He needs it? He has $426 million in campaign contributions. I am sure your $50 wen a long way
What's your problem? So what if the person donates a little money to their candidate of choice. And so what is that candidate happens to have record breaking funds? It's something they choose to do. All too often in this country people take an apathetic viewpoint of "Oh, hell, I'm just one person. What can my vote do. What can my five bucks do." It can do alot. It can do a little. But it shouldn't be belittled. So the person has a candidate that they believe in enough to support them both with their vote, and financially. What's the problem?
What's your problem? So what if the person donates a little money to their candidate of choice. And so what is that candidate happens to have record breaking funds? It's something they choose to do. All too often in this country people take an apathetic viewpoint of "Oh, hell, I'm just one person. What can my vote do. What can my five bucks do." It can do alot. It can do a little. But it shouldn't be belittled. So the person has a candidate that they believe in enough to support them both with their vote, and financially. What's the problem?
My problem is this man is talking about the biggest economic crisis in 70 years but spend others peoples money like it is going out of style. Maybe he could have use that $700 million from the primaries and presidental race a little different instead of bombarding us with his campaign adds that are on ever other commercial.
If you look at my earlier post I said hey its 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
My problem is this man is talking about the biggest economic crisis in 70 years but spend others peoples money like it is going out of style. Maybe he could have use that $700 million from the primaries and presidental race a little different instead of bombarding us with his campaign adds that are on ever other commercial.
If you look at my earlier post I said hey its your world.
That's the american politcal system for you. Don't blame the guy for playing the game, and playing it well. It's not like Mccain is sitting there on a soap box trying to tell passerbys about where he stands. What do you expect them to do? Say "Well, we've got a shit load of money, but instead of using it to advertise us to each of you on the one of the biggest, if not the biggest media form in america we're going to spend it different."? Each one of them is playing the fucking game. One just happens to be playing it better and getting rewarded more for it.
My problem is this man is talking about the biggest economic crisis in 70 years but spend others peoples money like it is going out of style. Maybe he could have use that $700 million from the primaries and presidental race a little different instead of bombarding us with his campaign adds that are on ever other commercial.
If you look at my earlier post I said hey its your world.
It's not his money, it's our money we give to him for his campaign....we are paying for his commercials...he wouldn't have the money if it weren't for us...
Around 1979 Obama started college at Occidental in California. *He is very open about his two years at Occidental, he tried all kinds of drugs and was wasting his time but, even though he had a brilliant mind, did not apply himself to his studies. 'Barry' (that was the name he used all his life) during this time had two roommates, Muhammad Hasan Chandoo and Wahid Hamid, both from Pakistan. *During the summer of 1981, after his second year in college, he made a 'round the world' trip. *Stopping to see his mother in Indonesia, next Hyderabad in India, three weeks in Karachi, Pakistan where he stayed with his roommate's family, then off to Africa to visit his father's family. *My question - Where did he get the money for this trip? *Nether I, nor any one of my children would have had money for a trip like this when they where in college. *When he came back he started school at Columbia University in New York. *It is at this time he *wants everyone to call him Barack - not Barry. *Do you know what the tuition is at Columbia? *It's not cheap to say the least! **Where did he get money for tuition? *Student Loans? Maybe. After Columbia, he went to Chicago to work as a Community Organizer for $12,000 a year. *Why Chicago? *Why not New York? He was already living in New York.
*
By 'chance' *he met *Antoin 'Tony' Rezko, born in Aleppo Syria, and a real estate developer in Chicago. *Rezko has been convicted of fraud and bribery this year. *Rezko, was named 'Entrepreneur of the Decade' by the Arab-American Business and Professional Association'. *About two years later, Obama entered Harvard Law School. *Do you have any idea what tuition is for Harvard Law School? *Where did he get the money for Law School? *More student loans? *After Law school, he went back to Chicago. Rezko offered him a job, which he turned down. *But, he did take a job with Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland. Guess what? *They represented 'Rezar' which is Rezko's firm. *Rezko was one of Obama's first major financial contributors when he ran for office in Chicago. *In 2003, Rezko threw an early fundraiser for Obama which Chicago Tribune reporter David Mendelland claims was instrumental in providing Obama with 'seed money' *for his U.S. Senate race. In 2005, Obama purchased a new home in Kenwoood District of Chicago for $1.65 million (less than asking price). *With ALL those Student Loans - Where did he get the money for the property? *On the same day Rezko's wife, Rita, purchased the adjoining empty lot for full price. The London Times reported that Nadhmi Auchi, an Iraqi-born Billionaire loaned Rezko $3.5 million three weeks before Obama's new home was purchased. *Obama met Nadhmi Auchi many times with Rezko.
Now, we have Obama running for President. *Valerie Jarrett, was Michele Obama's boss. *She is now Obama's chief advisor and he does not make any major decisions without talking to her first. *Where was Jarrett born? Ready for this? Shiraz, Iran! *Do we see a pattern here? *Or am I going crazy?
*
On May 10, 2008 The Times reported, Robert Malley, advisor to Obama, was 'sacked' after the press found out he was having regular contacts with 'Hamas', which controls Gaza and is connected with Iran. *This past week, buried in the back part of the papers, Iraqi newspapers reported that during Obama's visit to Iraq, he asked their leaders to do nothing about the war until after he is elected, and he will 'Take care of things'. *
*
Oh, and by the way, remember the college roommates that where born in Pakistan? *They are in charge of all those 'small' Internet campaign contributions for Obama. *Where is that money coming from? *The poor and middle class in this country? *Or could it be from the Middle East? *
*
And the final bit of news. *On September 7, 2008, The Washington Times posted a verbal slip that was made on 'This Week' with George Stephanapoulos. *Obama on talking about his religion said, 'My Muslim faith'. *When questioned, 'he made a mistake'. *Some mistake!
*
All of the above information I got on line. *If you would like to check it - Wikipedia, encyclopedia, Barack Obama; Tony Rezko; Valerie Jarrett: Daily Times - Obama visited Pakistan in 1981; The Washington Times - September 7, 2008; The Times May 10, 2008.
*
Now the BIG question - If I found out all this information on my own, Why haven't all of our 'intelligent' members of the press been reporting this?
*
A phrase that keeps ringing in my ear - 'Beware of the enemy from within'!!!
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.
I give it six months and the some of the same people that support him will bitch on here.
It's not his money, it's our money we give to him for his campaign....we are paying for his commercials...he wouldn't have the money if it weren't for us...
I agree, I haven't been able to donate tons of money but I have donated a few times throughout the campaign and I expect him to use MY money to help his campaign and make every effort to win, I didn't donate so that he can use it in a different way but in the way I assumed it was going to be used when I donated my hard earned dollars
"Without the album covers, where do you clean your pot?" - EV
I don't like to count the chicks before they hatch..
it all comes down to the battle ground states Ohio and Florida and as we all know it ain't over until the fat lady sings... or counts the votes ...
I just wish this was over... the next 2 weeks are going to be excruciating..
true, but this isn't really the same situation as 2000 or 2004. I don't think Gore or Kerry were up this much at this time in their respective campaigns. Obama is leading in the most of the polls in FL and OH, not to mention other swing states like PA, CO, and VA. He could actually afford to lose FL or OH. Gore actually won the popular vote in 2000. He got screwed on the recounts and the mess that ensued. I don't think Obama would let that happen, he's already started addressing the voter suppression issue.
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
I give it six months and the some of the same people that support him will bitch on here.
I give it six months and the same people bashing Obama will start loving on him. There, I said something completely presumptuous and unsupported by facts just like you did.
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
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:
The way it's looking right now, that's probably the only thing he could do before the election in order win the election.
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
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.
It was solid. I am aware it has been poor recently, however. I'm not saying that it has not. I'm saying that under his 8 year term it was solid.
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......
REAL GDP is the most common unit of measurement to describe economic growth. I think you agree and are simply saying there's others. True. But, most people look at Real GDP.
Clinton's tax policy was not similar to Obama's because he had a Republican controlled congress. Obama "may" (and probably will) not. You can't really compare them,.... yet. Moreover, Clinton's corporate tax policy is no where near as harsh as Obamas.
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?
I feel as though it's better than average. So, if better than average deserves accolades... yes.
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
The incredible irony of this chart you mention is that it measures GDP using the income approach. The fact is that the income approach uses
GDP = Compensation of employees + Gross operating surplus + Gross mixed income + Taxes less subsidies on production and imports
In the article, they talk about Compensation of employees (wages) and Gross operating surplus (corporate profits).... they fail to talk about Gross mixed income (SMALL BUSINESS PROFITS) and Taxes less subsides on production and imports (TAXES). Bottom line here, if you look back at the chart. Small business profits had to have been at record highs in 06, given the gap. But, they fail to mention that. Moreover, taxes were lower on ALL of the above. Therefore, NET WAGES to employees may have actually been at a high.
Bottom line, this is the NYTimes.... a respected newspaper, however, with a liberal slant. They are not presenting the information properly. The data they are refering to is not bad at all. They just don't care about NET and small business.
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?
Wages have kept up with inflation. Go to back to the chart. There's three of them. Look at the Median Hourly Pay Adjusted for Inflation. Look at Bush's eight-year term. Yes, in 05 it was negative. But, hey, take a look at Clinton's eight-year term. Do you see all the negatives? That's what I was talking about.
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'm not saying Bush had a better economic run than Clinton or Reagan for that matter. What I am saying is that it has been solid growth. Meaning above average. Especially, given the fact that we had 9/11 and a brief inherited recession under his watch.
As for this article, this was in August, and prices have dropped significantly. Look at gas prices. The cost of living has plummeted too. Basically, when an economy slows (which I certainly admit it has), inflation slows too. When an economy is moving, inflation increases. This article is silly to bring up for our argument because it's not referring to an eight-year span.... like the Bush presidency. I know the economy is slowing now. Moreover, cost of living indices are as different as the person who creates them. There is no cost of living index that is the same. It's a garbage stat.
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 can get the data. Go to economagic or freelunch.com. Look for the CPI. Do a year to year % change. Print it out in xls. Then look at the years of the Presidencies.
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.
Yes. Tese are the same statistics I used. I am not wrong at all.
Clinton left in 2000; in December 2000 unemployment was at 3.9 and it was 4.2 the following month.
You can't look at month to month changes. That is absolutely ridiculous. You need to look at annual data in order to adjust for the month to month swings. Do you even know how they get this data? It's a household survey. It's obviously not always accurate. Therefore, you need to adjust for volatility. Perhaps you could use a three-month Moving average, but when talking about eight-year terms it's best to stick with annual data.
I certainly admit, that there was a rise in the unemployment rate after 9/11, which ended in 2003. Then there was a constant decline in unemployment until 2006 to 4.61.
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.
I said there was a moderate increase in 2007. Which it was it went from 4.61 to 4.64. I agree that in 2008 the rate increased. Thus far, it's at 5.41 ANNUALLY. You can't keep looking at monthly data. It's too volatile. My argument was not that the unemployment rate is not increasing right now. It was that the unemployment rate has not "steadily" increased. You were just plain wrong about that. It has increased and it has decreased.
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.
First, you are wrong about Clinton never having ab above 6.0 unemployment rate. It was 6.91 annually in 1993 and it was 6.1 in 1994.
Second, if you start out at well almost 7.0 in unemployment, and go down that's great and all but, it's not comparable to starting low.
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.
Fine. Carter's term was the most similar, IMO to what is going on today. I think that Reagan's policy was obviously excellent economically. Therefore, I'd prefer to see a policy somewhat like that (which mccain would bring), rather than an anti-reagan policy which we get from obama.
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.
I don't think that this really has much to do with deregulation as moral hazard. I think that if you consistently have gov't bailing corporations and people, for that matter, who make poor decisions, this is what you are going to end up with. Unfortunately, I think the bail out was necessary because of the whole we dug and the consequences. But, I certainly think it should be expressed that bailouts are done after this mess and I also think that the proof is in action. If you give mortgages to people who are not qualified, you aren't going to be helped out by the gov't. If you take a ARM and the interest rate resets.... you should know (or ask so you do know) what you are getting yourself into before you sign that mortgage.
I actually think regulation is not a blessing. But, I agree that it's not as bad as what happened. My point is you need to move in one (regulation or deregulation) and stay there or do the other. You can't have this back and forth crap because that creates the moral hazard. The corporations don't know if they will be bailed out, so they do it in order to compete.
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.
Well, I agree here. This is the one area I hate Bush for. His spending was horrid. That said, I think his tax cuts were necessary in order to keep the expansion going. I should say, however, that tax cuts don't necessarily mean a decline in tax revenue. You need to think about incentives. Tax cuts can actually increase tax revenue. Look at Reagan for that.
My concern with Obama is that he'll raise taxes and raise spending. IMHO he'll do little to help. And we most likely will have problems due to incentives.
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?’
Depends on the brackets and inflation since the Clinton administration. Obviously, incomes have increased. Therefore, it's not completely comparable.
All policies are a redistribution of wealth in America. Even Bush and Reagans. The difference is that Obama wants to increase the redistribution. Moreover, you fail to talk about corporations and small business. This can also result in redistribution of wealth and certainly inefficiency.
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.
OK. Let me know if you think that was a waste of money in two years.
Sorry, I had to say that. I just think I'd never donate to a political party. But, that's me. You are entitled to do what you want with your money.
The "solid" growth of the GDP over the last 10 years has been based on credit because the lenders were lending to a large middle class beyond the means of the middle class.
When the middle class couldn't pay back their loans because they lost jobs or lost compensation without appropriate cost-of-living income adjustments then that just proves the "solid" growth was a falsehood.
No I'm not saying credit and loans are a bad thing... I'm just saying someone that makes $100,000 shouldn't live in a $500,000 home and have 6 credit cards with $25,000 credit lines. This ideology hurts everyone in the long run but it's great for the wealthy until it all comes crashing down like it has lately.
The "solid" growth of the GDP over the last 10 years has been based on credit because the lenders were lending to a large middle class beyond the means of the middle class.
When the middle class couldn't pay back their loans because they lost jobs or lost compensation without appropriate cost-of-living income adjustments then that just proves the "solid" growth was a falsehood.
No I'm not saying credit and loans are a bad thing... I'm just saying someone that makes $100,000 shouldn't live in a $500,000 home and have 6 credit cards with $25,000 credit lines. This ideology hurts everyone in the long run but it's great for the wealthy until it all comes crashing down like it has lately.
So, the sound growth of GDP during the Clinton administration had nothing to do with credit? lol
Come on, man. I know you are pro-Obama, but loans and credit are what make our economy and all leading economies tick. It doesn't matter if it's Bush, Clinton, Carter, Reagan... credit and loans are important.
Someone who makes $100K should not live in a $500K home and have six credit cards with $25K lines? OK. That's your opinion. My opinion is that if that person wants to do that, fine. He/she should know that they may be getting themself in over their heads. They should know that if they lose their job they may lose their home. They should know that if they took out an exotic mortgage like a variable interest rate mortgage.... mortgage can reset much much higer and F them in the ass. It's called personal responsiblity. It's not the government's fault that a minority of people behave stupidly. People have behaved stupidly since the dawn of man and will continue until the end. Greed is a problem. People need to not get greedy and live by their means. The individuals (OR CORPORATIONS, for that matter) that extend themselves beyond their means should not be bailed out by governments. They need to take the hit. Regroup, declare bankruptcy if they must, and start over. It is without a doubt possible, and they will learn a valuable lesson.... for most, it won't even come to that.
The ideology of credit is good for everyone. It increases the velocity of money. It is good... period. Your argument that credit availability is a bad thing makes little to no sense. Credit availablity is very good. Personal decisions (and corporate decisions) that involve people getting greedy is bad. That's the bad thing here. People need to learn to live in their means. Government involvement will not help this, ever.
Im not saying credit is bad and I said 10 years so that would include the Clinton years.
I'm saying the lenders are just as greedy and irresponsible as the guy that takes out a loan.
Most peeps don't want to lose their home and most try be responsible with their credit line. However, 5 years ago who would have thought that utilities, oil, insurance, and daily necessities would have gone up while the home values plummet. There are other factors that go beyond being fiscally responsible.
The greed of the wealthy in this country is the underlying factor. Instead of making decisions to do the right thing and compensate the workers the wealthy chose to take their extra coin a throw it in the bubble hoping it wouldn't burst. Then they want to blame the workers by saying they are paying them too much so then they use extortion by continuously outsoursing or threatening to outsourse.
McCain is a joke. Keep laughing buddy. It's that attitude that will lose this election.
As far as the last 8 years of the country's economy. Wall Street and the world spoke volumes when they wiped their asses and flushed it down the toilet with Bush's growth over the last 8 years . It doesn't matter how solid it was pre 9/11 or post 9/11. All that growth is gone that's how the American public is going to view it. It's what they are feeling now is all that matters to the masses.
Im not saying credit is bad and I said 10 years so that would include the Clinton years.
I'm saying the lenders are just as greedy and irresponsible as the guy that takes out a loan.
Most peeps don't want to lose their home and most try be responsible with their credit line. However, 5 years ago who would have thought that utilities, oil, insurance, and daily necessities would have gone up while the home values plummet. There are other factors that go beyond being fiscally responsible.
The greed of the wealthy in this country is the underlying factor. Instead of making decisions to do the right thing and compensate the workers the wealthy chose to take their extra coin a throw it in the bubble hoping it wouldn't burst. Then they want to blame the workers by saying they are paying them too much so then they use extortion by continuously outsoursing or threatening to outsourse.
See, I guess that's where we disagree. This started with subprime problems. Those, along with greedy corporations, are the people who started this mess. The corporations lent to these people with subprime credit. The corporations were wrong to lend to them. THe people with subprime creidt were wrong for taking loans that they couldn't pay back. The rich? I don't see the connection. The subprime tend to not be rich, that's for sure. The corporations.... ok, maybe there's some rich involved there.
Anyway, I've said it before and I'll say it again. Alan Greenspan is to blame for the current mess, not Bush. That's my opinion.
See, I guess that's where we disagree. This started with subprime problems. Those, along with greedy corporations, are the people who started this mess. The corporations lent to these people with subprime credit. The corporations were wrong to lend to them. THe people with subprime creidt were wrong for taking loans that they couldn't pay back. The rich? I don't see the connection. The subprime tend to not be rich, that's for sure. The corporations.... ok, maybe there's some rich involved there.
Anyway, I've said it before and I'll say it again. Alan Greenspan is to blame for the current mess, not Bush. That's my opinion.
i cant respond to everything you have said, but i can sum it up by saying a few words...you are right!
i want to see the statistics of this whole housing collapse of the people who were given loans that couldnt afford them and the credit given to people who shouldnt have gotten it compared to those who were responsible and just came upon hard times
i think the stats would be overwhelming in the side of the loans given to people who couldnt afford them thus the blame should be on personal accountability and noone else
im just confused on how many people took these loans with adjustable interest rates..thats asanine!! you never base your loan on what the econonmy does..i just bought a house and got a fixed rate, i did my homework and i got a beyond sweet deal on a house that i can afford
people are just too lazy to do their homework and now the rest of us have to bail them out
I did a fixed rate as well and locked at 6.9%. After we processed our loan and bought our home the rates dropped even lower. Our loan officer told us the rates were going to drop and actually suggested a variable loan based on the history of interest fluctuations being small not drastic. I thought 6.9% was fair but I was second guessing myself after a couple of months watching the interest rates fall. I can totally see how someone would go with variable rates. Just 5 months before we bought our home the rate was over 8%. I would have probably went variable if I bought my home in late 2002 or early 2003.
REAL GDP is the most common unit of measurement to describe economic growth. I think you agree and are simply saying there's others. True. But, most people look at Real GDP.
Clinton's tax policy was not similar to Obama's because he had a Republican controlled congress. Obama "may" (and probably will) not. You can't really compare them,.... yet. Moreover, Clinton's corporate tax policy is no where near as harsh as Obamas.
Let me begin with your latter point; Bill Clinton did NOT have a Republican controlled Congress when entering the White House. The Republicans did not take control of the Congress until two years later, with the famous “Republican Revolution” in November of 1994. Maybe the same thing will happen with Obama’s midterms; who knows? However, it is false to state that Clinton was dealing with a conflicting Congress as he devised his tax plans in 93 and 94. He ran into conflicts later on, and maybe that conflict led to economic growth. God knows, the Republicans controlling Congress and the White House left us in a ditch. Maybe in 2010 the Republicans will get the Senate and House back. But that’s speculation.
In regard to your point about corporate tax policy, it should be noted that Clinton’s corporate income tax rate is not worse than Obama’s; both stand at around 35% (Obama’s may be a bit higher). It should also be noted that there would be a tax incentives for corporations that do not outsource their jobs overseas, which helps to bring down the percentage number of Obama’s tax plan. So to say his corporate tax increase plans are wildly different than Clinton’s is an exaggeration.
I understand why you’d want to look solely at Real GDP when defending Bush’s economic policies; it is really one of the only positive measures of strength and stability under his tenure. Every other statistic or maker of progress seems to range from mediocre to abysmal. Measuring the GDP in isolation is great for one thing; measuring the GDP of the country alone. However, this argument’s meaningless if we don’t talk about the state of the economy beyond the GDP because we’d be failing to address a multi-faceted issue. You really think we can talk about the U.S. economy without talking about unemployment, wages, inflation, etc? There’d be no point, and it’s not a debate I think anyone would be interested in having. I think it’s important to note that the best defense for the economy under President Bush’s term, according to you, is the measure of our economy that has been rising since they began measuring it. It’s a false barometer of a President’s economic policies. If you want to argue otherwise, fine, but I don’t see the point of addressing that at the exclusion of all other points. I think most economists who actually really wanted to vibrantly and realistically discuss the state of the U.S. economy would agree with that.
I feel as though it's better than average. So, if better than average deserves accolades... yes.
When does your average begin? As far as I can tell, since 1976, the GDP growth rate has been better under Reagan and Clinton than Bush, the only other eight-term presidents of the bunch. So again, what is this average you speak of? Additionally, the rate of real GDP growth per year has gradually increased, in addition to the actual GDP measurement. For example, Reagan had a better GDP growth rate than Carter, while Clinton had a better GDP growth rate than Reagan (approximately 2% more growth in real GDP per capita per year as far as I can tell). Both President Bush 43 and President Bush 41 are the only presidents in that 32-year span that saw the rate of GDP growth shrink under their watch in comparison to the previous president’s rate. That is, whereas Reagan and Clinton were able to nurture and encourage the GDP rate to continue its’ upward mobility, Bush stifled such momentum. So even Bush’s best economic statistic comes with a caveat.
The incredible irony of this chart you mention is that it measures GDP using the income approach. The fact is that the income approach uses GDP = Compensation of employees + Gross operating surplus + Gross mixed income + Taxes less subsidies on production and imports
In the article, they talk about Compensation of employees (wages) and Gross operating surplus (corporate profits).... they fail to talk about Gross mixed income (SMALL BUSINESS PROFITS) and Taxes less subsides on production and imports (TAXES). Bottom line here, if you look back at the chart. Small business profits had to have been at record highs in 06, given the gap. But, they fail to mention that. Moreover, taxes were lower on ALL of the above. Therefore, NET WAGES to employees may have actually been at a high.
Bottom line, this is the NYTimes.... a respected newspaper, however, with a liberal slant. They are not presenting the information properly. The data they are refering to is not bad at all. They just don't care about NET and small business.
Well, first of all, I think it’s unfortunate that the whole liberal bias thing comes into play here once again. I was hoping we’d all be able to go one discussion without it, but ah well. When dealing with the statistics, first of all, many of the small businesses (including most of those hovering just at or under the magic 250,000 dollar mark) would have their wages included in this chart (this is of course, assuming you’re correct in saying that these statistics were excluded, which I see no evidence of). This is because many small businesses record their figures as individuals, which would include them in this chart. But I digress. That being said, I’d love to see where you’re getting these figures. Heathens like me love to see squiggly lines and charts and graphs to make ourselves feel smart. In all seriousness, I like seeing the evidence backing up what you’re saying. I’ve tried to do that as best I can here.
Wages have kept up with inflation. Go to back to the chart. There's three of them. Look at the Median Hourly Pay Adjusted for Inflation. Look at Bush's eight-year term. Yes, in 05 it was negative. But, hey, take a look at Clinton's eight-year term. Do you see all the negatives? That's what I was talking about.
I looked at all the charts there. I think in this case that you are supporting your argument using the same means that you criticize me for using in regards to the measurement of unemployment (which I’ll get to below this one). You take isolated statistics that look good in Bush’s favor and disregard the overall trend downward that has occurred during the Bush administration’s two terms. You do not build Rome in a day, and likewise you do not revive or wreck an economy in the span of a few months, as you are right to point out in regards to unemployment. So showing me how Bush 43 had a good year in 2001, while technicially true, is pretty meaningless when viewed in the context of the overall trend of wages from the beginning of his tenure to his end. You mention the negative trends of the Clinton years; so let’s look at Clinton’s two terms. Let’s also take into account that Bush 41 was leaving Clinton with a recession, whereas Clinton’s second term was a well-renowned period of economic growth for our nation. Wages consistently rise over the course of the eight years of the Clinton years, as is shown in the chart. From a severely negative percentages in 1993, the negative percentage shrinks from 94, into 95, into 96, and with 1996 a period of wage increases (when adjusted for inflation) took us through the end of the Clinton presidency. Sound economic policy won’t work overnight, but it would lead to a gradual period of growth, strength and improvement. With President Bush’s tenure, we see the exact opposite trend. From 2001 we see a continual drop in the worth of wages. Downhill trends are not good markers of economic strength. Bush’s policies didn’t damage the country overnight, but all these statistics point to Bush’s economic faults.
I'm not saying Bush had a better economic run than Clinton or Reagan for that matter. What I am saying is that it has been solid growth. Meaning above average. Especially, given the fact that we had 9/11 and a brief inherited recession under his watch.
As for this article, this was in August, and prices have dropped significantly. Look at gas prices. The cost of living has plummeted too. Basically, when an economy slows (which I certainly admit it has), inflation slows too. When an economy is moving, inflation increases. This article is silly to bring up for our argument because it's not referring to an eight-year span.... like the Bush presidency. I know the economy is slowing now. Moreover, cost of living indices are as different as the person who creates them. There is no cost of living index that is the same. It's a garbage stat.
First of all, I don’t feel the cost of living is a garbage statistic. The cost of living is irrevocably tied up in inflation, wages, etc. When you make a blanket statement like “when an economy slows, inflation slows too. When an economy is moving, inflation increases” it is like saying that the measurement of GDP is solely adequate to measure the state of a nation’s economy. You’re leaving out all the information that would let someone come to a reasoned conclusion. Now, I’m wondering why you failed to address my primary point here, which is the point I spoke about above. Gas prices are dropping radically, and you think this is a good thing? Neither the inflated cost of living or the rapid drop you speak of were solid markers of a stable economy, considering the worth of wages had not corresponded to the inflation as we spoke about before. My point in the section you quoted was that you cannot take one or two of Bush’s years and look at them in isolation and say he had a “solid” term.
Yes. Tese are the same statistics I used. I am not wrong at all.
Clinton left in 2000; in December 2000 unemployment was at 3.9 and it was 4.2 the following month.
You can't look at month to month changes. That is absolutely ridiculous. You need to look at annual data in order to adjust for the month to month swings. Do you even know how they get this data? It's a household survey. It's obviously not always accurate. Therefore, you need to adjust for volatility. Perhaps you could use a three-month Moving average, but when talking about eight-year terms it's best to stick with annual data.
I certainly admit, that there was a rise in the unemployment rate after 9/11, which ended in 2003. Then there was a constant decline in unemployment until 2006 to 4.61.
I said there was a moderate increase in 2007. Which it was it went from 4.61 to 4.64. I agree that in 2008 the rate increased. Thus far, it's at 5.41 ANNUALLY. You can't keep looking at monthly data. It's too volatile. My argument was not that the unemployment rate is not increasing right now. It was that the unemployment rate has not "steadily" increased. You were just plain wrong about that. It has increased and it has decreased.
You need to check those statistics again. I already told you I was wrong to say it “steadily” increased, so I don’t see why you keep returning to that singular statement. There again, I was wrong. But an increase over eight years is an increase, and Bush’s economic policies did little to stop them. The rate increased in a volatile manner throughout Bush’s two terms that by the close of his administration we will be faced with a unemployment rate of well over 6.0, which is over two points the rate that President Bush inherited in 2001. So despite your being right about it not steadily increasing, it increased nonetheless. Despite the peaks and valleys, unemployment has raised during Bush’s term; every piece of evidence supports this statement; monthly, annually, generally over the past eight years. Also, when you say that the unemployment rate went from 4.61 to 4.64, you are taking the average of the twelve months put together, with 4.61 representing the “average” in 2006, and the latter number being 2007. How is that an accurate portrayal of the graduate climb or drop of unemployment? I disagree with your notion that you disregard the monthly rates; you need a monthly rate to establish the passage of the unemployment rate throughout the course of the year. The only thing measuring the annual rate does for your argument is that it “lessens” the severity of the spikes in unemployment under President Bush. Maybe if we’re talking about the rate of unemployment over a span of decades such an annual span would be necessary to consider yearly averages, but we’re talking about eight years here; we can handle the math, and the math is not in your favor. In 2007, throughout the year the unemployment rate climbed to 5.0, and the obfuscation of the hike in the unemployment rate is unnecessary.
There’s nothing volatile about my argument, and looking at monthly data helps if you’re dealing with a period of eight years. Go to http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=LNS14000000. The rate of unemployment is clearly illustrated, and truth be told, I’m going trust the Bureau of Labor Statistics on this one. Their graph illustrates my point. I don’t really see how you can argue with the increases that have occurred over Bush’s terms.
First, you are wrong about Clinton never having ab above 6.0 unemployment rate. It was 6.91 annually in 1993 and it was 6.1 in 1994.
Second, if you start out at well almost 7.0 in unemployment, and go down that's great and all but, it's not comparable to starting low.
You need to read what I said more closely. I stated that after a year and a half of Clinton entering office, his unemployment rate went below 6.0 and never returned above that since. That would mean that after 1994, the unemployment rate continued to lower for Bill Clinton throughout the course of his presidency, never reaching above 6.0 again. As in, Clinton inherited a shitty economy and as the years went by either his policies, factors outside his control, or a combination of the two led to continuous economic growth in every manner possible. Good GDP growth, lower unemployment, secure wages, etc. etc. The same cannot be said, unfortunately, for President Bush.
On your second point, that’s the exact problem. Clinton’s policies were enacted during a period of recession and high unemployment, the highest since ten years earlier during the ’82 spike. Clinton’s years saw a gradual decrease. You are absolutely right when you say that starting out at a high unemployment and ending at a lower unemployment is different than “starting low” and ending with a higher unemployment rate. The latter is worse. I’m afraid I don’t understand your point here, unless you mean to prove my point for me.
Fine. Carter's term was the most similar, IMO to what is going on today. I think that Reagan's policy was obviously excellent economically. Therefore, I'd prefer to see a policy somewhat like that (which mccain would bring), rather than an anti-reagan policy which we get from obama.
I fail to see how McCain is closer to a “typical” fiscal conservative; he seems to me to be similar to Bush in the sense that he does not plan on cutting services. Why else would practically every independent analyst come to the conclusion that McCain’s plans would burden the national debt far more than Obama’s plans would? McCain talks about tax cuts, and in the next sentence talks about all these things that government programs need to accomplish. If he tries to commit to more tax cuts and tries to commit to all the things he has promised, our country will be in worse shape than it is now. As I said before, you can’t cut taxes and raise spending. It’s bad math.
I don't think that this really has much to do with deregulation as moral hazard. I think that if you consistently have gov't bailing corporations and people, for that matter, who make poor decisions, this is what you are going to end up with. Unfortunately, I think the bail out was necessary because of the whole we dug and the consequences. But, I certainly think it should be expressed that bailouts are done after this mess and I also think that the proof is in action. If you give mortgages to people who are not qualified, you aren't going to be helped out by the gov't. If you take a ARM and the interest rate resets.... you should know (or ask so you do know) what you are getting yourself into before you sign that mortgage.
I actually think regulation is not a blessing. But, I agree that it's not as bad as what happened. My point is you need to move in one (regulation or deregulation) and stay there or do the other. You can't have this back and forth crap because that creates the moral hazard. The corporations don't know if they will be bailed out, so they do it in order to compete.
Regulation is not the same as the bailouts; the hope is that if sufficient regulation had been practiced over the past eight years (or twelve, specifically in regards to Freddie and Fannie), then the bailouts would not have been necessary in the first place. To a degree, that’s Monday Morning quarterbacking, but the truth is we’ll never know. But there’s no way around the fact that regulation was shoddy at best under the Bush administration and the Republican Congress (the Democratic side dropped the ball with Fannie and Freddie as well). The Bush administration took unprecedented actions to remove regulations, particularly on predatory lending practices. In my own home state of New York, the Bush administration actually filed a lawsuit against the state to stop them from enforcing the consumer protection laws of the state against the larger investment banks. This is the kind of attitude we’ve been dealing with over the past eight years.
Excessive regulation is not a blessing, I agree. But this “the market will fix everything itself” nonsense is outdated, stuck in the last century. You need common-sense regulation, and you need it to be enforced (that’s been the other problem for the last eight years. Bush’s administration did do much to shred some regulation, but it didn’t shred it all. It’s just that much of the regulation that was on the books was inadequately enforced, or not enforced at all). These companies were able to conduct their business in such a manner that unscrupulous lending led to the current financial collapse, because they knew there would be no ramifications, not because they were banking on being “bailed out.” Four months ago nobody was talking about a trillion dollar bailout for companies, so I think it’s a little suspicious now to suggest that they acted the way they did ‘depending’ on such action. They acted the way they did because they had no reason not to (i.e. no regulations or consequences). And that is dreadfully irresponsible.
Well, I agree here. This is the one area I hate Bush for. His spending was horrid. That said, I think his tax cuts were necessary in order to keep the expansion going. I should say, however, that tax cuts don't necessarily mean a decline in tax revenue. You need to think about incentives. Tax cuts can actually increase tax revenue. Look at Reagan for that.
My concern with Obama is that he'll raise taxes and raise spending. IMHO he'll do little to help. And we most likely will have problems due to incentives.
The expansion didn’t keep going, however. He cut taxes and kept spending. I feel like I am repeating myself, but its ugly math. I’m curious as to what your point is in regards to incentives; are you trying to frame them as good or bad? Obama has plans for tax incentives regarding environmental organizations and companies in the search for viable alternative energy sources. That’s the other thing we’re not talking about; stopping the problem of outsourcing. The first thing we have to acknowledge is that we are never going to be able to stop outsourcing. America cannot and would never be able to keep up with a dollar-a-day in Malaysia, nor would I want it to, so the problem requires a change of focus. If we cannot compete with those work conditions, we have to establish businesses and industries that can only be created here. A new type of industry involving the creation of new technologies and services, something that is impossible to do in these countries where our jobs are being outsourced. This sounds familiar; why not alternative energy? And this is another reason not to vote for McCain. He does not seem to see the promise inherent with the development of this new industry, and how creating a homegrown industry as we have done many times in the past would put more people to work, create more GDP and revenue for the States, and stabilize fluctuating wages. McCain just doesn’t have the vision or the record for it, and neither did President Bush.
Depends on the brackets and inflation since the Clinton administration. Obviously, incomes have increased. Therefore, it's not completely comparable.
Strict incomes have increased, but we are talking about percentages here, not dollar amounts. If we are talking dollar amounts, in 1992 Clinton’s cut off was 200,000. Now, in 2008, Obama's plan has 250,000 as that "cut-off" line (which I'll be the first to admit is pretty arbitrary). However, directly above in your response to my original post you compare Bush’s economic policies favorably with a Democratic president from thirty years ago. I think it’s much easier to compare Obama’s policies to Clinton’s than Obama’s policies to Carter or Reagan, as you do earlier.
All policies are a redistribution of wealth in America. Even Bush and Reagans. The difference is that Obama wants to increase the redistribution. Moreover, you fail to talk about corporations and small business. This can also result in redistribution of wealth and certainly inefficiency.
See, this is where we differ. You’re certainly right in saying that all tax policies are a redistribution of wealth. What worries some Republicans is that now the redistribution of wealth will now move away from the top of the percentage lines into the middle class. Because what good does it do a capitalist society if more and more wealth is in the hands of fewer and fewer people? It means that more wealth is off the table in terms of the daily buying and selling of goods and services, less savings, communication, and services for the middle class. As the past eight years has continued we have seen members of the middle-class ascend into upper-class wealth and we have seen members of the middle-class fall into poverty. We have not seen members of the working class ascend to the middle class, which is essential to the health of our (or any) free economic society. Bush did nothing to stop that, and likely helped it along inadvertently, and McCain’s policies don’t seem like they would stop such hemorrhaging. We need to make a healthy middle class again
I'd like to make another point when it comes to analysing national stats and national averages. I believe regional studies are more effective, for example: where I live unemployement is low but the median income level has actually dropped over the last three years. Regionally we haven't created more jobs to make unemployment low, we've taken the existing jobs and made more part-time positions. This is the way the large manufacturers, corporations and even farmers can lower wages, benefits, overtime and health insurance (most part-timers aren't offered insurance) So therefore most working class peeps where I live have to hold down 2 jobs to make a living. But when someone comes along and says that unemployment is low in our area they aren't seeing the entire picture. This is why there needs to be some goverent intervention to control the corporate strangleholds on employment in certain areas.
Comments
What's your problem? So what if the person donates a little money to their candidate of choice. And so what is that candidate happens to have record breaking funds? It's something they choose to do. All too often in this country people take an apathetic viewpoint of "Oh, hell, I'm just one person. What can my vote do. What can my five bucks do." It can do alot. It can do a little. But it shouldn't be belittled. So the person has a candidate that they believe in enough to support them both with their vote, and financially. What's the problem?
My problem is this man is talking about the biggest economic crisis in 70 years but spend others peoples money like it is going out of style. Maybe he could have use that $700 million from the primaries and presidental race a little different instead of bombarding us with his campaign adds that are on ever other commercial.
If you look at my earlier post I said hey its 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 the american politcal system for you. Don't blame the guy for playing the game, and playing it well. It's not like Mccain is sitting there on a soap box trying to tell passerbys about where he stands. What do you expect them to do? Say "Well, we've got a shit load of money, but instead of using it to advertise us to each of you on the one of the biggest, if not the biggest media form in america we're going to spend it different."? Each one of them is playing the fucking game. One just happens to be playing it better and getting rewarded more for it.
yeah, it probably paid one day's rent for the Obama website or for 100 miles for the bus to travel....
it matters!!!!
such an asshole statement
It's not his money, it's our money we give to him for his campaign....we are paying for his commercials...he wouldn't have the money if it weren't for us...
*
By 'chance' *he met *Antoin 'Tony' Rezko, born in Aleppo Syria, and a real estate developer in Chicago. *Rezko has been convicted of fraud and bribery this year. *Rezko, was named 'Entrepreneur of the Decade' by the Arab-American Business and Professional Association'. *About two years later, Obama entered Harvard Law School. *Do you have any idea what tuition is for Harvard Law School? *Where did he get the money for Law School? *More student loans? *After Law school, he went back to Chicago. Rezko offered him a job, which he turned down. *But, he did take a job with Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland. Guess what? *They represented 'Rezar' which is Rezko's firm. *Rezko was one of Obama's first major financial contributors when he ran for office in Chicago. *In 2003, Rezko threw an early fundraiser for Obama which Chicago Tribune reporter David Mendelland claims was instrumental in providing Obama with 'seed money' *for his U.S. Senate race. In 2005, Obama purchased a new home in Kenwoood District of Chicago for $1.65 million (less than asking price). *With ALL those Student Loans - Where did he get the money for the property? *On the same day Rezko's wife, Rita, purchased the adjoining empty lot for full price. The London Times reported that Nadhmi Auchi, an Iraqi-born Billionaire loaned Rezko $3.5 million three weeks before Obama's new home was purchased. *Obama met Nadhmi Auchi many times with Rezko.
Now, we have Obama running for President. *Valerie Jarrett, was Michele Obama's boss. *She is now Obama's chief advisor and he does not make any major decisions without talking to her first. *Where was Jarrett born? Ready for this? Shiraz, Iran! *Do we see a pattern here? *Or am I going crazy?
*
On May 10, 2008 The Times reported, Robert Malley, advisor to Obama, was 'sacked' after the press found out he was having regular contacts with 'Hamas', which controls Gaza and is connected with Iran. *This past week, buried in the back part of the papers, Iraqi newspapers reported that during Obama's visit to Iraq, he asked their leaders to do nothing about the war until after he is elected, and he will 'Take care of things'. *
*
Oh, and by the way, remember the college roommates that where born in Pakistan? *They are in charge of all those 'small' Internet campaign contributions for Obama. *Where is that money coming from? *The poor and middle class in this country? *Or could it be from the Middle East? *
*
And the final bit of news. *On September 7, 2008, The Washington Times posted a verbal slip that was made on 'This Week' with George Stephanapoulos. *Obama on talking about his religion said, 'My Muslim faith'. *When questioned, 'he made a mistake'. *Some mistake!
*
All of the above information I got on line. *If you would like to check it - Wikipedia, encyclopedia, Barack Obama; Tony Rezko; Valerie Jarrett: Daily Times - Obama visited Pakistan in 1981; The Washington Times - September 7, 2008; The Times May 10, 2008.
*
Now the BIG question - If I found out all this information on my own, Why haven't all of our 'intelligent' members of the press been reporting this?
*
A phrase that keeps ringing in my ear - 'Beware of the enemy from within'!!!
*
*
WHERE IS THE MONEY COMING FROM?
*
I give it six months and the some of the same people that support him will bitch on here.
I don't like to count the chicks before they hatch..
it all comes down to the battle ground states Ohio and Florida and as we all know it ain't over until the fat lady sings... or counts the votes ...
I just wish this was over... the next 2 weeks are going to be excruciating..
I agree, I haven't been able to donate tons of money but I have donated a few times throughout the campaign and I expect him to use MY money to help his campaign and make every effort to win, I didn't donate so that he can use it in a different way but in the way I assumed it was going to be used when I donated my hard earned dollars
It doesnt cost shit to feed hate and stereotypes; it costs a lot more to fight those things.
true, but this isn't really the same situation as 2000 or 2004. I don't think Gore or Kerry were up this much at this time in their respective campaigns. Obama is leading in the most of the polls in FL and OH, not to mention other swing states like PA, CO, and VA. He could actually afford to lose FL or OH. Gore actually won the popular vote in 2000. He got screwed on the recounts and the mess that ensued. I don't think Obama would let that happen, he's already started addressing the voter suppression issue.
I give it six months and the same people bashing Obama will start loving on him. There, I said something completely presumptuous and unsupported by facts just like you did.
The way it's looking right now, that's probably the only thing he could do before the election in order win the election.
It was solid. I am aware it has been poor recently, however. I'm not saying that it has not. I'm saying that under his 8 year term it was solid.
REAL GDP is the most common unit of measurement to describe economic growth. I think you agree and are simply saying there's others. True. But, most people look at Real GDP.
Clinton's tax policy was not similar to Obama's because he had a Republican controlled congress. Obama "may" (and probably will) not. You can't really compare them,.... yet. Moreover, Clinton's corporate tax policy is no where near as harsh as Obamas.
I feel as though it's better than average. So, if better than average deserves accolades... yes.
The incredible irony of this chart you mention is that it measures GDP using the income approach. The fact is that the income approach uses
GDP = Compensation of employees + Gross operating surplus + Gross mixed income + Taxes less subsidies on production and imports
In the article, they talk about Compensation of employees (wages) and Gross operating surplus (corporate profits).... they fail to talk about Gross mixed income (SMALL BUSINESS PROFITS) and Taxes less subsides on production and imports (TAXES). Bottom line here, if you look back at the chart. Small business profits had to have been at record highs in 06, given the gap. But, they fail to mention that. Moreover, taxes were lower on ALL of the above. Therefore, NET WAGES to employees may have actually been at a high.
Bottom line, this is the NYTimes.... a respected newspaper, however, with a liberal slant. They are not presenting the information properly. The data they are refering to is not bad at all. They just don't care about NET and small business.
Wages have kept up with inflation. Go to back to the chart. There's three of them. Look at the Median Hourly Pay Adjusted for Inflation. Look at Bush's eight-year term. Yes, in 05 it was negative. But, hey, take a look at Clinton's eight-year term. Do you see all the negatives? That's what I was talking about.
I'm not saying Bush had a better economic run than Clinton or Reagan for that matter. What I am saying is that it has been solid growth. Meaning above average. Especially, given the fact that we had 9/11 and a brief inherited recession under his watch.
As for this article, this was in August, and prices have dropped significantly. Look at gas prices. The cost of living has plummeted too. Basically, when an economy slows (which I certainly admit it has), inflation slows too. When an economy is moving, inflation increases. This article is silly to bring up for our argument because it's not referring to an eight-year span.... like the Bush presidency. I know the economy is slowing now. Moreover, cost of living indices are as different as the person who creates them. There is no cost of living index that is the same. It's a garbage stat.
You can get the data. Go to economagic or freelunch.com. Look for the CPI. Do a year to year % change. Print it out in xls. Then look at the years of the Presidencies.
Yes. Tese are the same statistics I used. I am not wrong at all.
Clinton left in 2000; in December 2000 unemployment was at 3.9 and it was 4.2 the following month.
You can't look at month to month changes. That is absolutely ridiculous. You need to look at annual data in order to adjust for the month to month swings. Do you even know how they get this data? It's a household survey. It's obviously not always accurate. Therefore, you need to adjust for volatility. Perhaps you could use a three-month Moving average, but when talking about eight-year terms it's best to stick with annual data.
I certainly admit, that there was a rise in the unemployment rate after 9/11, which ended in 2003. Then there was a constant decline in unemployment until 2006 to 4.61.
I said there was a moderate increase in 2007. Which it was it went from 4.61 to 4.64. I agree that in 2008 the rate increased. Thus far, it's at 5.41 ANNUALLY. You can't keep looking at monthly data. It's too volatile. My argument was not that the unemployment rate is not increasing right now. It was that the unemployment rate has not "steadily" increased. You were just plain wrong about that. It has increased and it has decreased.
First, you are wrong about Clinton never having ab above 6.0 unemployment rate. It was 6.91 annually in 1993 and it was 6.1 in 1994.
Second, if you start out at well almost 7.0 in unemployment, and go down that's great and all but, it's not comparable to starting low.
Fine. Carter's term was the most similar, IMO to what is going on today. I think that Reagan's policy was obviously excellent economically. Therefore, I'd prefer to see a policy somewhat like that (which mccain would bring), rather than an anti-reagan policy which we get from obama.
I don't think that this really has much to do with deregulation as moral hazard. I think that if you consistently have gov't bailing corporations and people, for that matter, who make poor decisions, this is what you are going to end up with. Unfortunately, I think the bail out was necessary because of the whole we dug and the consequences. But, I certainly think it should be expressed that bailouts are done after this mess and I also think that the proof is in action. If you give mortgages to people who are not qualified, you aren't going to be helped out by the gov't. If you take a ARM and the interest rate resets.... you should know (or ask so you do know) what you are getting yourself into before you sign that mortgage.
I actually think regulation is not a blessing. But, I agree that it's not as bad as what happened. My point is you need to move in one (regulation or deregulation) and stay there or do the other. You can't have this back and forth crap because that creates the moral hazard. The corporations don't know if they will be bailed out, so they do it in order to compete.
Well, I agree here. This is the one area I hate Bush for. His spending was horrid. That said, I think his tax cuts were necessary in order to keep the expansion going. I should say, however, that tax cuts don't necessarily mean a decline in tax revenue. You need to think about incentives. Tax cuts can actually increase tax revenue. Look at Reagan for that.
My concern with Obama is that he'll raise taxes and raise spending. IMHO he'll do little to help. And we most likely will have problems due to incentives.
Depends on the brackets and inflation since the Clinton administration. Obviously, incomes have increased. Therefore, it's not completely comparable.
All policies are a redistribution of wealth in America. Even Bush and Reagans. The difference is that Obama wants to increase the redistribution. Moreover, you fail to talk about corporations and small business. This can also result in redistribution of wealth and certainly inefficiency.
OK. Let me know if you think that was a waste of money in two years.
Sorry, I had to say that. I just think I'd never donate to a political party. But, that's me. You are entitled to do what you want with your money.
When the middle class couldn't pay back their loans because they lost jobs or lost compensation without appropriate cost-of-living income adjustments then that just proves the "solid" growth was a falsehood.
No I'm not saying credit and loans are a bad thing... I'm just saying someone that makes $100,000 shouldn't live in a $500,000 home and have 6 credit cards with $25,000 credit lines. This ideology hurts everyone in the long run but it's great for the wealthy until it all comes crashing down like it has lately.
So, the sound growth of GDP during the Clinton administration had nothing to do with credit? lol
Come on, man. I know you are pro-Obama, but loans and credit are what make our economy and all leading economies tick. It doesn't matter if it's Bush, Clinton, Carter, Reagan... credit and loans are important.
Someone who makes $100K should not live in a $500K home and have six credit cards with $25K lines? OK. That's your opinion. My opinion is that if that person wants to do that, fine. He/she should know that they may be getting themself in over their heads. They should know that if they lose their job they may lose their home. They should know that if they took out an exotic mortgage like a variable interest rate mortgage.... mortgage can reset much much higer and F them in the ass. It's called personal responsiblity. It's not the government's fault that a minority of people behave stupidly. People have behaved stupidly since the dawn of man and will continue until the end. Greed is a problem. People need to not get greedy and live by their means. The individuals (OR CORPORATIONS, for that matter) that extend themselves beyond their means should not be bailed out by governments. They need to take the hit. Regroup, declare bankruptcy if they must, and start over. It is without a doubt possible, and they will learn a valuable lesson.... for most, it won't even come to that.
The ideology of credit is good for everyone. It increases the velocity of money. It is good... period. Your argument that credit availability is a bad thing makes little to no sense. Credit availablity is very good. Personal decisions (and corporate decisions) that involve people getting greedy is bad. That's the bad thing here. People need to learn to live in their means. Government involvement will not help this, ever.
I'm saying the lenders are just as greedy and irresponsible as the guy that takes out a loan.
Most peeps don't want to lose their home and most try be responsible with their credit line. However, 5 years ago who would have thought that utilities, oil, insurance, and daily necessities would have gone up while the home values plummet. There are other factors that go beyond being fiscally responsible.
The greed of the wealthy in this country is the underlying factor. Instead of making decisions to do the right thing and compensate the workers the wealthy chose to take their extra coin a throw it in the bubble hoping it wouldn't burst. Then they want to blame the workers by saying they are paying them too much so then they use extortion by continuously outsoursing or threatening to outsourse.
McCain is a joke. Keep laughing buddy. It's that attitude that will lose this election.
As far as the last 8 years of the country's economy. Wall Street and the world spoke volumes when they wiped their asses and flushed it down the toilet with Bush's growth over the last 8 years . It doesn't matter how solid it was pre 9/11 or post 9/11. All that growth is gone that's how the American public is going to view it. It's what they are feeling now is all that matters to the masses.
Just my 2 cents
See, I guess that's where we disagree. This started with subprime problems. Those, along with greedy corporations, are the people who started this mess. The corporations lent to these people with subprime credit. The corporations were wrong to lend to them. THe people with subprime creidt were wrong for taking loans that they couldn't pay back. The rich? I don't see the connection. The subprime tend to not be rich, that's for sure. The corporations.... ok, maybe there's some rich involved there.
Anyway, I've said it before and I'll say it again. Alan Greenspan is to blame for the current mess, not Bush. That's my opinion.
i cant respond to everything you have said, but i can sum it up by saying a few words...you are right!
i want to see the statistics of this whole housing collapse of the people who were given loans that couldnt afford them and the credit given to people who shouldnt have gotten it compared to those who were responsible and just came upon hard times
i think the stats would be overwhelming in the side of the loans given to people who couldnt afford them thus the blame should be on personal accountability and noone else
im just confused on how many people took these loans with adjustable interest rates..thats asanine!! you never base your loan on what the econonmy does..i just bought a house and got a fixed rate, i did my homework and i got a beyond sweet deal on a house that i can afford
people are just too lazy to do their homework and now the rest of us have to bail them out
I'm not so sure about this point, but I suppose that’s why we are having this discussion.
Let me begin with your latter point; Bill Clinton did NOT have a Republican controlled Congress when entering the White House. The Republicans did not take control of the Congress until two years later, with the famous “Republican Revolution” in November of 1994. Maybe the same thing will happen with Obama’s midterms; who knows? However, it is false to state that Clinton was dealing with a conflicting Congress as he devised his tax plans in 93 and 94. He ran into conflicts later on, and maybe that conflict led to economic growth. God knows, the Republicans controlling Congress and the White House left us in a ditch. Maybe in 2010 the Republicans will get the Senate and House back. But that’s speculation.
In regard to your point about corporate tax policy, it should be noted that Clinton’s corporate income tax rate is not worse than Obama’s; both stand at around 35% (Obama’s may be a bit higher). It should also be noted that there would be a tax incentives for corporations that do not outsource their jobs overseas, which helps to bring down the percentage number of Obama’s tax plan. So to say his corporate tax increase plans are wildly different than Clinton’s is an exaggeration.
I understand why you’d want to look solely at Real GDP when defending Bush’s economic policies; it is really one of the only positive measures of strength and stability under his tenure. Every other statistic or maker of progress seems to range from mediocre to abysmal. Measuring the GDP in isolation is great for one thing; measuring the GDP of the country alone. However, this argument’s meaningless if we don’t talk about the state of the economy beyond the GDP because we’d be failing to address a multi-faceted issue. You really think we can talk about the U.S. economy without talking about unemployment, wages, inflation, etc? There’d be no point, and it’s not a debate I think anyone would be interested in having. I think it’s important to note that the best defense for the economy under President Bush’s term, according to you, is the measure of our economy that has been rising since they began measuring it. It’s a false barometer of a President’s economic policies. If you want to argue otherwise, fine, but I don’t see the point of addressing that at the exclusion of all other points. I think most economists who actually really wanted to vibrantly and realistically discuss the state of the U.S. economy would agree with that.
When does your average begin? As far as I can tell, since 1976, the GDP growth rate has been better under Reagan and Clinton than Bush, the only other eight-term presidents of the bunch. So again, what is this average you speak of? Additionally, the rate of real GDP growth per year has gradually increased, in addition to the actual GDP measurement. For example, Reagan had a better GDP growth rate than Carter, while Clinton had a better GDP growth rate than Reagan (approximately 2% more growth in real GDP per capita per year as far as I can tell). Both President Bush 43 and President Bush 41 are the only presidents in that 32-year span that saw the rate of GDP growth shrink under their watch in comparison to the previous president’s rate. That is, whereas Reagan and Clinton were able to nurture and encourage the GDP rate to continue its’ upward mobility, Bush stifled such momentum. So even Bush’s best economic statistic comes with a caveat.
Well, first of all, I think it’s unfortunate that the whole liberal bias thing comes into play here once again. I was hoping we’d all be able to go one discussion without it, but ah well. When dealing with the statistics, first of all, many of the small businesses (including most of those hovering just at or under the magic 250,000 dollar mark) would have their wages included in this chart (this is of course, assuming you’re correct in saying that these statistics were excluded, which I see no evidence of). This is because many small businesses record their figures as individuals, which would include them in this chart. But I digress. That being said, I’d love to see where you’re getting these figures. Heathens like me love to see squiggly lines and charts and graphs to make ourselves feel smart. In all seriousness, I like seeing the evidence backing up what you’re saying. I’ve tried to do that as best I can here.
I looked at all the charts there. I think in this case that you are supporting your argument using the same means that you criticize me for using in regards to the measurement of unemployment (which I’ll get to below this one). You take isolated statistics that look good in Bush’s favor and disregard the overall trend downward that has occurred during the Bush administration’s two terms. You do not build Rome in a day, and likewise you do not revive or wreck an economy in the span of a few months, as you are right to point out in regards to unemployment. So showing me how Bush 43 had a good year in 2001, while technicially true, is pretty meaningless when viewed in the context of the overall trend of wages from the beginning of his tenure to his end. You mention the negative trends of the Clinton years; so let’s look at Clinton’s two terms. Let’s also take into account that Bush 41 was leaving Clinton with a recession, whereas Clinton’s second term was a well-renowned period of economic growth for our nation. Wages consistently rise over the course of the eight years of the Clinton years, as is shown in the chart. From a severely negative percentages in 1993, the negative percentage shrinks from 94, into 95, into 96, and with 1996 a period of wage increases (when adjusted for inflation) took us through the end of the Clinton presidency. Sound economic policy won’t work overnight, but it would lead to a gradual period of growth, strength and improvement. With President Bush’s tenure, we see the exact opposite trend. From 2001 we see a continual drop in the worth of wages. Downhill trends are not good markers of economic strength. Bush’s policies didn’t damage the country overnight, but all these statistics point to Bush’s economic faults.
First of all, I don’t feel the cost of living is a garbage statistic. The cost of living is irrevocably tied up in inflation, wages, etc. When you make a blanket statement like “when an economy slows, inflation slows too. When an economy is moving, inflation increases” it is like saying that the measurement of GDP is solely adequate to measure the state of a nation’s economy. You’re leaving out all the information that would let someone come to a reasoned conclusion. Now, I’m wondering why you failed to address my primary point here, which is the point I spoke about above. Gas prices are dropping radically, and you think this is a good thing? Neither the inflated cost of living or the rapid drop you speak of were solid markers of a stable economy, considering the worth of wages had not corresponded to the inflation as we spoke about before. My point in the section you quoted was that you cannot take one or two of Bush’s years and look at them in isolation and say he had a “solid” term.
You need to check those statistics again. I already told you I was wrong to say it “steadily” increased, so I don’t see why you keep returning to that singular statement. There again, I was wrong. But an increase over eight years is an increase, and Bush’s economic policies did little to stop them. The rate increased in a volatile manner throughout Bush’s two terms that by the close of his administration we will be faced with a unemployment rate of well over 6.0, which is over two points the rate that President Bush inherited in 2001. So despite your being right about it not steadily increasing, it increased nonetheless. Despite the peaks and valleys, unemployment has raised during Bush’s term; every piece of evidence supports this statement; monthly, annually, generally over the past eight years. Also, when you say that the unemployment rate went from 4.61 to 4.64, you are taking the average of the twelve months put together, with 4.61 representing the “average” in 2006, and the latter number being 2007. How is that an accurate portrayal of the graduate climb or drop of unemployment? I disagree with your notion that you disregard the monthly rates; you need a monthly rate to establish the passage of the unemployment rate throughout the course of the year. The only thing measuring the annual rate does for your argument is that it “lessens” the severity of the spikes in unemployment under President Bush. Maybe if we’re talking about the rate of unemployment over a span of decades such an annual span would be necessary to consider yearly averages, but we’re talking about eight years here; we can handle the math, and the math is not in your favor. In 2007, throughout the year the unemployment rate climbed to 5.0, and the obfuscation of the hike in the unemployment rate is unnecessary.
There’s nothing volatile about my argument, and looking at monthly data helps if you’re dealing with a period of eight years. Go to http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=LNS14000000. The rate of unemployment is clearly illustrated, and truth be told, I’m going trust the Bureau of Labor Statistics on this one. Their graph illustrates my point. I don’t really see how you can argue with the increases that have occurred over Bush’s terms.
You need to read what I said more closely. I stated that after a year and a half of Clinton entering office, his unemployment rate went below 6.0 and never returned above that since. That would mean that after 1994, the unemployment rate continued to lower for Bill Clinton throughout the course of his presidency, never reaching above 6.0 again. As in, Clinton inherited a shitty economy and as the years went by either his policies, factors outside his control, or a combination of the two led to continuous economic growth in every manner possible. Good GDP growth, lower unemployment, secure wages, etc. etc. The same cannot be said, unfortunately, for President Bush.
On your second point, that’s the exact problem. Clinton’s policies were enacted during a period of recession and high unemployment, the highest since ten years earlier during the ’82 spike. Clinton’s years saw a gradual decrease. You are absolutely right when you say that starting out at a high unemployment and ending at a lower unemployment is different than “starting low” and ending with a higher unemployment rate. The latter is worse. I’m afraid I don’t understand your point here, unless you mean to prove my point for me.
I fail to see how McCain is closer to a “typical” fiscal conservative; he seems to me to be similar to Bush in the sense that he does not plan on cutting services. Why else would practically every independent analyst come to the conclusion that McCain’s plans would burden the national debt far more than Obama’s plans would? McCain talks about tax cuts, and in the next sentence talks about all these things that government programs need to accomplish. If he tries to commit to more tax cuts and tries to commit to all the things he has promised, our country will be in worse shape than it is now. As I said before, you can’t cut taxes and raise spending. It’s bad math.
Regulation is not the same as the bailouts; the hope is that if sufficient regulation had been practiced over the past eight years (or twelve, specifically in regards to Freddie and Fannie), then the bailouts would not have been necessary in the first place. To a degree, that’s Monday Morning quarterbacking, but the truth is we’ll never know. But there’s no way around the fact that regulation was shoddy at best under the Bush administration and the Republican Congress (the Democratic side dropped the ball with Fannie and Freddie as well). The Bush administration took unprecedented actions to remove regulations, particularly on predatory lending practices. In my own home state of New York, the Bush administration actually filed a lawsuit against the state to stop them from enforcing the consumer protection laws of the state against the larger investment banks. This is the kind of attitude we’ve been dealing with over the past eight years.
Excessive regulation is not a blessing, I agree. But this “the market will fix everything itself” nonsense is outdated, stuck in the last century. You need common-sense regulation, and you need it to be enforced (that’s been the other problem for the last eight years. Bush’s administration did do much to shred some regulation, but it didn’t shred it all. It’s just that much of the regulation that was on the books was inadequately enforced, or not enforced at all). These companies were able to conduct their business in such a manner that unscrupulous lending led to the current financial collapse, because they knew there would be no ramifications, not because they were banking on being “bailed out.” Four months ago nobody was talking about a trillion dollar bailout for companies, so I think it’s a little suspicious now to suggest that they acted the way they did ‘depending’ on such action. They acted the way they did because they had no reason not to (i.e. no regulations or consequences). And that is dreadfully irresponsible.
The expansion didn’t keep going, however. He cut taxes and kept spending. I feel like I am repeating myself, but its ugly math. I’m curious as to what your point is in regards to incentives; are you trying to frame them as good or bad? Obama has plans for tax incentives regarding environmental organizations and companies in the search for viable alternative energy sources. That’s the other thing we’re not talking about; stopping the problem of outsourcing. The first thing we have to acknowledge is that we are never going to be able to stop outsourcing. America cannot and would never be able to keep up with a dollar-a-day in Malaysia, nor would I want it to, so the problem requires a change of focus. If we cannot compete with those work conditions, we have to establish businesses and industries that can only be created here. A new type of industry involving the creation of new technologies and services, something that is impossible to do in these countries where our jobs are being outsourced. This sounds familiar; why not alternative energy? And this is another reason not to vote for McCain. He does not seem to see the promise inherent with the development of this new industry, and how creating a homegrown industry as we have done many times in the past would put more people to work, create more GDP and revenue for the States, and stabilize fluctuating wages. McCain just doesn’t have the vision or the record for it, and neither did President Bush.
Strict incomes have increased, but we are talking about percentages here, not dollar amounts. If we are talking dollar amounts, in 1992 Clinton’s cut off was 200,000. Now, in 2008, Obama's plan has 250,000 as that "cut-off" line (which I'll be the first to admit is pretty arbitrary). However, directly above in your response to my original post you compare Bush’s economic policies favorably with a Democratic president from thirty years ago. I think it’s much easier to compare Obama’s policies to Clinton’s than Obama’s policies to Carter or Reagan, as you do earlier.
See, this is where we differ. You’re certainly right in saying that all tax policies are a redistribution of wealth. What worries some Republicans is that now the redistribution of wealth will now move away from the top of the percentage lines into the middle class. Because what good does it do a capitalist society if more and more wealth is in the hands of fewer and fewer people? It means that more wealth is off the table in terms of the daily buying and selling of goods and services, less savings, communication, and services for the middle class. As the past eight years has continued we have seen members of the middle-class ascend into upper-class wealth and we have seen members of the middle-class fall into poverty. We have not seen members of the working class ascend to the middle class, which is essential to the health of our (or any) free economic society. Bush did nothing to stop that, and likely helped it along inadvertently, and McCain’s policies don’t seem like they would stop such hemorrhaging. We need to make a healthy middle class again
I'd like to make another point when it comes to analysing national stats and national averages. I believe regional studies are more effective, for example: where I live unemployement is low but the median income level has actually dropped over the last three years. Regionally we haven't created more jobs to make unemployment low, we've taken the existing jobs and made more part-time positions. This is the way the large manufacturers, corporations and even farmers can lower wages, benefits, overtime and health insurance (most part-timers aren't offered insurance) So therefore most working class peeps where I live have to hold down 2 jobs to make a living. But when someone comes along and says that unemployment is low in our area they aren't seeing the entire picture. This is why there needs to be some goverent intervention to control the corporate strangleholds on employment in certain areas.