzuela's economy is doomed till western investment returns.

Russia is far from a superpower... it has been unable to stop the Western encroachment all the way into the Ukraine. It is currently playing Iran's side in the nuclear situation as a ploy to keep the US at bay.

[Tromp]

Ok PB and Xyelin here we go (I almost kept my mouth shut on this):

Tax cuts and public spending encourage economic growth not govt. spending. Cutting taxes during war time is effort to have your cake and eat it too. It won't work.

The way the govt. plans on paying for all these mega billions is borrowing from the international community. Well the US has to pull major favors in order to encourage countries' interest in financing our economy.

I don't even know what this economic model is called but the immediate short term looks scary and the long term effect is worse.

In a way the US is becoming WorldCom.

<ducking behind the desk seeing the coming onslaught>

[Sean of the Thread]

No onslaught from me today. I'm being a hippy and relaxing.

[Warriorbird]

I'd love to see some sources, Atlanteax. Economic parallels between Russia in Afghanistan and us in Iraq are very funny as well.

[Edited on 9-23-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Warriorbird]

Republicans and the US economy.

http://www.ugo.com/images/galleries/snakesonaplane_filmtv/3.jpg

[Back]

Originally posted by Tromp
I don't even know what this economic model is called but the immediate short term looks scary and the long term effect is worse.

Heh, there is a name for it. FUBAR, or, Thanks for the debt, grandpa.

[Gan]

Atlanteax's detail on Venezuela and China are spot on and why I mentioned them. His Russia example is not exactly how I picture it, but an interesting angle none the less.

Russia (cold war era) proved that absolute power corrupts, and when you put a small group of people in the position to control a nation's natural resources you're going to to reap more sorrow than economic freedom and success.

I also left out Iran and Iraq who had/have nationalized natural resources... such shining examples of what happens when you give such things to governments. :rolleyes:

I'm not saying democracy and its free market economy is the utopian example of society, its just the best one that the human race has found so far that promotes individual freedom, civilized growth, and scientific growth.

[Warriorbird]

You guys seem to be attacking Backlash's misplaced views on nationalizing industry rather than the original post.

And I'd still love to see some sources for how terrible Venezuela and China are doing.

Snakes on an Airplane! They're not there, really, they can't be!

[Edited on 9-23-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Back]

Yeah it really dosent have anything to do with the topic. I just like to throw into random posts.

[Seran]

Sure tax cuts sink money into a sluggish market, and that, if by itself were complimented by a balanced budget would halt inflation in it's tracks, but that isn't the case.

What we have here is a government budget that hasn't the money to fund it's own projects. That alone leads to an increasingly robust national debt. As our national debt grows, it undermines the value of our dollar against those countries, as the countries who own our debt in turn see a rise in their own currencies value.

It's been said, countless times, that the speculation in the oil futures market is the culprit for the disgusting price of oil. Is there a shortage? No. Are we in danger of a shortage? Possibly, but the chance is remote. Meanwhile, to make up for their own losses, traders continually bid higher and higher for future shipments, the fervor of which is often fueled by the possibility of terrorist attacks, the possibility of hurricanes knocking out major production. Can that cycle be stopped? Yes.

The increased cost of energy, and transportation increases the cost of all consumer items, and thus the CPI (or consumer price index) also takes a jump. Thus inflation rises in staggering amounts.

So, devaluation of domestic goods on a foreign level, increasing foreign debt, and the falling value of our own currency are all the cause of our economic woes.

At the top of all this, our brilliant commander and chief refuses to reverse the tax cuts that'd fuel the wholly UN-conservative rate of spending, thus driving us deeper in the hole.

Lot's of these things have been said by smarter people than me, and certainly smarter than you.

[Atlanteax]

Originally posted by Seran
Anyone wanna guess how long it'll take before we get a President who see's the truth behind that statement?

Does it take take an economics major to realize that what our country is doing will shortly lead us to disaster, especially when combined with the travesty (read: conspiracy) of oil futures?

I wonder how long you or I might last running amock with our personal debt, before our credit is taken away, and our purcheses are similairly revoked.

I'm concerned but not panicking.

Public debt as a % of GNP is still *low* despite a record-breaking large deficit. The debt % was higher during Vietnam.

So while I'm concerned that we have such excessive pending (Katrina + Rita are short-term spending packages, and Iraq is "short-term" in the regard of 5-7 years), I'm not that concerned as our Economy can handle it at this moment.

.

Additionally, interest rates are low and will continue to be low, as compared to the rest of the world, the US economy is significantly more stable. Nevermind that it is considered to be a "bad year" when the US economy only grows 2-3%.

Foreign investment is continuing to shift from China and Europe into the US, and as long that continues to happen, interest rates in the US will remain perpetually low (on a relative basis).

With that in mind, servicing the Debt should not be as financially damaging as it would be with in a higher interest rate environment.

Once the Iraq situation gets under control and some troop drawdown occurs (while still maintaining a presence in Iraq that is paying for its own Reconstruction with Oil revenues), we'll start seeing the Debt decrease significantly over a period of time as it did during the Clinton years (who benefited from inheriting Reagan's economic reforms).

Also, in the ideal Iraqi environment (relatively stable, and significant oil production), those Iraqi oil dollars will be spend on US companies doing the Reconstruction work (a bit of a payback there) as well as helping stabilize the international oil market supply-wise, and oil drops back down below $40 a barrel.

[Back]

Originally posted by Atlanteax
Once the Iraq situation gets under control and some troop drawdown occurs (while still maintaining a presence in Iraq that is paying for its own Reconstruction with Oil revenues), we'll start seeing the Debt decrease significantly over a period of time as it did during the Clinton years (who benefited from inheriting Reagan's economic reforms).

Also, in the ideal Iraqi environment (relatively stable, and significant oil production), those Iraqi oil dollars will be spend on US companies doing the Reconstruction work (a bit of a payback there) as well as helping stabilize the international oil market supply-wise, and oil drops back down below $40 a barrel.

Thats the biggest crock of shit I’ve read in a long time. Benefitted from Reaganomics? HAHAH. You mean cleaned up the mess.

Oh, and brilliant plan to boost the economy. Bomb another country then charge them to rebuild it. Brilliant.

[Gan]

Actually anyone with any economic education knows that any fiscal or monetary policy that is enacted by the fed or by the government takes at least 3 to 6 years for it to be felt by the economy as a whole. Apply that to Clinton's supposed 'years of good fortune' and you'll know why he's not given credit for the growth from the Regan years, except for those looking to wave the Democrat flag. :rolleyes:

[Back]

Originally posted by Ganalon
Actually anyone with any economic education knows that any fiscal or monetary policy that is enacted by the fed or by the government takes at least 3 to 6 years for it to be felt by the economy as a whole. Apply that to Clinton's supposed 'years of good fortune' and you'll know why he's not given credit for the growth from the Regan years, except for those looking to wave the Democrat flag. :rolleyes:

Republican doublespeak for if it was good, it was us, if it was bad it was them. Whatever dude. Not buying.

[Gan]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
You guys seem to be attacking Backlash's misplaced views on nationalizing industry rather than the original post.

And I'd still love to see some sources for how terrible Venezuela and China are doing.

Snakes on an Airplane! They're not there, really, they can't be!

[Edited on 9-23-2005 by Warriorbird]

Here's some info on China.

Major Challenges Facing the Chinese Economy

China's economy has shown remarkable economic growth over the past several years, and many economists project that it will enjoy fairly healthy growth in the near future. Standards and Poor's DRI, a private international forecasting firm, projects China's GDP will grow at an average annual rate of about 6.7 over the next 15 years. Economists caution, however, that these projections are likely to occur only if China continues to make major reforms to its economy. Failure to implement such reforms could endanger future growth.

State-owned enterprises (SOEs), which account for about one-third of Chinese industrial production and employ nearly two-thirds of urban workers, put an increasingly heavy strain on China's economy. Over half are believed to lose money and must be supported by subsidies, mainly through state banks. Government support of unprofitable SOEs diverts resources away from potentially more efficient and profitable enterprises. In addition, the poor financial state of many SOEs makes it difficult for the government to reduce trade barriers out of fear that doing so would lead to wide-spread bankruptcies of many SOEs.

The banking system faces several major difficulties due to its financial support of SOEs and failure to operate solely on market-based principles. China's banking system is regulated and controlled by the central government, which sets interest rates and attempts to allocate credit to certain Chinese firms. The central government has used the banking system to keep afloat money-losing SOEs by pressuring state banks to provide low interest loans, without which a large share of the SOEs would likely go bankrupt. Currently, about 70% of state-owned bank loans now go to the SOEs, even though a large share of loans are not likely to be repaid. The high volume of bad loans now held by Chinese banks (estimated to total $250 billion) poses a serious threat to China's banking system. Three out of the four state commercial banks are believed to be insolvent. The precarious financial state of the Chinese banking system has made Chinese reformers reluctant to open its banking sector to foreign competition. Corruption poses another problem for China's banking system because loans are often made on the basis of political connections. In many cases, bank branches extend loans to firms controlled by local officials, even during periods when the central government has attempted to limit credit. Such a system promotes widespread inefficiency in the economy because savings are generally not allocated on the basis of obtaining the highest possible returns. In addition, inability to control the credit policies of local and provincial banks has made it very difficult for the central government to use monetary policy to fight inflation without causing major disruptions to the economy.

Infrastructure bottlenecks, such as inadequate transportation and energy systems, pose serious challenges to China's ability to maintain rapid economic growth. China's investment in infrastructure development has failed to keep pace with its economic growth The World Bank estimates that transportation bottlenecks reduce China's GDP growth by 1% annually. Chronic power shortages are blamed for holding China's industrial growth to 80% of its potential. Transportation bottlenecks and energy shortages also add inflationary strains to the economy because supply cannot keep up with demand.

The lack of the rule of law in China has led to widespread government corruption, financial speculation, and mis-allocation of investment funds. In many cases, government "connections," not market forces, are the main determinant of successful firms in China. Many U.S. firms find it difficult to do business in China because rules and regulations are generally not consistent or transparent, contracts are not easily enforced, and intellectual property rights are not protected (due to the lack of an independent judicial system). The lack of rule of law in China limits competition and undermines the efficient allocation of goods and services in the economy. In addition, the Chinese government does not accept the concept of private ownership of land and assets in China
High trade barriers are maintained by the government in large part to protect domestic firms from foreign competition. Such policies have two main negative effects: First, they give domestic firms less incentive to improve efficiency. Second, restricting competition raises prices and limits product choices for Chinese consumers.

A wide variety of social problems have arisen from China's rapid economic growth and extensive reforms, including pollution, a widening of income disparities between the coastal and inner regions of China, and a growing number of bankruptcies and worker layoffs. This poses several challenges to the government, such as enacting regulations to control pollution, focusing resources on promoting economic development in the hinterland, and developing modern fiscal and tax systems to address various social concerns (such as poverty alleviation, health care, education, worker retraining, pensions, and social security).

SOURCE (http://www.ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/international/inter-10.cfm)



[Edited on 9-23-2005 by Ganalon]

[Gan]

Some notes on Venezuela (more difficult to find analysis without renewing my subscription to the dismal scientist.

Venezuela - The Economy
Venezuela
AN UPPER-MIDDLE INCOME, oil-producing country, Venezuela enjoyed the highest standard of living in Latin America. The country's gross domestic product ( GDP) in 1988 was approximately US$58 billion, or roughly US$3,100 per capita. Although the petroleum industry has dominated the Venezuelan economy since the 1920s, aluminum, steel, and petrochemicals diversified the economy's industrial base during the 1980s. Agriculture activity was relatively minor and shrinking, whereas services were expanding.

Venezuela possessed enormous natural resources. The country was the world's third largest exporter of oil, its ninth largest producer of oil, and accounted for more oil reserves than any other nation in the Western Hemisphere. The national petroleum company, Venezuelan Petroleum Corporation (Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A.--PDVSA), was also the third largest international oil conglomerate. Because of its immense mineral wealth, Venezuela in 1990 was also poised to become an international leader in the export of coal, iron, steel, and aluminum.

Despite bountiful natural resources and significant advances in some economic areas, Venezuela in 1990 continued to suffer from the debilitating effects of political patronage, corruption, and poor economic management. The country's political and economic structures often allowed a small elite to benefit at the expense of the masses. As a result, Venezuela's income distribution was uneven, and its social indicators were lower than the expected level for a country with Venezuela's level of per capita income. Many economic institutions were also weak relative to the country's international stature. The efforts of the administration of Carlos Andrés Pérez (president, 1974-79, 1989- ) to reform the economy, especially if coupled with political and institutional reforms, would likely determine whether the country would reach its extraordinary potential.

more info on a very informative page outlining the economic picture of Venezuela.

SOURCE (http://www.mongabay.com/reference/country_studies/venezuela/ECONOMY.html)

[Valthissa]

Originally posted by Seran
Anyone wanna guess how long it'll take before we get a President who see's the truth behind that statement?

Does it take take an economics major to realize that what our country is doing will shortly lead us to disaster, especially when combined with the travesty (read: conspiracy) of oil futures?

I wonder how long you or I might last running amock with our personal debt, before our credit is taken away, and our purcheses are similairly revoked.

I think I post on the subject of economics here at PC more than any other.

I use the University of Michigan website as my primary jumping off point when researching a specific topic.

http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/stecon.html

You might want to look at the debt as a percentage of GDP over the last 100 years and compare that with the rates of private indebtedness.

You do know that the the US is 20% of the world's economy which makes it almost impossible for an imminent economic collapse. I think we should do many things differently, but our infrastructure will carry the US at least thru this century with the strongest economy in the world.

Futures markets are an efficient means of establishing the value of almost any commodity - this would be agreed to almost universally among economists.

Did I like the tax cuts - not really
Do I like the spending increases - no

The Republican's have found that spend & spend, elect & elect works as well for them as it did for the Democrats in the 60's, 70's, and 80's.

And if you think oil is a good business to be in, I assure that owning a gas station has almost the lowest barrier to entry of any business in US. Write a business plan, get a loan, open one - you just might get rich.

C/Valth

[Gan]

Nice website Val. Looks like a great source for information.

http://www.economy.com/dismal/

is one of my favorite sources as well, only its mostly pay for the indepth articles and analysis. I'm still looking for a way to get my new job to expense its subscription.

[Warriorbird]

Actually anyone with any economic education knows that any fiscal or monetary policy that is enacted by the fed or by the government takes at least 3 to 6 years for it to be felt by the economy as a whole. Apply that to Clinton's supposed 'years of good fortune' and you'll know why he's not given credit for the growth from the Regan years, except for those looking to wave the Democrat flag

Then what the hell were the Bush 1 years? Sure, you may've studied a little economics, but I dunno that you ever paid much attention to history.

[Gan]

Bush sr's presidency was a mirror of Regan's economic plan thus no deviation was noted. Ergo, Clinton rode the 12 years of Reganomics across the finish line. I actually liked history, but thats another topic. Perhaps you should have taken more economic classes rather than critique my history background.

Edited to add: de ja vu. I think we've had this debate before regarding the effects of admin policies and efforts on the economy...

[Edited on 9-23-2005 by Ganalon]

[Apotheosis]

Ganalon wins.

[Back]

Originally posted by Yswithe
Ganalon wins.

The bullshit award.

[Gan]

Originally posted by Backlash
Originally posted by Yswithe
Ganalon wins.

The bullshit award.

coming from you thats a compliment since you seem to surround yourself with bullshit flavored rhetoric and conspiracy theories.

I love you too you fucking idiot.

[Back]

Sorry man, but when someone claims Clinton’s successes were a direct result of Reagan’s policies, well, I just have to call that what it is. Straight up Bullshit. No offense.

[Sean of the Thread]

Reverend Ronnie FTW.

[Warriorbird]

So you completely forgot the economic conditions in the entire Bush 1 presidency?

For an older fellow you can be pretty dim... and no, Ganalon doesn't win anything.

Without that economy we would've never HAD the Clinton years.

[Edited on 9-23-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Gan]

How do you explain the economic boom during the Clinton years then? Lets hear your theory? This ought to be enlightening to say the least.

Try this out for size...

Since the economic cycle during the Clinton years can be classified as part of one of the longest business cycle period in history, its hardly appropriate to say that it only happened during Clinton's 8 years. In fact, it started about Regan's second term and continued onward thanks to his economic policies and vision.

Perhaps the first reason why the business cycle maintained momentum was the Fed's change in policy from optimum unemployment of 6% without increasing inflation to letting it fall to ~4% before raising rates to curb inflation - thus allowing the market to continue to move along without being fettered.

Additionally would be the stock market bubble that encouraged household spending beyond its norm which also stimulated the economy. Which did not see a major correction until 2000 (dot come bubble).

If you're going to give Clinton credit for creating the prolongued business cycle or the stock market bubble then you might as well give Al Gore credit for inventing the internet. :rolleyes:

Other than helping create NAFTA and the WTO the only thing we can give Clinton credit for is the welfare reform and giving Hillary a seat in the US Senate.

[Warriorbird]

And then we credit Carter for Reagan and then I laugh a lot. You've got a simplistic distorted view of things.

[Back]

Inherited deficit turned into surplus over his term due to his economic plan that had the blessing of Greenspan.

All that work down the drain in less than 1/4 of a term later.

People who take credit where they have none and blame others on their own mistakes sound familiar?

[Gan]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
And then we credit Carter for Reagan and then I laugh a lot. You've got a simplistic distorted view of things.

Actually Carter deserves some credit because he was the one who nominated Volker to the Chairman of the Fed that started the ball rolling. Thats the only thing Carter ever did correctly.

Your view of economic history is the one that is distorted. Please do some better research or at least take a class on economic history before throwing out your hair-brained ideas?

[Warriorbird]

I buy into the "big man" theory of history occassionally, but I don't let it rule my world view of the economy. As you've said elsewhere there's a lot of other factors than a President. I'm not so simplistic to think if not one then the other. No, I don't think Clinton deserves the sole credit for his years economic success, but I certainly don't believe Bush or Reagan do either. The notion that Carter caused Reagan's economy is also ludicrous. World events, market fluctuations, Congress, fads, plentiful energy or a percieved energy glut... all these things influence an economy.

[Edited on 9-23-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Gan]

Originally posted by Backlash
Inherited deficit turned into surplus over his term due to his economic plan that had the blessing of Greenspan.

All that work down the drain in less than 1/4 of a term later.

People who take credit where they have none and blame others on their own mistakes sound familiar?

Please be more specific in your response? I think it almost deserves a reply but its hard to tell because you've failed to mention any names...

[Warriorbird]

Please do some better research or at least take a class on economic history before throwing out your hair-brained ideas?

Three semesters, oh great and wise pundit....

[Gan]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Please do some better research or at least take a class on economic history before throwing out your hair-brained ideas?

Three semesters, oh great and wise pundit....

Of economic history??? Could have fooled me. Perhaps you should have stayed awake or actually gone to class. :lol:

[Warriorbird]

Curiously enough I got two A-'s and a B+... not my favorite classes, but I did pretty well. The professor was a raging Republican, but he taught me quite a bit.

Not even he would say that Reagan caused both the Bush 1 recession and the Clinton economic success.

[Edited on 9-23-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Gan]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Curiously enough I got two A-'s and a B+... not my favorite classes, but I did pretty well. The professor was a raging Republican, but he taught me quite a bit.

Not even he would say that Reagan caused both the Bush 1 recession and the Clinton economic success.

[Edited on 9-23-2005 by Warriorbird]

I bet if you asked him, his answer would have suprised you.

Yes I realize that there many many factors that influence the economy. Yet there are major directions that the executive branch can take that can either hinder or help what the Fed Reserve is trying to do to monitor and protect the economy.

The most important thing to remember is that you cant use that excuse on one hand when discussing Clinton or Regan economic policy and on the other hand, in the same breath blame Bush for tough economic times as is frequently done by yourself and others (Backlash et. al.) without taking the same reasoning to heart. Be consistent with the measuring stick you use to measure the performance of the leaders you choose to discuss.

Here's my one disclaimer. I only have a BS in Economics (12 or 13 economic classes taken (combining upper and lower level). With a minor in Poli Sci to boot. I am in no means considered an economist, my economic education level would dictate that I be a researcher at best with most of the major think tanks. Those with masters degrees in Economics are considered associate economists. A true economist usually has a PhD behind his or her name.

[Edited on 9-23-2005 by Ganalon]

[Warriorbird]

Hey...I totally blame the Democratic Congress for some of the things that lead to the Bush 1 recession.

The thing a lot of people (especially Republicans on this board, and some Democrats too) don't understand is I'm not really in favor of crazy spending. I disagree with Bush's policies more because I think his spending is astronomical than them translating directly to our current economic conditions. I'd also most likely be in favor of tax cuts IF they came with spending cuts. They haven't. Government spending is working on tripling under 10 years of a Republican Congress. That's certainly not all under Bush, either. I think laws/policies that Clinton allowed through are somewhat to blame for our current economic state. I preferred Clinton's social and foreign policies to Bush's (to a certain degree).

I do have some undergraduate economics training as well... I took those courses as part of a particularly broad cultural history major rather than an econ major however.

[Edited on 9-23-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Back]

So when republicans say the economy is doing well they mean its because of Clinton. Whatever dude. You crack me up.

[Gan]

Originally posted by Backlash
So when republicans say the economy is doing well they mean its because of Clinton. Whatever dude. You crack me up.

You've totally missed what has been discussed here. Its like we're speaking a foreign language and you're only hearing what either you're capable of with your slanted intellect or what only you can understand.

Please re-read the posts above and you can better focus on what we're trying to say.

[Back]

Originally posted by Ganalon
Originally posted by Backlash
So when republicans say the economy is doing well they mean its because of Clinton. Whatever dude. You crack me up.

You've totally missed what has been discussed here. Its like we're speaking a foreign language and you're only hearing what either you're capable of with your slanted intellect or what only you can understand.

Please re-read the posts above and you can better focus on what we're trying to say.

Sounds to me like you’re spinning things up so much you can’t keep track of your own statements. Or the truth for that matter.

[Gan]

Originally posted by Backlash
Originally posted by Ganalon
Originally posted by Backlash
So when republicans say the economy is doing well they mean its because of Clinton. Whatever dude. You crack me up.

You've totally missed what has been discussed here. Its like we're speaking a foreign language and you're only hearing what either you're capable of with your slanted intellect or what only you can understand.

Please re-read the posts above and you can better focus on what we're trying to say.

Sounds to me like you’re spinning things up so much you can’t keep track of your own statements. Or the truth for that matter.

And who can argue with logic like that...

As soon as you come up with something that makes sense then I'll reply. I'm done responding to your silliness until then. And thanks for degrading a nice engaging debate on economics.

[Warriorbird]

If we were good debaters we'd be politer and more educated.

:grins:

:shrugs:

As for what we were discussing? In essence...most situations are pretty complex.

Lot's of times people in the political arena don't understand economic theory. The scary thing is sometimes they're the biggest influence on it.

One of my favorite economists is Gary S. Becker... he's hardly what I'd call a liberal. I get ragged on in family discussions for being such a fan of the Becker/Posner blog.

I'm not really "liberal" regarding economic theory... I find both the Democrats and Republicans spendthrift... just in entirely different ways.

[Edited on 9-23-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Gan]

I'm a fan of the Becker blog as well.:!:

[Terminator X]

:wow: It appears that this board is quite bountiful with the ~30% approval-rating yea-sayers :rolleyes:

...How people actually continue to support this mass-murdering ass-hole/excuse for a human being that we call our president is unbeknown to me.

I, personally, would be very happy seeing our next presidential elect apologizing to the rest of the world for the ADHD actions perpetrated by this regime.

My two cents,

- The Termite

[Gan]

wow

[Seran]

Let us all not forget the taking of a substantial projected federal surplus, and turning it into one of the biggest single term deficits of all time. A master of economics, or basic intelligence Bush is not.

The entire "Hey! Hey! Look over here!" strategy of our present administration is embarassing. I doubt I'll even enjoy the huge I told you so a couple of years from now when our economy collapses.

Vote McCain, 2008.

[Gan]

And the sky is falling chicken little...

[Warriorbird]

:shrugs: McCain talks more like what Republicans once were. He goes along an awful lot though, Seran, if you look at his voting record. He's made a few stands, however, so the machine's buried him for it. I doubt he'll be the candidate.

[Seran]

The beginning of your statement encompasses exactly why I would give my vote to McCain. His true conservative nature, combined with opinions on small government, and fiscal restraint mark him as the true old-school Republicans before Bush re-introduced religious extremes to our party.

As for possible nominees, he's one of the greatest front-runners. I truly doubt Jeb Bush, or Giuliani have a chance in hell. Flame all you want, but if McCain does run, I'm voting Hillary.

[Warriorbird]

Why Hillary? I think I'm more liberal than you and I still doubt I'd vote for her.

I also think George Allen has an inside shot at the nomination.

[Edited on 9-24-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Seran]

Hillary simply because any other possible Republican challengers are of the new-style format that makes me ill. Frist comes to mind.

If I'm going to cross party lines, I'm not going to vote for a limp-wristed pussy that makes the word liberal an insult like Kerry, nor would I vote for a political nobody like Edwards.

[Seran]

Also, Ganalon, sarcasm is the tool of fools and those who're simply not intelligent enough to form a worthy rebuttal.

[Warriorbird]

Hillary simply because any other possible Republican challengers are of the new-style format that makes me ill. Frist comes to mind.

Makes sense. I wish I felt comfortable enough to vote that way. I don't feel my beliefs are really represented by any party in America today. I applaud your convictions.

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Terminator X
1900+ troops dead today after "Mission Accomplished."

This president is a douche, why has he not been impeached?

Please go back to just posting random (and seldomly) ebonic type posts.

You suck now.

[Warriorbird]

Well, Term, when it's a choice between a Turd Sandwich and a Giant Douche... what do you do? What do you do?

[Gan]

Originally posted by Seran
Also, Ganalon, sarcasm is the tool of fools and those who're simply not intelligent enough to form a worthy rebuttal.

I've responded to your initial posting in this thread, the rest of your 'noise' I've just let float by like the jetsam it is. If we're going to debate intelligence then you have to pass the screening first. What is your college degree in, if in fact you have one?

Oh wait, I found the answer already...

Originally posted by Seran
I bust the balls of minorities and poor people as third senior employee at a major collection agency, while working towards a culinary degree.

Please go debate your verson of ebonomics with someone who doesnt understand the workings of the US economy. :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Edited on 9-24-2005 by Ganalon]

[Seran]

Hah! I've been dismissed by a Texan.

[Apotheosis]

The great thing about America (and by default the PC) is that anyone can post their opinion just because they can.

In matters such as this, it's best to defer to the person who knows more about the science of economics vs. someone who has a ground level picture as to what is happening.

Although, I have to say, you are being quite smug, Ganalon. You're entitled to your comments, though.

Any poli-sci or economics teacher I had has always said the following "Presidents/Executive Branch can only do so much to influence what happens in the economy. They can make or break certain industries based on policy, but they sure as hell can't control it."

With that said, there are environmental factors (such as katrina, 9/11, etc.) that are outside of anyones control (unless you believe conspiracy theorists). And often, politicians enact law that their lobbyists write.

Most of you are regurgitating data that you get off the "Pro Bush" or "Pro Anti-Bush" sites, and I encourage you to gather the economic data yourselves. Statistics, data, etc. can be spun any which way you want to support your argument, therefore finding truly objective quantitative data is the only way you are going to really be able to make a strong argument.

[Edited on 9-24-2005 by Yswithe]

[Ilvane]

It's amusing that the Republicans always talk about being fiscially responsible, when this president is nothing but the opposite. I don't tend to think that tax cuts help at this time, because people don't have that income to spend anyway. The cuts are just raising the national debt even higher. Between Iraq and Katrina(and Rita), the federal government is being tapped for all kinds of money for relief and for the war.

It's going to be passed on to the next generation as a deficit bigger than any in history.

I also have to call "Bull" on the assertion that the Clinton years were just because of Reagan/Bush. They spent years trying to say "trickle down economics" worked. In fact it didn't. When the first Bush got elected his economy was awful, and when Clinton got elected his economic plan stimulated growth by giving more to the middle class..who is bigger, and who then gets the ability to spend more when they have more income to spend.

Now of course, they are giving more money to the rich. They seem to be doing really well! The gap between the rich and the poor has grown, and we have a huge debt. You don't need to be an economics scholar to interpret what is going on.

People have a disposable income to spend on things aside from what they need..if that lowers, the economy suffers. With gas prices heading upwards of 4-5 dollars, that disposable income is fading fast..people need cars to get to work, but it is taking away extra money. When everyone is in debt..people can't spend, and bankruptcy goes up, like it has..

Eventually the debt is going to cause inflation, which will just cause even more problems. Of course, the President is making sure he is making plenty of money, as well as his contributors.

-A

[DeV]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Well, Term, when it's a choice between a Turd Sandwich and a Giant Douche... what do you do? What do you do? Decide which is which first, heh? :saint:

[Gan]

Originally posted by Ilvane
It's amusing that the Republicans always talk about being fiscially responsible, when this president is nothing but the opposite. I don't tend to think that tax cuts help at this time, because people don't have that income to spend anyway. The cuts are just raising the national debt even higher. Between Iraq and Katrina(and Rita), the federal government is being tapped for all kinds of money for relief and for the war.

It's going to be passed on to the next generation as a deficit bigger than any in history.

I also have to call "Bull" on the assertion that the Clinton years were just because of Reagan/Bush. They spent years trying to say "trickle down economics" worked. In fact it didn't. When the first Bush got elected his economy was awful, and when Clinton got elected his economic plan stimulated growth by giving more to the middle class..who is bigger, and who then gets the ability to spend more when they have more income to spend.

Now of course, they are giving more money to the rich. They seem to be doing really well! The gap between the rich and the poor has grown, and we have a huge debt. You don't need to be an economics scholar to interpret what is going on.

People have a disposable income to spend on things aside from what they need..if that lowers, the economy suffers. With gas prices heading upwards of 4-5 dollars, that disposable income is fading fast..people need cars to get to work, but it is taking away extra money. When everyone is in debt..people can't spend, and bankruptcy goes up, like it has..

Eventually the debt is going to cause inflation, which will just cause even more problems. Of course, the President is making sure he is making plenty of money, as well as his contributors.

-A

Allright! A partisan response!

I would like to see the reasoning why the Clinton years were such a boon economically if it were not from the effects of the actions of the Fed or the residual Reganomics effect.

Last I checked the gas prices were on the decline and the only thing that would even make a price spike at this point would be the hurricanes - unless thats also a Republican conspiracy as well.

As far as inflation goes, there's many types: demand pull inflation and push inflation. Neither of these are caused by the debt of personal income levels or the national debt. There's also hyperinflation but that is usually the collapse of a national economy.

I think your scenario might be considered stagflation where high unemployment is combined with inflation or economic stagnation. OPEC assisted in the high inflation in the early 1970's until the Fed started curbing investment and spending by raising the interest rates (see Volker's tenure as chairman of the Fed) but that allowed the marketplace to recover and set the runway for the boom of the 80's.

Historically we're looking at inflation rates of the following (CPI index):

2000 - 3.38%
2001 - 2.83%
2002 - 1.59%
2003 - 2.27%
2004 - 2.68%
2005 - 3.09% 8 month avg.

Unemployment rates:
2000 - 4.0
2001 - 4.7
2002 - 5.8
2003 - 6.0
2004 - 5.5
2005 - YTD 4.9


So with OPEC playing with gas pricing we could see a possiblilty of stagflation, which is why the Fed is currently raising interest rates.

As far as the President making money along with his contributors. Well, I'm a contributor and I've yet to see any money come back my way. I would love to see valid proof if you have it. :rolleyes:

I guess the key to remember in all of this is that the economy is cyclical (business cycle) and you're going to see troughs, expansions, peak, and recessions regardless of who is president or what party runs congress. Thats one of the primary objectives of the Federal Reserve, to minimize the effects of the business cycle.

[Edited on 9-24-2005 by Ganalon]

[Warriorbird]

or the residual Reganomics effect

How do you explain it being a continuum then? Reagan...then the Bush 1 recession...then coming out in the Clinton administration? Gas prices were less than half their current levels 2 years ago. That's decisively non standard.

[Edited on 9-24-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Gan]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
or the residual Reganomics effect

How do you explain it being a continuum then? Reagan...then the Bush 1 recession...then coming out in the Clinton administration? Gas prices were less than half their current levels 2 years ago. That's decisively non standard.

[Edited on 9-24-2005 by Warriorbird]

The Bush 1 recession lasted 9 months and occurred after one of the longest periods of expansion in US History. In order of appearance the business cycle has a peak, recession, trough, expansion, peak, then it starts over again. The lack of fiscal policy corrections by the Regan administration and the corrective actions by the Fed helped prolongue the expansion and peak phase, in my opinion.

The recession of 2000/2001, also ~9 months was credited to the dot.com correction from the late 1990's market bubble.

In looking back at the Clinton years, I can only see the 1997 tax plan that actually impacted the public in a positive manner, where the middle 20% of the income families received a 17.6% break, the fourth 20% getting a 39.4% break, and next 15% (representing 80-95% income brackets) getting a 34.1% cut in income taxes.

Habitually Democratic leadership tends to use fiscal policy instead of monetary policy to try to manipulate the business cycle (lengthening the expansion phase), this fiscal policy is usually in the form of taxation. This is why I feel that the Clinton years, with the tax increases that were implemented did the opposite and stifled the economy causing people to save/hoard money and reduce the level of M1.

So giving Clinton total credit is inaccurate because, due to time effects of policy upon the economy, the effects of his efforts just sped up the inevitable instead of prolonging it. Does that mean that the recession is his fault? No, its a natural result of such a long expansion period. He just brought it about quicker due to the nature of his administrative fiscal policy activity. Does that mean its Bush's fault? No as well, we wont see the effects of Bush 2's economic policy for another few years, probably just in time to see a new leadership in office that wont hesitate to wrongly take the credit for a positive economic time, or more accurately blame the outgoing administration should we still be in a recession or trough for a prolongued period of time. Because of the lag between cause and effect that policy has on the economy, blaming the current administration for hard times or good times is missing the mark.

The significant idea of note is that monetary policy, commonly used by Republican leadership, is more market friendly than fiscal policy, which is a staple of the Democrat leadership.

[Edited on 9-24-2005 by Ganalon]

[Warriorbird]

:shrugs: I guess I just have trouble buying Keynesian economics. The rise bounce notion has produced the worst recession/depression cycles in American history. All of the rich people I know got that way by keeping it. I believe some of them very delibarately put less into a market than many of the middle to upper middle class people I know.

[Back]

Originally posted by Ganalon
Originally posted by Ilvane
It's amusing that the Republicans always talk about being fiscially responsible, when this president is nothing but the opposite. I don't tend to think that tax cuts help at this time, because people don't have that income to spend anyway. The cuts are just raising the national debt even higher. Between Iraq and Katrina(and Rita), the federal government is being tapped for all kinds of money for relief and for the war.

It's going to be passed on to the next generation as a deficit bigger than any in history.

I also have to call "Bull" on the assertion that the Clinton years were just because of Reagan/Bush. They spent years trying to say "trickle down economics" worked. In fact it didn't. When the first Bush got elected his economy was awful, and when Clinton got elected his economic plan stimulated growth by giving more to the middle class..who is bigger, and who then gets the ability to spend more when they have more income to spend.

Now of course, they are giving more money to the rich. They seem to be doing really well! The gap between the rich and the poor has grown, and we have a huge debt. You don't need to be an economics scholar to interpret what is going on.

People have a disposable income to spend on things aside from what they need..if that lowers, the economy suffers. With gas prices heading upwards of 4-5 dollars, that disposable income is fading fast..people need cars to get to work, but it is taking away extra money. When everyone is in debt..people can't spend, and bankruptcy goes up, like it has..

Eventually the debt is going to cause inflation, which will just cause even more problems. Of course, the President is making sure he is making plenty of money, as well as his contributors.

-A

Allright! A partisan response!

I would like to see the reasoning why the Clinton years were such a boon economically if it were not from the effects of the actions of the Fed or the residual Reganomics effect.[Edited on 9-24-2005 by Ganalon]

So if the economy is good now, by your logic, it must be Clinton's fault.


You are so full of shit it astounds me. You say you are educated. And you claim to be an educated economist? All the more reason to NOT trust people like you. Bullshitters.

[Back]

Lets get even deeper. Ilvane has a point. What if we do not tax the rich, and make everyone else pay for everything, even though they are broke trying to pay a mortgage and buy food for their kids?

Yeah, thats the capitalist model.

[Seran]

I would like to see the reasoning why the Clinton years were such a boon economically if it were not from the effects of the actions of the Fed or the residual Reganomics effect.

Here's two links for you, that hopefully spell it out:

http://www.clintonfoundation.org/legacy/052698-president-announces-budget-surplus.htm
http://www.clintonfoundation.org/legacy/080500-fact-sheet-on-economic-plan.htm

Maybe you can close your eyes and mind to how G.W.B turned a massive forecasted surpluss into the biggest deficit of all time is your problem. I mean, the man won't even reverse his tax cuts to pay for the massive expenditures on his little foray into the sandbox. But with an approval rating in the 30's, I'd say more than a few of your buddies are seeing the truth.

[Terminator X]

Originally posted by Hulkein
Originally posted by Terminator X
1900+ troops dead today after "Mission Accomplished."

This president is a douche, why has he not been impeached?

Please go back to just posting random (and seldomly) ebonic type posts.

You suck now.

yo

mom

Duuude, that shit was like *really* personal, I'm hurt, aiiite? :cry:

[Terminator X]

P.S.

I have family whose been actively participating in the demonstration on Washington. I think CNN covered it for about fifteen seconds today. It was hysterical,

"And the biggest march in history, ever, is now being held in Washington for the third month straight. BACK TO YOU WOLF!"

Ahhh, have to <3 The American media :rolleyes:

[Gan]

Originally posted by Backlash
You are so full of shit it astounds me. You say you are educated. And you claim to be an educated economist? All the more reason to NOT trust people like you. Bullshitters.

Way to fall back on your tried and true response. I DONT KNOWZ WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT SO YOU MUST BE FULL OF SHITZ BECAUZE i SAY SOOOO...

If you had actually read my posts you would have learned the following:

1. I have a degree, and it is in economics.

2. I never have claimed to be an economist - only those with PhD's in economics are truly considered economists in this field.

3. Monetary or fiscal policy enacted by an presidential executive order or action takes approximately 3 to 6 years, sometimes even longer depending on the nature of the policy enacted, to be felt by the economy, the market place, and the participants therein.

Whatever, you say I'm a bullshitter so I guess I must be one :rolleyes: , I stand by my original opinion of you I guess, that you're a fucking idiot who sits around your little coffee chats listening to left winged liberal political poetry to the beat of bongo drums while gnashing your teeth at 'the man' and dreaming up new and creative conspiracies with every sip. Even stevens? Have a good day.

[Edited on 9-25-2005 by Ganalon]

[Gan]

Originally posted by Seran
I would like to see the reasoning why the Clinton years were such a boon economically if it were not from the effects of the actions of the Fed or the residual Reganomics effect.

Here's two links for you, that hopefully spell it out:

http://www.clintonfoundation.org/legacy/052698-president-announces-budget-surplus.htm
http://www.clintonfoundation.org/legacy/080500-fact-sheet-on-economic-plan.htm

Maybe you can close your eyes and mind to how G.W.B turned a massive forecasted surpluss into the biggest deficit of all time is your problem. I mean, the man won't even reverse his tax cuts to pay for the massive expenditures on his little foray into the sandbox. But with an approval rating in the 30's, I'd say more than a few of your buddies are seeing the truth.


First guess of his opinion rating is because of the war on Iraq. I'll see if I can dig up some actual numbers and see what part of the economy relates to his opinion rating - not that you could have done that to back up your assertions. :rolleyes:

And please pull up some other sources besides a clinton-esque org for your numbers. You might have well used moveon.org's information which is just about as credible. :lol:

Edited to add:

Bush approval rating at 40 percent
as of 9.19.05

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush's vow to rebuild the Gulf Coast did little to help his standing with the public, only 40 percent of whom now approve of his performance in office, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released Monday.

Just 41 percent of the 818 adults polled between Friday and Monday said they approved of Bush's handling of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, while 57 percent disapproved.

And support for his management of the war in Iraq has dropped to 32 percent, with 67 percent telling pollsters they disapproved of how Bush is prosecuting the conflict.

The survey had a sampling error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

Fifty-nine percent said they considered the 2003 invasion of Iraq a mistake. That figure is the highest recorded in a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll.

Only 39 percent said the invasion of Iraq was the right thing to do. Sixty-three percent said they wanted to see some or all U.S. troops withdrawn from that country.

Just 35 percent of those polled approved of Bush's handling of the economy, with 63 percent saying they disapproved.

Bush's overall job approval number was 40 percent, with 58 percent of those surveyed telling pollsters they disapproved of his performance in office. It is the second time his approval rating has hit that low a mark.

His personal qualities hit fresh lows: Only 49 percent called him a strong and decisive leader, down from 54 percent in July and 51 percent in August. Just 42 percent said he cares about people like themselves, and 47 percent called him honest and trustworthy.

By contrast, 51 percent did not consider him strong and decisive, 50 percent would not call him honest and 56 percent said he didn't care about people like them.

The poll did contain one bright spot for Bush, as 60 percent of those surveyed supported the confirmation of John Roberts, his pick for chief justice of the United States. Just 26 percent opposed Roberts' confirmation, while 14 percent had no opinion.

New Orleans speech
In a nationally televised speech Thursday from New Orleans' Jackson Square, Bush pledged to put the full might and money of the federal government behind the rebuilding of the hurricane-stricken region

He also vowed to find out what went wrong during the disaster response so that it never happens again.

He said the federal government will cover the "great majority" of the costs of reconstruction, estimated at $150 billion and up.

And he conceded that the response to the disaster overwhelmed "every level of government" in the days following the hurricane.

But only 25 percent of those polled said they had great confidence in his administration's ability to rebuild the city and other Gulf Coast communities battered by Katrina, which slammed ashore August 29.

Another 43 percent said they had a moderate amount of confidence in the administration, 21 percent said they had little confidence and 10 percent said they had none.

SOURCE AND ITS NOT CLINTON PROPEGANDA.ORG... (http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/19/bush.poll/index.html)

[Edited on 9-25-2005 by Ganalon]

[Warriorbird]

Eh. I've seen Fox put Bush at 42% relatively recently and they're biased his way. I could see high thirties as reasonable given the margin of error.



[Edited on 9-25-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Gan]

The fact that it is CNN who's reporting the numbers instead of fox says alot... and the fact that nothing in the poll mentions the economy which was the directive of Seran's previous post. But hey, I guess if it talks about politics its all fair game, accuracy be damned.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Backlash
Heh, I love the bandwagon jumpers. It takes quite a bit of thought and individuality to follow.

Ganalon was right about Greenspan, and thanks for pointing it out. I had read an article about Clinton that mentioned his appointing him but didn’t follow up on his history.

Another interesting fact about Greenspan. He supported Clinton’s economic policies while not one republican voted for it. Thats too bad, otherwise republicans could have taken some credit for the most unprecidented economic growth in this countries history. Don’t even think about trying to bring up the internet bubble crap. Clinton economics were much much more than a public internet share frenzy.

There isn't one honest person out there who can say with any validity that the Clinton years were not an economic boom. When was the last time you heard budget surplus? Oh yeah, thats right, the year Bush Jr. took office.

And the reason I bring up Clinton is... unfortunately its the only thing we have to compare to. Sucks because its a hard act to follow. Its shameful how everything that Clinton built up was spent away by this administration, and it isnt even going to stop there.



Clinton was in office and reaping the effects of Reagan's Economic policies. Just because Clinton was in office, doesn't mean HE was responsible for the economic boon.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Backlash
Originally posted by Atlanteax
Once the Iraq situation gets under control and some troop drawdown occurs (while still maintaining a presence in Iraq that is paying for its own Reconstruction with Oil revenues), we'll start seeing the Debt decrease significantly over a period of time as it did during the Clinton years (who benefited from inheriting Reagan's economic reforms).

Also, in the ideal Iraqi environment (relatively stable, and significant oil production), those Iraqi oil dollars will be spend on US companies doing the Reconstruction work (a bit of a payback there) as well as helping stabilize the international oil market supply-wise, and oil drops back down below $40 a barrel.

Thats the biggest crock of shit I’ve read in a long time. Benefitted from Reaganomics? HAHAH. You mean cleaned up the mess.


Actually, he is dead on. The biggest crock of shit is you spewing that Clinton brought about the great economic conditions the country had during his term.

[Warriorbird]

So Bush 1's recession was America reaping the benefits of Reagan's economic policies too?

:grins:

9 months or no, I don't think the continuum is quite that smooth.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Ilvane
Of course, the President is making sure he is making plenty of money, as well as his contributors.

-A

Want to back that claim up with some facts other than your bullshit moveon.org site? While I actually agree with you on the spending that Bush has undertaken, that maybe SOME of the tax cuts should be taken back at least for the time being... you lose all credibility in your posts with me when you post shit like this with no facts. At least Michael Moore distorts the facts.. you don't even try to do that.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Seran
I would like to see the reasoning why the Clinton years were such a boon economically if it were not from the effects of the actions of the Fed or the residual Reganomics effect.

Here's two links for you, that hopefully spell it out:

http://www.clintonfoundation.org/legacy/052698-president-announces-budget-surplus.htm
http://www.clintonfoundation.org/legacy/080500-fact-sheet-on-economic-plan.htm

Maybe you can close your eyes and mind to how G.W.B turned a massive forecasted surpluss into the biggest deficit of all time is your problem. I mean, the man won't even reverse his tax cuts to pay for the massive expenditures on his little foray into the sandbox. But with an approval rating in the 30's, I'd say more than a few of your buddies are seeing the truth.

Holy shit.. I don't think I've laughed that hard in a long time.

You are actually posting links to Clinton's website as PROOF that Clinton didn't benefit from Reagan's economic policies.

Well done.. your sense of humor surprised me to no end.

[Warriorbird]

You win a lot of credibility with nothing but attack posts, Parkbandit. Clearly well backed up with fact, those.

Oh..wait...

[Apotheosis]

Ima gonna have to lean towards the conservative posters on this issue. (just this once :D)

Ganalon and PB For The Win!

[Warriorbird]

They'll have your pom poms and skirt delivered within the week.

[Apotheosis]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
They'll have your pom poms and skirt delivered within the week.

:rofl:

But, they're using logic and common sense. How can you argue against that?

Haven't we already determined that the Executive Branch does not have absolute control over the economy?

I haven't suffered one bit due to the current economic conditions because:

A> I live within my means, and accept what I can and can't afford

and

B> I plan ahead with my career and educational choices.

I think that what we're missing here is why certain segments of our society are living below the poverty line, and why certain are living above it.

[Warriorbird]

Haven't we already determined that the Executive Branch does not have absolute control over the economy?

Well... that was pretty much what I was arguing the whole time... so I'm not seeing where they're "winning."

Parkbandit and Backlash are just tossing A. bile and B. socialism... but I think Ganalon and I each understand where the other was coming from even if we don't agree.

I think the real answer is somewhere in the middle.

For the record, my econ professor said he thought that Congress and the Fed mattered more than the President.

[Edited on 9-25-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Seran]

People are forever going to argue whether it was Reagan's tax cut in '81, or Clinton's tax increase in '93 that boosted the economy, and that's the way it's going to be.

I doubt there is a single article in existance that wouldn't be discredited, with or without good reason, and thats the way it is with individuals with narrow minds, and even narrower thought processes.

For that reason, I degress from the conversation, simply because it's pointless to debate with individuals who'll not even consider any source of information but their own misplaced 'knowledge', or the 'truths' they so eagerly embrace in their feeble attempts to support The Great Liar.

Sheep.

[Gan]

Originally posted by Seran
People are forever going to argue whether it was Reagan's tax cut in '81, or Clinton's tax increase in '93 that boosted the economy, and that's the way it's going to be.

I doubt there is a single article in existance that wouldn't be discredited, with or without good reason, and thats the way it is with individuals with narrow minds, and even narrower thought processes.

For that reason, I degress from the conversation, simply because it's pointless to debate with individuals who'll not even consider any source of information but their own misplaced 'knowledge', or the 'truths' they so eagerly embrace in their feeble attempts to support The Great Liar.

Sheep.


What a classy way to pussy out of a debate you started with claims that were disputed and backed up by credible facts only to have you argue back with more claims where some were backed up by biased and non-credible data and others were not even backed up at all.

If we're to be the sheep, then you are the dung sticking to our collective wooly asses.

:baa:

For some strange reason you're sounding more and more like Fengus did on his rants about the economy. IP check!!!

[Edited on 9-25-2005 by Ganalon]

[Warriorbird]

Some insight for Seran.

How many members of the Bush Administration are needed to change a light bulb?

1. One to deny that a light bulb needs to be changed.
2. One to attack the patriotism of anyone who says the light bulb needs to be changed.
3. One to decide that, yeah, it IS dark in here.
4. One to blame Clinton for burning out the light bulb.
5. One to tell the nations of the world that they are either for changing the light bulb or for darkness.
6. One to give a billion dollar no-bid contract to Haliburton for the new light bulb.
7. One to arrange a photograph of Bush, dressed as a janitor, standing on a step ladder under the banner: "Light Bulb Change Accomplished."
8. One administration insider to resign and write a book documenting in detail how Bush was literally in the dark.
9. One to viciously smear #8.
10. One surrogate to campaign on TV and at rallies on how George Bush has had a strong light-bulb-changing policy all along.
11. And finally, one to confuse Americans about the difference between screwing a light bulb and screwing the country.

[Gan]

<4. One to blame Clinton for burning out the light bulb. >

Only because he probably screwed it into Monica instead.

:lol:

And yes, even I thought WB's joke was funny.

[Warriorbird]

Not mine but it amused me. Figured he might need a bit of levity.

I've concluded I certainly need more.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
You win a lot of credibility with nothing but attack posts, Parkbandit. Clearly well backed up with fact, those.

Oh..wait...

The facts were already posted by Ganalon.. and in a better, more thought out style than I would have done. What more did you need?

I've posted 4 times in this thread.

First post: Pointed out that Clinton wasn't responsible for the economic boon during his term, that it was from Reagan's policies. I was still on page one and felt the need to respond. Not sure where the attack was there.

Second post: A change of words where I took Backlash's comments and turned them around on him. Maybe a slight attack.. but still rather tame.

Third post: I called Ilvane out for posting her typical bullshit attacks on Bush without merit or facts. More of a defending post than an attack.

Fourth post: Sorry.. when someone uses "facts" like Bill Clinton's own website to try and prove that he was responsible for the economic prosperity... I gotta make fun of him.

Of course.. I'm not seeing much material from your side of this either WB... then again, I never saw much credibility in your political posts. :shrug:

[Sean of the Thread]

Michael Moore is fat.

[Warriorbird]

Parkbandit: Four out of five of my posts were mostly meaningless and the other wasn't backed up... but you're not achieving anything!

;)

Xyelin's is verifiable.

[Edited on 9-26-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Parkbandit]

I'm calling your family WB.. it's time you joined the Republicans. With some refining and education, I am certain I can make you useful to "the cause".

[Warriorbird]

I'm sure my dear sweet cousin Vance would welcome me with open arms... after having me frisked for weapons.

[Gan]

I thought only republicans carried weapons, and their NRA cards. You should be frisking your cousin instead... oh wait, now we're sounding like something out of Deliverance. :oink!:

I heard that the new ACLU cards will spontaneously explode if put in the general proximity of a firearm. :whistle:

[Warriorbird]

Reasons why I'm the Antichrist:

1. ACLU and NRA membership cards in the same wallet.

[Back]

Ok, been reading about this Reagan/Clinton stuff and this is my conclusion. Yes, there is a school of thought that Clinton benefitted from Reagan/Bush tax cuts. But it is a small school.

Cruising the web I found that most articles from average sites (BBC, Economic .edu's, business articles) did not mention Reagan had anything at all to do with Clinton’s successes. The places where I found this 3-6 year delay theory were on decidedly right/conservative/republican sites, and without attempting to label anyone here as such, the exteme wacko right kind of sites.

The general concesus is that Reagan/Bush handed Clinton a sluggish economy and record deficit. Clinton laid out a fiscal plan, passed by congress, that revived the economy and turned the deficit into a surplus.

Yes, there are many factors with every term that change how the economy flows. Yes, actions by past presidents will have an affect for years to come. We would be stupid not to keep using something that worked for us.

But based on what I’ve read, I don’t buy the claim that the Clintonomics successes are a direct result of Reaganomics. It sounds like what it is. Spin.

I recommend everyone to read for themselves. General concensus or conservative think-tank opinion? You decide.

[Parkbandit]

Please provide your sources for your "general concesus".

And for your sake, leave out Billclinton.org, Moveon.org and Ihatebush.com

Thanks.

[Back]

A simple Google ofClinton+Economy (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&c2coff=1&q=Clinton+Economy&btnG=Search[/url).

And I’m not talking about the very first hit on the very first page. I’m talking about the collected information relevent to this particular issue as you dig pages deep into the search results.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Backlash
A simple Google ofClinton+Economy (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&c2coff=1&q=Clinton+Economy&btnG=Search[/url).

And I’m not talking about the very first hit on the very first page. I’m talking about the collected information relevent to this particular issue as you dig pages deep into the search results.

I'm not asking about articles about Clinton and the economy. I am asking for you to provide us proof that it is the general consensus that Clinton is responsible for the economic prosperity during his administration.

Shouldn't be too tough, since you read it's a general consensus and all.

:rolleyes:

[Warriorbird]

You having done such a grand job of proving the opposite...he's a shoo in.

[Gan]

Originally posted by Backlash
A simple Google ofClinton+Economy (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&c2coff=1&q=Clinton+Economy&btnG=Search[/url).

And I’m not talking about the very first hit on the very first page. I’m talking about the collected information relevent to this particular issue as you dig pages deep into the search results.


The majority of the college professors I had in economics were flaming left wing and yet they still agree that Clinton directly benefitted from the Regan years. General concensus? At my university, in my department - yes.

I suppose its all in where and how you look at it, and who you ask.

Right wing? Left wing? There's going to be a spin so its basically what you believe based on what you've either learned or what you know.

33 semester credit hours of economics and a BS degree > half day of GOOGLE on Clinton+economics? God I hope so, or the american college system is really in trouble. :( Maybe I should have taken the money I spent on tuition and invested in Google stock.

[Edited on 9-26-2005 by Ganalon]

[Warriorbird]

Maybe I should have taken the money I spent on tuition and invested in Google stock.

Infinitely better investment.

[Gan]

Short run = yes

Long run = no

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
You having done such a grand job of proving the opposite...he's a shoo in.

Me personally? no.. but I believe Ganalon has laid out a well thought out argument on a few different posts that support our claim. The best your side can come up with is a 'Well, I googled Clinton+economy and I believe there is a general consensus that you are wrong'

:shrug:

[Warriorbird]

Short run = yes

Long run = no

Grandpa taught me arbitrage.

:)

The argument's a bit deeper than that, Parkbandit. You have the issue whether the Fed's influence is credited to the President or a skilled Fed chairman. You have the issue of whether the legislative gets credit or the executive. You also have the issue of whether if a President's influence extends that far you draw it to the conclusive point... it suggests that a lot of things that Republicans have claimed credit for are actually the results of Democratic presidents as much as the opposite.

Me, I never claimed that the economy of Clinton years was all his work... but I also didn't claim that it was clearly due to Reagan.

[Edited on 9-27-2005 by Warriorbird]

[DeV]

Originally posted by Yswithe
I think that what we're missing here is why certain segments of our society are living below the poverty line, and why certain are living above it. The answers to these question go far beyond the scope of simply the economy, tax cuts, or even spending.

Hint: We can start with education and its qualities as well as inequalities for one. The answers are broad and numerous and another topic altogether.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Short run = yes

Long run = no

Grandpa taught me arbitrage.

:)

The argument's a bit deeper than that, Parkbandit. You have the issue whether the Fed's influence is credited to the President or a skilled Fed chairman. You have the issue of whether the legislative gets credit or the executive. You also have the issue of whether if a President's influence extends that far you draw it to the conclusive point... it suggests that a lot of things that Republicans have claimed credit for are actually the results of Democratic presidents as much as the opposite.

Me, I never claimed that the economy of Clinton years was all his work... but I also didn't claim that it was clearly due to Reagan.


I don't think Clinton did much in his term to create the environment for the economic prosperity that happened in his term. It has also been shown that Clinton actually hurt the economy for a little bit by his 1993 Tax hike (not sure if it was '93.. just off the top of my head).

I'm certain that it wasn't all Reagan as no one person can control the economy of a superpower like the US.. but I believe much of the groundwork that was laid during his administration paved the way for the boon of the Clinton years.

[Warriorbird]

To a certain degree, I can buy that. Clinton getting elected due to the recession under Bush 1 was also pretty clearly laid out during the Reagan years.

It's a double edged sword. It doesn't cut cleanly.