Again ... no matter who is elected, it's going to take a while to get out of this mess ... you're going to blame a recession (which, actually, we've been in) on Obama when that's the hand he's been dealt by the previous administration?
The same thing happened to Bush for the "briefest" recession in U.S. history.... earlier this decade. Something happened to get us out of it super-quick. May have been good policy.... but, I'm not going there. It's just a fact. We were in one and we got out.
I am aware that recessions come and go. Generally about every 8 to 10 years. It's called the business cycle. That said, horrid policy is what keeps us in them or increases the problems that get us in one. Therefore, yes I (along with everyone else in this country) will absolutely blaim Obama if we are in a recession for the next year, two years, three years or four years and he's President. Things can indeed get MUCH MUCH worse.
Yes, things did grow under Bush's tenure. The level of economic growth under Bush did grow, although it depends on how you measure it. If you measure it by GDP, that DID grow under Bush. What's not being said is that it has grown under every president in modern history, and it grew far less rapidly than under Reagan and Clinton (not too sure on Bush 1). The economy was good, because wages did increase under Bush. Of course, what's not being said there is that inflation of the dollar outran wage increases, which meant the worth of wages went down considerably. What's not being said is that unemployment has steadily rose under Bush's tenure. What's not being said is that the de-regulation the Bush administration was a supporter of is considered one of the significant contributing factors in the free-fall our economy is in right now.
So I guess other than all that and many other things, Bush had a good economic run.
Just like how Bush has fucked up this country to no end, if Obama does the same they shouldn't be any backers from here backing or defending him either.
Fair enough for ya.
Peace
Go back to 2002/2003. Lots of people were tooting the Bush horn here. Some trolls. My favorite was a poll question of "Is bush the best president ever." and the choices were yes and yes. Now almost nobody around here likes him. Same with Obama if he fucks up that much (non-issue as he's gonna lose)
I cannot come up with a new sig till I get this egg off my face.
Yes, things did grow under Bush's tenure. The level of economic growth under Bush did grow, although it depends on how you measure it. If you measure it by GDP, that DID grow under Bush.
Ummm. GDP growth is the most accepted measure by all economists for output growth. Come on man, are you questioning GDP as a unit of measurement?
What's not being said is that it has grown under every president in modern history, and it grew far less rapidly than under Reagan and Clinton (not too sure on Bush 1).
It did not grow far less rapidly. The average over the Bush Presidency was certainly well above the mean for all U.S. Presidents. And although you are right, Reagan and Clinton did have better spans… it was not by much. Bush outpaced Carter and Bush Senior, which were the only other two Presidents of the past 25 years.
The economy was good, because wages did increase under Bush. Of course, what's not being said there is that inflation of the dollar outran wage increases, which meant the worth of wages went down considerably.
Not true. Wages did outpace inflation under Bush. There were three out of eight years where they did not. JUST LIKE CLINTON. Clinton also had three years where inflation outpaced wage growth. Nonetheless, both Presidents will end up with wage growth outpacing inflation.
What's not being said is that unemployment has steadily rose under Bush's tenure.
100% not true. The unemployment rate hit it’s 3rd lowest point in the past 25 years in 2006. It had been steadily decreasing since peaking in 2003. It only moderately increased in 2007. So, you are dead wrong. It has not steadily rose under Bush. His Presidency actually had one of the lowest averages of unemployment rate in the past 25 years.
What's not being said is that the de-regulation the Bush administration was a supporter of is considered one of the significant contributing factors in the free-fall our economy is in right now.
How?
0
g under p
Surfing The far side of THE Sombrero Galaxy Posts: 18,200
Nope. I'm stating what I believe will happen. Do you think it's possible the following will occur if Obama becomes president:
1. Economic growth will be below the last 25 year average during the next four years
2. We will remain in both Iraq and Afghanistan
3. Some sort event, like the one Biden just predicted, will occur
...I think that's what's going to happen.
1. Well as bad as this economy has tanked in the last 8 yrs it will take more than 4 years for there to be any economic growth. So yes
2. We'll remain in Iraq forever with at least 4-6 PERMANENT military bases there. So Yes, as for Afghanistan no eventually we will leave.
3. Outside this country yes, inside no more than anything that has happened since 9/II under the current administration
Peace
*We CAN bomb the World to pieces, but we CAN'T bomb it into PEACE*...Michael Franti
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
1. Well as bad as this economy has tanked in the last 8 yrs it will take more than 4 years for there to be any economic growth. So yes
2. We'll remain in Iraq forever with at least 4-6 PERMANENT military bases there. So Yes, as for Afghanistan no eventually we will leave.
3. Outside this country yes, inside no more than anything that has happened since 9/II under the current administration
Peace
It hasn't tanked "over the past eight years". Read the post I just made. And what you said doesn't make any sense. It will take 4 more years for there to be quarter to quarter growth because of what's happened during the Bush admin? That's ridiculous. I understand we are in a mess economically, but to basically give Obama a free pass for his first four years and say that your assuming a constant recession is absolutely amazing.... and quite possibly the most ridiculous thing I've ever read on here.... which is saying something.
It hasn't tanked "over the past eight years". Read the post I just made. And what you said doesn't make any sense. It will take 4 more years for there to be quarter to quarter growth because of what's happened during the Bush admin? That's ridiculous. I understand we are in a mess economically, but to basically give Obama a free pass for his first four years and say that your assuming a constant recession is absolutely amazing.... and quite possibly the most ridiculous thing I've ever read on here.... which is saying something.
can you explain to me how anyone's plan, McCain or other, can escape the next few years of economic struggle where you presume Obama's cannot?
"You're one of the few Red Sox fans I don't mind." - Newch91
"I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass." --- Pedro Martinez
0
g under p
Surfing The far side of THE Sombrero Galaxy Posts: 18,200
It hasn't tanked "over the past eight years". Read the post I just made. And what you said doesn't make any sense. It will take 4 more years for there to be quarter to quarter growth because of what's happened during the Bush admin? That's ridiculous. I understand we are in a mess economically, but to basically give Obama a free pass for his first four years and say that your assuming a constant recession is absolutely amazing.... and quite possibly the most ridiculous thing I've ever read on here.... which is saying something.
Your opinion but we shall see, so you believe Obama's the next president huh?
peace
*We CAN bomb the World to pieces, but we CAN'T bomb it into PEACE*...Michael Franti
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
can you explain to me how anyone's plan, McCain or other, can escape the next few years of economic struggle where you presume Obama's cannot?
Sure, I'll copy and paste from another thread (starred below)...
***I'm preparing for a crash because of the policies the soon to be elected statesman from Illinois has put forth. Our economy is almost soley based on services. Therefore, we need consumption in order to survive.
****His goal is to enlage gov't. Gov't does not produce goods. Therefore, if you look at GDP as Y=C+I+G=(X-M), you will see a large scale drop in C (consumption) and an increase in G (gov't) under Obama. G can't increase too much though if taxes decline. At first, of course, they won't decline though,... they'll increase. Because he wants to increase taxes. But, as he increases taxes on corporations, small businesses and our incomes (on aggregate), government won't be able to continue expanding because oddly enough the tax base will shrink. Corporations will cut back output and go out of business as consumption (C) slows and due to the increase in taxe rates under Obama. Investment (I) will stall as corporations decrease capital investment. At first, Governemnt will try to increase investment to offset this, but it won't work because voters will frown upon all the "bridges to nowhere". Lastly, trade (X-M) will be hit by an increased jump in ideas on protectionism (see Democratic platform from '04, "they're taking our jobs" BS). On net, Y (or GDP) will get hit.
****The economic reality of today is not 1930's. We rely on corporations today. They did not back then. They could get by on protectionism and increased gov't. Now, we can not. See Ronald Reagan for a contemporary guide on how to get out of a shit storm economy in this day and age.
I believe McCain's policies will be "closer" to Reagans. Low taxes on corporations, small business and low taxes on aggregate (us). He, of course, would have to prove that he's serious about lowering spending too.
Sure, I'll copy and paste from another thread (starred below)...
****His goal is to enlage gov't. Gov't does not produce goods. Therefore, if you look at GDP as Y=C+I+G=(X-M), you will see a large scale drop in C (consumption) and an increase in G (gov't) under Obama. .
you theory is predicated on this being fact.
First, his goal is NOT to enlarge government spending ... I know that's the republican talking point, but, it's not true. His goal is to reprioritize government. Obama originally stated that all of his "new spending" was "paid for" by cutting unnecesary governement programs, or increasing revenue by reversing the Bush tax cuts ... now, I don't beleive he gets everything he wants based on this new $700B plan we jsut put into place, so some of his plans are just going to have to wait, something he didn't answer during the debates ... but ... as stated previously, I don't think anyone walking into office witha $10 trillion deficit can reasonably spend with no idea of balancing the budget .... he points to the Clinton economy often ... you know, the last president to actually run the budget at a surplus (something even Reagan did not do) ... you know, ending the war would go a long way in reducing government spending ... so I don't see it as a goal for Obama to create a net increase in governement spending.
As for your drop in consumption ... would giving 95% of Americans tax breaks help out consumption?
"You're one of the few Red Sox fans I don't mind." - Newch91
"I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass." --- Pedro Martinez
GDP happens to be almost entirely credit based. Solid economic growth has been based on assumptions. How has that worked for us lately? I see it as a testimonial that the current system does not work when the goods are IOU's.
Trickle down economics has failed. How do the economic formulas forcast greed?
It doesn't work and we don't need a slide rule to realize this.
First, his goal is NOT to enlarge government spending ... I know that's the republican talking point, but, it's not true. His goal is to reprioritize government. Obama originally stated that all of his "new spending" was "paid for" by cutting unnecesary governement programs, or increasing revenue by reversing the Bush tax cuts ... now, I don't beleive he gets everything he wants based on this new $700B plan we jsut put into place, so some of his plans are just going to have to wait, something he didn't answer during the debates ... but ... as stated previously, I don't think anyone walking into office witha $10 trillion deficit can reasonably spend with no idea of balancing the budget .... he points to the Clinton economy often ... you know, the last president to actually run the budget at a surplus (something even Reagan did not do) ... you know, ending the war would go a long way in reducing government spending ... so I don't see it as a goal for Obama to create a net increase in governement spending.
He's raising taxes on aggregate and he's going to increase spending on aggregate. That's what his plan says.
As for your drop in consumption ... would giving 95% of Americans tax breaks help out consumption?
95% receiving tax breaks would not help out consumption if the other 5%, along with all EMPLOYERS are receiving tax increases. That's the problem. His logic is BS. It's redistribution. If you like that, that's fine, I'm just saying that's what it is. He's taking from small businss, big business and the rich and redistributing wealth. If you think that's good... fine. But, will that slow growth? Yes.
GDP happens to be almost entirely credit based. Solid economic growth has been based on assumptions. How has that worked for us lately? I see it as a testimonial that the current system does not work when the goods are IOU's.
You want to kill off credit and loans? Personally, I believe you should rethink your argument. Credit and loans are a VERY VERY good thing.
It doesn't work and we don't need a slide rule to realize this.
OK. Fine; root for wealth redistribution. If you think that greed will stop if you FORCE someone who's making more money to give it to someone who's not, then I think you are mistaken. Moreover, when you FORCE corporations AND small businesses to increase their taxes, you hurt people who are looking for a job because more jobs are killed off as companies cut labor because they owe more elsewhere. It's obvious stuff.
Look, if you are for redistribution because of social justice.... say that. That's a valid moral argument. However, to act like it helps GDP growth is just plain WRONG.
Redistribution is akin to fiscal responsibility. Credit and loans are only as good as the promise that they will be paid.
More money in more hands promotes less irresponsible lending and also promotes competition in the market. When too few people and too few corporations control the flow you get less competition and a working class that continues to take multiple low paying jobs in order to make ends meet.
It's down to 4 or 5 points in most polls. Joe the Plumber and "socialist!" are working where Ayres and Wright did not.
My sig may be wrong on margin, but it's gonna be right on victor.
HAHA. Talk about denial.
West Palm 2000 I & II/West Palm '03/Tampa '03/Kissimmee '04/Vic Theater '07/West Palm '08/Tampa '08/NYC MSG I & II '08/Philly Spectrum III & IV '09/Cleveland '10/Bristow '10/PJ20 I & II 2011/Pensacola '12/Pittsburgh '13/Denver '14
It's been looking like an Obama victory all along. It will be fun to see people on here freak out about what he does over the course of the next four years.
I'm betting he'll have very few backers by then on here.
That's a pretty weak response. He hasn't even been elected and you're already talking about what a bad president he is or will be with no evidence to support it.
West Palm 2000 I & II/West Palm '03/Tampa '03/Kissimmee '04/Vic Theater '07/West Palm '08/Tampa '08/NYC MSG I & II '08/Philly Spectrum III & IV '09/Cleveland '10/Bristow '10/PJ20 I & II 2011/Pensacola '12/Pittsburgh '13/Denver '14
all you Obama supporters are going to get what you righftully deserve, the only thing is that i will be punished too because this idiot when he becomes president will f**k us all over
spend, spend, spend...even bigger government...welfare gallore..universal shit care
you guys will be begging for Bush when Obama gets in office
Another angry, downright pissed off person just because Obama will probably get elected. Where does all that anger come from?
West Palm 2000 I & II/West Palm '03/Tampa '03/Kissimmee '04/Vic Theater '07/West Palm '08/Tampa '08/NYC MSG I & II '08/Philly Spectrum III & IV '09/Cleveland '10/Bristow '10/PJ20 I & II 2011/Pensacola '12/Pittsburgh '13/Denver '14
Actually, it's pessimism if anything. I'm pulling for Obama. I just feel that after the Dems blew the last two elections that there is only one viable party (in terms of having a chance to win) for the Presidency.
I cannot come up with a new sig till I get this egg off my face.
I'll send him more $$ today. They take little contributions. If you only have $5, send $5.
Why send money to someone that has speant over $400 million for running for president? I can see supporting him if that is your cup of tea but sending more money? Oh well it's your world
96 Randall's Island II
98 CAA
00 Virginia Beach;Camden I; Jones Beach III
05 Borgata Night I; Wachovia Center
06 Letterman Show; Webcast (guy in blue shirt), Camden I; DC
08 Camden I; Camden II; DC
09 Phillie III
10 MSG II
13 Wrigley Field
16 Phillie II
I'm just afraid McCain will suspend his campaign with a week to go, airdrop into Afghanistan and capture Bin Laden with his bare hands. :eek:
That's how paranoid I am about the RNC. :mad:
If I had known then what I know now...
Vegas 93, Vegas 98, Vegas 00 (10 year show), Vegas 03, Vegas 06
VIC 07
EV LA1 08
Seattle1 09, Seattle2 09, Salt Lake 09, LA4 09
Columbus 10
EV LA 11
Vancouver 11
Missoula 12
Portland 13, Spokane 13
St. Paul 14, Denver 14
Credit and loans are only as good as the promise that they will be paid.
Yes, that is very obvious.
More money in more hands promotes less irresponsible lending and also promotes competition in the market. .
The only thing that prevents "irresponsible" lending is the free market. If we let firms that are irresponsible fail, they won't go that route. They will tighten their standards because they will realize they have no other option if they want to survive.
Redistribution does not promote competition even slightly. As you tax small business higher, which Obama will do, you have less start ups because people can't afford to start up due to the high tax rates. Moreover, people have MUCH MUCH less incentive to compete when they can't prosper from competing. Redistribution promotes laziness.
When too few people and too few corporations control the flow you get less competition and a working class that continues to take multiple low paying jobs in order to make ends meet..
First, once again you are limiting the amount of corporations because you sending them abroad by increasing taxes on them. Obama's plan is to raise taxes on corporations, which are already taxed the 2nd highest in the world. Second, redistribution OBVIOUSLY does not promote competition. It promotes laziness. Everyone, including liberals, know the FREE RIDER problem. If you redistribute wealth people can either be lazy and rewarded for their laziness, and also you encourage people who are just about at a rate where they will be taxed higher, to make less so they will end up with more then they would otherwise after taxes.
Lastly, you are killing JOBS by RAISING redistribution, atleast in the way Obama wants to. People won't be able to take "multiple low paying jobs".... because you are killing small business AND big business with increased taxes, so there won't be those jobs anymore.
If more people are slightly more wealthy they will not be as likely to default on loans.
More people with slightly more wealth benefits Small business because they have more discretionary income thus allowing more competition. (i.e if I had more money maybe I wouldn't have to buy all my clothes at WalMart just to save money) (maybe I wouldn't have to shop at WalMart at all)
The taxes on small business will stay the same according to Obama's plan. Small business will also benefit on SBL's by lower interest rates because banks will be forced to compete with more money in more people's hands.
Corporations will get taxed more, but will benefit from the lower class having more discretionary income so they (the corporations) will sell more products.
Have you looked around lately??? Large corporations dominate, there are very few small businesses that can compete with the WalMarts and Targets of the world.
Everyday the large banks continue to devourer the small banks.... Big business continues to consume or drive away small business. There's only like 6 major oil companies anymore.
The current system simply doesn't work for the majority of the people..... maybe it works for you but it doesn't for most of us...
say the US Gov't wants $10 billion. they print bonds worth $10 billion-out of thin air. they then trade them for currency from the federal reserve, which also creates these pieces of paper that they suddenly say are worth $10 billion.
The gov't takes the newly printed cash (usually its all done electronically) and deposits into a bank, which then loans out 90% of it.
So that original $10 billion is now $19 billion, because the US Gov't still has access to that entire $10 billion and the loaned out portion is now in the hands of whoever took out the loan. In theory this process could go on for some time...keep taking loans, deposit, the banks loan out 90% of it, and so on, until that original $10 billion (that they created out of nothing) is now 2 or 3 times that.
What the hell does that mean.
So, they just added around $25 billion to the currency, by printing that original $10 billion, without adding any value, thus devaluing the dollar. ie inflation. Its inherent in the system. and when you account for interest you end up with a system where for every dollar in circulation, someone somewhere owes that dollar to someone.
its been argued that if all debts were paid there would be NO currency in circulation.
so I would have to disagree that loans and credit are a good idea. banks start out with the currency and end up with it, eventually.
base a society on profit and this is what you get, the scam of all scams.
I must say, you’re one of the first people I’ve seen recently, conservatives included, who claim that the economy under Bush was solid. But I’m no economist, as I said, so we’ll see how well this goes.
Ummm. GDP growth is the most accepted measure by all economists for output growth. Come on man, are you questioning GDP as a unit of measurement?
I’m not questioning GDP as a unit of measurement. I’m questioning your using the GDP as a sole measure of economic “growth” under President Bush, because that’s one of the only economic statistics under his watch that has improved; I think it overlooks far too much of our nation’s economy to be an accurate portrayal of his policies. I think if we’re going to address the state of the economy under George W. Bush, it’s quite a bit limiting to speak only about GDP. There’s more to it than that. What’s the point of using the GDP as a sole measurement of sound economic policy if it has been steadily climbing for the last fifty years? A better measurement would be how steadily the GDP rose under a president, and I am right to say that the rate of growth was not as strong as under Reagan and Clinton. It should be noted that Bush's rate of GDP is lower than the previous Democratic president with an economic policy similar to Obama's (that would be Clinton).
It did not grow far less rapidly. The average over the Bush Presidency was certainly well above the mean for all U.S. Presidents. And although you are right, Reagan and Clinton did have better spans… it was not by much. Bush outpaced Carter and Bush Senior, which were the only other two Presidents of the past 25 years.
Again, you are saying close to what I am saying, but once again you’re speaking about the GDP like it does not regularly grow from the beginning of a President's term to the end, no matter the president. According to the first chart at the Economic Report of the President: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/eop/tables08.html it has been growing since they have been measuring. So I take it you agree with me that in comparison to Reagan and Clinton, the GDP percentage growth has been substandard. It is better than Bush I and Carter, but as I said, do you really feel that is deserving of accolades?
However, what’s the point of the raised GDP growth if it never makes its way down to citizens? You’re absolutely right that GDP has increased under George W. Bush. However, wages have not kept up with this increased economic growth, in fact according to this article from the New York Times, where they used figures from the Economic Policy Institute, under Bush’s tenure we’ve seen the widest gap between economic growth and earned wages in sixty years. Not a good sign of a strong economic president. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/28/business/28wages.html
Not true. Wages did outpace inflation under Bush. There were three out of eight years where they did not. JUST LIKE CLINTON. Clinton also had three years where inflation outpaced wage growth. Nonetheless, both Presidents will end up with wage growth outpacing inflation.
I’m not quite sure where you’re getting your numbers, and I am unable to find a better chart right now than the one I found above from the New York Times. If I find a better one later I will post that one. But the chart confirms my suspicion that wages have no kept up with inflation. Granted that one is from late 2006 but I’m going to go out on a limb and assume that the downward trend has continued or stagnated as our economy has gone into the tanker. Look at how the worth of national wages have failed to keep up with increased production, they have declined. Considering the GDP has been climbing no matter who has been in office for the past fifty years, aren’t these facts better markers about the health of the economy, and the capability of the government that is involved with legislation?
This is another good article from the Times, written on the basis of statistics from the U.S. Department of Labor, showing that the cost of living and inflation has outrun the pace of wage hikes. I’m not sure what your point was about Clinton having three years of wage prices being outrun by inflation; in short, so what? I think it best to measure the overall growth or lack thereof between the two presidents. What does it matter if it happened in three years or eight? The result is the result. The three-year statistic does look favorably towards W. Bush, but I think it’s a relatively meaningless statistic when looking at the total impact of the respective Presidencies on the economy; http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/15/business/economy/15econ.html?partner=yahoo
I also would like to know where you found the individual measures annually regarding inflation outpacing wages, especially when you consider that the NY Times chart above that is taken from the Economic Policy Insititute seems to say the opposite. I don’t disbelieve you, but I was unable to find such a chart myself.
100% not true. The unemployment rate hit it’s 3rd lowest point in the past 25 years in 2006. It had been steadily decreasing since peaking in 2003. It only moderately increased in 2007. So, you are dead wrong. It has not steadily rose under Bush. His Presidency actually had one of the lowest averages of unemployment rate in the past 25 years.
You’re not right about this one, although I was admittedly wrong to say that it has steadily increased throughout his entire administration. What it did do was climb sharply, drop and then climb sharply again. The statistics are pretty clear; I used the ones at the U.S. Department of Labor. Clinton left in 2000; in December 2000 unemployment was at 3.9 and it was 4.2 the following month. Within three years, unemployment reached 6.2, before lowering once again in the following years. I don’t know how anyone could call the unemployment rise in the past two years “moderate.” When 2007 began, it was 4.6. It is now 6.1, and it shows no signs yet of peaking, and shall surely bleed into the next administration, whether it is Obama or McCain. I wouldn’t call that a “moderate” rise by any stretch of the imagination. Despite a high unemployment rate at the start of Clinton’s presidency, he achieved an under 6 rate after a year and a half in office and never went back. Bush, on the other hand, has traveled above the 6.0 unemployment rate twice now. Once again, the numbers here are in Clinton’s favor. Bush Jrs. unemployment rates have never risen as high as they did under the first Bush (who, it should be said, also had a Republican in office eight years beforehand). But again, is that really a compliment, or a good measure of a good president? Saying a president’s shitty economic policy is not as shitty as a previous shitty presidential economic policy? Clinton had a steady decline in unemployment, which seems to me to be a good barometer of sound economic policy. Wild and rapid dips and spikes seem to suggest the opposite.
But if your point is that the numbers look better for Bush than they did for President Carter from nearly thirty years ago, you’re right. Considering circumstances are quite a bit different in the world now, I think a better match up between the most recent Republican president and the Democratic president from 30 years ago is the most recent Republican president and the most recent Democratic president. But if you’re asking me to say George Bush was a better economic president than Jimmy Carter, then fine. You got it.
I’m surprised to hear you ask this question. You think the de-regulation on Wall Street didn’t contribute to this problem? This was the only thing you said that I’m surprised you think even required an explanation. There were, I’m sure countless factors, many of which I doubt I understand, including lending to borrowers with bad credit, etc. But I haven’t thus far seen anyone dispute the fact that the Republican congress and administration contributed to de-regulation, as Republicans tend to do.
This whole discussion is also not addressing the journey from surplus to significant deficit that was undertaken in eight years, which is another mark against President Bush. Basically, it seems to me than math is simpler than I originally thought. President Bush cut taxes and increased spending, which balloons the deficit and leaves people and nations borrowing with money they don’t have for more money they don’t have. That kind of economic approach seems to me to be a house of cards.
My last question is about the redistribution of wealth that you have been speaking about (i.e. that’s Obama’s plan). According to Obama’s plan, no tax bracket, from the lowest to the highest, would be paying more on their taxes than they did under President Clinton’s tax plan in the 1990s. Certainly in regards to income, and I’m 99 percent sure in regards to capital gains. Were Clinton’s policies, therefore, also a ‘redistribution of wealth?’
Why send money to someone that has speant over $400 million for running for president? I can see supporting him if that is your cup of tea but sending more money? Oh well it's your world
He needs it and I want him to win and I want him to win with a wide margin. I feel it is important to the country for him to win. Its funny being attacked for donating these small amounts. We have all spent plenty on Pearl Jam stuff. Maybe you should attack people/corporations who are donating thousands and millions to McCain. I'm just the little guy. (I probably make less than Joe the Plummer) I will continue to donate what I can.
To Saveuplife - I am able to do it because my family chooses to live frugally, below our means, so that we have some disposable income to donate to causes we believe in. We have old cars, and ~1,000 sq. foot house. We do not run up credit card debt that we can't pay, and our house is paid for due to frugality. We do not spend lavishly. I will probably donate more. I've made some changes elsewhere this month so I have funds to donate to what what I believe in.
R.i.p. Rigoberto Alpizar.
R.i.p. My Dad - May 28, 2007
R.i.p. Black Tail (cat) - Sept. 20, 2008
He needs it and I want him to win and I want him to win with a wide margin. I feel it is important to the country for him to win. Its funny being attacked for donating these small amounts. We have all spent plenty on Pearl Jam stuff. Maybe you should attack people/corporations who are donating thousands and millions to McCain. I'm just the little guy. (I probably make less than Joe the Plummer) I will continue to donate what I can.
To Saveuplife - I am able to do it because my family chooses to live frugally, below our means, so that we have some disposable income to donate to causes we believe in. We have old cars, and ~1,000 sq. foot house. We do not run up credit card debt that we can't pay, and our house is paid for due to frugality. We do not spend lavishly. I will probably donate more. I've made some changes elsewhere this month so I have funds to donate to what what I believe in.
He needs it? He has $426 million in campaign contributions. I am sure your $50 wen a long way
96 Randall's Island II
98 CAA
00 Virginia Beach;Camden I; Jones Beach III
05 Borgata Night I; Wachovia Center
06 Letterman Show; Webcast (guy in blue shirt), Camden I; DC
08 Camden I; Camden II; DC
09 Phillie III
10 MSG II
13 Wrigley Field
16 Phillie II
Comments
WRONG. Not one aspect of what I said was FALSE.
The same thing happened to Bush for the "briefest" recession in U.S. history.... earlier this decade. Something happened to get us out of it super-quick. May have been good policy.... but, I'm not going there. It's just a fact. We were in one and we got out.
I am aware that recessions come and go. Generally about every 8 to 10 years. It's called the business cycle. That said, horrid policy is what keeps us in them or increases the problems that get us in one. Therefore, yes I (along with everyone else in this country) will absolutely blaim Obama if we are in a recession for the next year, two years, three years or four years and he's President. Things can indeed get MUCH MUCH worse.
So I guess other than all that and many other things, Bush had a good economic run.
Go back to 2002/2003. Lots of people were tooting the Bush horn here. Some trolls. My favorite was a poll question of "Is bush the best president ever." and the choices were yes and yes. Now almost nobody around here likes him. Same with Obama if he fucks up that much (non-issue as he's gonna lose)
Ummm. GDP growth is the most accepted measure by all economists for output growth. Come on man, are you questioning GDP as a unit of measurement?
It did not grow far less rapidly. The average over the Bush Presidency was certainly well above the mean for all U.S. Presidents. And although you are right, Reagan and Clinton did have better spans… it was not by much. Bush outpaced Carter and Bush Senior, which were the only other two Presidents of the past 25 years.
Not true. Wages did outpace inflation under Bush. There were three out of eight years where they did not. JUST LIKE CLINTON. Clinton also had three years where inflation outpaced wage growth. Nonetheless, both Presidents will end up with wage growth outpacing inflation.
100% not true. The unemployment rate hit it’s 3rd lowest point in the past 25 years in 2006. It had been steadily decreasing since peaking in 2003. It only moderately increased in 2007. So, you are dead wrong. It has not steadily rose under Bush. His Presidency actually had one of the lowest averages of unemployment rate in the past 25 years.
How?
1. Well as bad as this economy has tanked in the last 8 yrs it will take more than 4 years for there to be any economic growth. So yes
2. We'll remain in Iraq forever with at least 4-6 PERMANENT military bases there. So Yes, as for Afghanistan no eventually we will leave.
3. Outside this country yes, inside no more than anything that has happened since 9/II under the current administration
Peace
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
Considering I'm no economist, I'm going to have to take a bit of time to gather the facts to back me up. I'll be back to the argument later tonight.
It hasn't tanked "over the past eight years". Read the post I just made. And what you said doesn't make any sense. It will take 4 more years for there to be quarter to quarter growth because of what's happened during the Bush admin? That's ridiculous. I understand we are in a mess economically, but to basically give Obama a free pass for his first four years and say that your assuming a constant recession is absolutely amazing.... and quite possibly the most ridiculous thing I've ever read on here.... which is saying something.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html
Right now, Obama lead 286-155 with 97 toss up in the Electoral College.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/
Just using who is currently leading in polls, Obama is ahead 364-174...
Sorry, I apologize for actually staying on topic.
And he who forgets, will be destined to remember...
can you explain to me how anyone's plan, McCain or other, can escape the next few years of economic struggle where you presume Obama's cannot?
"I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass." --- Pedro Martinez
Your opinion but we shall see, so you believe Obama's the next president huh?
peace
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
Sure, I'll copy and paste from another thread (starred below)...
***I'm preparing for a crash because of the policies the soon to be elected statesman from Illinois has put forth. Our economy is almost soley based on services. Therefore, we need consumption in order to survive.
****His goal is to enlage gov't. Gov't does not produce goods. Therefore, if you look at GDP as Y=C+I+G=(X-M), you will see a large scale drop in C (consumption) and an increase in G (gov't) under Obama. G can't increase too much though if taxes decline. At first, of course, they won't decline though,... they'll increase. Because he wants to increase taxes. But, as he increases taxes on corporations, small businesses and our incomes (on aggregate), government won't be able to continue expanding because oddly enough the tax base will shrink. Corporations will cut back output and go out of business as consumption (C) slows and due to the increase in taxe rates under Obama. Investment (I) will stall as corporations decrease capital investment. At first, Governemnt will try to increase investment to offset this, but it won't work because voters will frown upon all the "bridges to nowhere". Lastly, trade (X-M) will be hit by an increased jump in ideas on protectionism (see Democratic platform from '04, "they're taking our jobs" BS). On net, Y (or GDP) will get hit.
****The economic reality of today is not 1930's. We rely on corporations today. They did not back then. They could get by on protectionism and increased gov't. Now, we can not. See Ronald Reagan for a contemporary guide on how to get out of a shit storm economy in this day and age.
I believe McCain's policies will be "closer" to Reagans. Low taxes on corporations, small business and low taxes on aggregate (us). He, of course, would have to prove that he's serious about lowering spending too.
Yes. I've thought he would be since he beat Hillary. I was hoping he wouldn't, I conceed that he'll win.
Basically, the "timing" of the economic downturn did not help McCain and certainly helped Obama. It would be remarkable if McCain won this thing.
you theory is predicated on this being fact.
First, his goal is NOT to enlarge government spending ... I know that's the republican talking point, but, it's not true. His goal is to reprioritize government. Obama originally stated that all of his "new spending" was "paid for" by cutting unnecesary governement programs, or increasing revenue by reversing the Bush tax cuts ... now, I don't beleive he gets everything he wants based on this new $700B plan we jsut put into place, so some of his plans are just going to have to wait, something he didn't answer during the debates ... but ... as stated previously, I don't think anyone walking into office witha $10 trillion deficit can reasonably spend with no idea of balancing the budget .... he points to the Clinton economy often ... you know, the last president to actually run the budget at a surplus (something even Reagan did not do) ... you know, ending the war would go a long way in reducing government spending ... so I don't see it as a goal for Obama to create a net increase in governement spending.
As for your drop in consumption ... would giving 95% of Americans tax breaks help out consumption?
"I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass." --- Pedro Martinez
i have another word for a McCain win can you repeat after me "stolen" fixed " take your pick ..
Trickle down economics has failed. How do the economic formulas forcast greed?
It doesn't work and we don't need a slide rule to realize this.
He's raising taxes on aggregate and he's going to increase spending on aggregate. That's what his plan says.
95% receiving tax breaks would not help out consumption if the other 5%, along with all EMPLOYERS are receiving tax increases. That's the problem. His logic is BS. It's redistribution. If you like that, that's fine, I'm just saying that's what it is. He's taking from small businss, big business and the rich and redistributing wealth. If you think that's good... fine. But, will that slow growth? Yes.
You want to kill off credit and loans? Personally, I believe you should rethink your argument. Credit and loans are a VERY VERY good thing.
Even Dems use trickle down economics, you just don't realize it.
What does this even mean?
OK. Fine; root for wealth redistribution. If you think that greed will stop if you FORCE someone who's making more money to give it to someone who's not, then I think you are mistaken. Moreover, when you FORCE corporations AND small businesses to increase their taxes, you hurt people who are looking for a job because more jobs are killed off as companies cut labor because they owe more elsewhere. It's obvious stuff.
Look, if you are for redistribution because of social justice.... say that. That's a valid moral argument. However, to act like it helps GDP growth is just plain WRONG.
More money in more hands promotes less irresponsible lending and also promotes competition in the market. When too few people and too few corporations control the flow you get less competition and a working class that continues to take multiple low paying jobs in order to make ends meet.
That's what should be obvious.
HAHA. Talk about denial.
That's a pretty weak response. He hasn't even been elected and you're already talking about what a bad president he is or will be with no evidence to support it.
Another angry, downright pissed off person just because Obama will probably get elected. Where does all that anger come from?
Actually, it's pessimism if anything. I'm pulling for Obama. I just feel that after the Dems blew the last two elections that there is only one viable party (in terms of having a chance to win) for the Presidency.
Why send money to someone that has speant over $400 million for running for president? I can see supporting him if that is your cup of tea but sending more money? Oh well it's your world
98 CAA
00 Virginia Beach;Camden I; Jones Beach III
05 Borgata Night I; Wachovia Center
06 Letterman Show; Webcast (guy in blue shirt), Camden I; DC
08 Camden I; Camden II; DC
09 Phillie III
10 MSG II
13 Wrigley Field
16 Phillie II
That's how paranoid I am about the RNC. :mad:
Vegas 93, Vegas 98, Vegas 00 (10 year show), Vegas 03, Vegas 06
VIC 07
EV LA1 08
Seattle1 09, Seattle2 09, Salt Lake 09, LA4 09
Columbus 10
EV LA 11
Vancouver 11
Missoula 12
Portland 13, Spokane 13
St. Paul 14, Denver 14
The only thing that prevents "irresponsible" lending is the free market. If we let firms that are irresponsible fail, they won't go that route. They will tighten their standards because they will realize they have no other option if they want to survive.
Redistribution does not promote competition even slightly. As you tax small business higher, which Obama will do, you have less start ups because people can't afford to start up due to the high tax rates. Moreover, people have MUCH MUCH less incentive to compete when they can't prosper from competing. Redistribution promotes laziness.
First, once again you are limiting the amount of corporations because you sending them abroad by increasing taxes on them. Obama's plan is to raise taxes on corporations, which are already taxed the 2nd highest in the world. Second, redistribution OBVIOUSLY does not promote competition. It promotes laziness. Everyone, including liberals, know the FREE RIDER problem. If you redistribute wealth people can either be lazy and rewarded for their laziness, and also you encourage people who are just about at a rate where they will be taxed higher, to make less so they will end up with more then they would otherwise after taxes.
Lastly, you are killing JOBS by RAISING redistribution, atleast in the way Obama wants to. People won't be able to take "multiple low paying jobs".... because you are killing small business AND big business with increased taxes, so there won't be those jobs anymore.
READ.
If more people are slightly more wealthy they will not be as likely to default on loans.
More people with slightly more wealth benefits Small business because they have more discretionary income thus allowing more competition. (i.e if I had more money maybe I wouldn't have to buy all my clothes at WalMart just to save money) (maybe I wouldn't have to shop at WalMart at all)
The taxes on small business will stay the same according to Obama's plan. Small business will also benefit on SBL's by lower interest rates because banks will be forced to compete with more money in more people's hands.
Corporations will get taxed more, but will benefit from the lower class having more discretionary income so they (the corporations) will sell more products.
Have you looked around lately??? Large corporations dominate, there are very few small businesses that can compete with the WalMarts and Targets of the world.
Everyday the large banks continue to devourer the small banks.... Big business continues to consume or drive away small business. There's only like 6 major oil companies anymore.
The current system simply doesn't work for the majority of the people..... maybe it works for you but it doesn't for most of us...
The gov't takes the newly printed cash (usually its all done electronically) and deposits into a bank, which then loans out 90% of it.
So that original $10 billion is now $19 billion, because the US Gov't still has access to that entire $10 billion and the loaned out portion is now in the hands of whoever took out the loan. In theory this process could go on for some time...keep taking loans, deposit, the banks loan out 90% of it, and so on, until that original $10 billion (that they created out of nothing) is now 2 or 3 times that.
What the hell does that mean.
So, they just added around $25 billion to the currency, by printing that original $10 billion, without adding any value, thus devaluing the dollar. ie inflation. Its inherent in the system. and when you account for interest you end up with a system where for every dollar in circulation, someone somewhere owes that dollar to someone.
its been argued that if all debts were paid there would be NO currency in circulation.
so I would have to disagree that loans and credit are a good idea. banks start out with the currency and end up with it, eventually.
base a society on profit and this is what you get, the scam of all scams.
I’m not questioning GDP as a unit of measurement. I’m questioning your using the GDP as a sole measure of economic “growth” under President Bush, because that’s one of the only economic statistics under his watch that has improved; I think it overlooks far too much of our nation’s economy to be an accurate portrayal of his policies. I think if we’re going to address the state of the economy under George W. Bush, it’s quite a bit limiting to speak only about GDP. There’s more to it than that. What’s the point of using the GDP as a sole measurement of sound economic policy if it has been steadily climbing for the last fifty years? A better measurement would be how steadily the GDP rose under a president, and I am right to say that the rate of growth was not as strong as under Reagan and Clinton. It should be noted that Bush's rate of GDP is lower than the previous Democratic president with an economic policy similar to Obama's (that would be Clinton).
Again, you are saying close to what I am saying, but once again you’re speaking about the GDP like it does not regularly grow from the beginning of a President's term to the end, no matter the president. According to the first chart at the Economic Report of the President: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/eop/tables08.html it has been growing since they have been measuring. So I take it you agree with me that in comparison to Reagan and Clinton, the GDP percentage growth has been substandard. It is better than Bush I and Carter, but as I said, do you really feel that is deserving of accolades?
However, what’s the point of the raised GDP growth if it never makes its way down to citizens? You’re absolutely right that GDP has increased under George W. Bush. However, wages have not kept up with this increased economic growth, in fact according to this article from the New York Times, where they used figures from the Economic Policy Institute, under Bush’s tenure we’ve seen the widest gap between economic growth and earned wages in sixty years. Not a good sign of a strong economic president.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/28/business/28wages.html
I’m not quite sure where you’re getting your numbers, and I am unable to find a better chart right now than the one I found above from the New York Times. If I find a better one later I will post that one. But the chart confirms my suspicion that wages have no kept up with inflation. Granted that one is from late 2006 but I’m going to go out on a limb and assume that the downward trend has continued or stagnated as our economy has gone into the tanker. Look at how the worth of national wages have failed to keep up with increased production, they have declined. Considering the GDP has been climbing no matter who has been in office for the past fifty years, aren’t these facts better markers about the health of the economy, and the capability of the government that is involved with legislation?
This is another good article from the Times, written on the basis of statistics from the U.S. Department of Labor, showing that the cost of living and inflation has outrun the pace of wage hikes. I’m not sure what your point was about Clinton having three years of wage prices being outrun by inflation; in short, so what? I think it best to measure the overall growth or lack thereof between the two presidents. What does it matter if it happened in three years or eight? The result is the result. The three-year statistic does look favorably towards W. Bush, but I think it’s a relatively meaningless statistic when looking at the total impact of the respective Presidencies on the economy;
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/15/business/economy/15econ.html?partner=yahoo
I also would like to know where you found the individual measures annually regarding inflation outpacing wages, especially when you consider that the NY Times chart above that is taken from the Economic Policy Insititute seems to say the opposite. I don’t disbelieve you, but I was unable to find such a chart myself.
You’re not right about this one, although I was admittedly wrong to say that it has steadily increased throughout his entire administration. What it did do was climb sharply, drop and then climb sharply again. The statistics are pretty clear; I used the ones at the U.S. Department of Labor. Clinton left in 2000; in December 2000 unemployment was at 3.9 and it was 4.2 the following month. Within three years, unemployment reached 6.2, before lowering once again in the following years. I don’t know how anyone could call the unemployment rise in the past two years “moderate.” When 2007 began, it was 4.6. It is now 6.1, and it shows no signs yet of peaking, and shall surely bleed into the next administration, whether it is Obama or McCain. I wouldn’t call that a “moderate” rise by any stretch of the imagination. Despite a high unemployment rate at the start of Clinton’s presidency, he achieved an under 6 rate after a year and a half in office and never went back. Bush, on the other hand, has traveled above the 6.0 unemployment rate twice now. Once again, the numbers here are in Clinton’s favor. Bush Jrs. unemployment rates have never risen as high as they did under the first Bush (who, it should be said, also had a Republican in office eight years beforehand). But again, is that really a compliment, or a good measure of a good president? Saying a president’s shitty economic policy is not as shitty as a previous shitty presidential economic policy? Clinton had a steady decline in unemployment, which seems to me to be a good barometer of sound economic policy. Wild and rapid dips and spikes seem to suggest the opposite.
But if your point is that the numbers look better for Bush than they did for President Carter from nearly thirty years ago, you’re right. Considering circumstances are quite a bit different in the world now, I think a better match up between the most recent Republican president and the Democratic president from 30 years ago is the most recent Republican president and the most recent Democratic president. But if you’re asking me to say George Bush was a better economic president than Jimmy Carter, then fine. You got it.
I’m surprised to hear you ask this question. You think the de-regulation on Wall Street didn’t contribute to this problem? This was the only thing you said that I’m surprised you think even required an explanation. There were, I’m sure countless factors, many of which I doubt I understand, including lending to borrowers with bad credit, etc. But I haven’t thus far seen anyone dispute the fact that the Republican congress and administration contributed to de-regulation, as Republicans tend to do.
This whole discussion is also not addressing the journey from surplus to significant deficit that was undertaken in eight years, which is another mark against President Bush. Basically, it seems to me than math is simpler than I originally thought. President Bush cut taxes and increased spending, which balloons the deficit and leaves people and nations borrowing with money they don’t have for more money they don’t have. That kind of economic approach seems to me to be a house of cards.
My last question is about the redistribution of wealth that you have been speaking about (i.e. that’s Obama’s plan). According to Obama’s plan, no tax bracket, from the lowest to the highest, would be paying more on their taxes than they did under President Clinton’s tax plan in the 1990s. Certainly in regards to income, and I’m 99 percent sure in regards to capital gains. Were Clinton’s policies, therefore, also a ‘redistribution of wealth?’
He needs it and I want him to win and I want him to win with a wide margin. I feel it is important to the country for him to win. Its funny being attacked for donating these small amounts. We have all spent plenty on Pearl Jam stuff. Maybe you should attack people/corporations who are donating thousands and millions to McCain. I'm just the little guy. (I probably make less than Joe the Plummer) I will continue to donate what I can.
To Saveuplife - I am able to do it because my family chooses to live frugally, below our means, so that we have some disposable income to donate to causes we believe in. We have old cars, and ~1,000 sq. foot house. We do not run up credit card debt that we can't pay, and our house is paid for due to frugality. We do not spend lavishly. I will probably donate more. I've made some changes elsewhere this month so I have funds to donate to what what I believe in.
R.i.p. My Dad - May 28, 2007
R.i.p. Black Tail (cat) - Sept. 20, 2008
He needs it? He has $426 million in campaign contributions. I am sure your $50 wen a long way
98 CAA
00 Virginia Beach;Camden I; Jones Beach III
05 Borgata Night I; Wachovia Center
06 Letterman Show; Webcast (guy in blue shirt), Camden I; DC
08 Camden I; Camden II; DC
09 Phillie III
10 MSG II
13 Wrigley Field
16 Phillie II