or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › This Economy sure sucks!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

This Economy sure sucks!  

post #1 of 215
Thread Starter 
Just kidding. I have been saying this is what was coming, despite being informed of my massive ignorance, so as a little pat on my own back here is s link. Some very good news, indeed.

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGBY7VFP2VD.html

All that is left is to put a negative spin on it. So go at it.

[Fixed typo in thread title -Amorph]
post #2 of 215
NaplesX -- fiting clayms of ignrinse throo creeativ mispelings sinse 1995!

By the way, how is the econOmy doing?
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
post #3 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
All that is left is to put a negative spin on it. So go at it.

Hum... just because we don't like Bush doesn't mean we don't like jobs. I'm sure Bush will take ALL the credit, and I'm sure my fellow liberals will be all to happy to give him NO credit when in truth I think the credit is somewhere in between.
I never get tired of being right all the time... but I do get tired of having to prove it to you again and again.
I never get tired of being right all the time... but I do get tired of having to prove it to you again and again.
post #4 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Just kidding. I have been saying this is what was coming, despite being informed of my massive ignorance, so as a little pat on my own back here is s link. Some very good news, indeed.

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGBY7VFP2VD.html

All that is left is to put a negative spin on it. So go at it.

I am reminded of a political cartoon where two wealthy magnates dine at a fancy restaurant. One says to the other, "The economy's doing just fine-I hear 400,000 jobs were created this year!" The waiter serving them thinks to himself, "I know-I have 3 of them."

Entry-level positions are growing, but income and benefits are dwindling and job security is all but dead. The pay gap between CEO and entry-level worker grows, and the line between haves and have nots becomes more ever more defined...
Dual 2Ghz G5, Single 2Ghz Xserve G5, Dual 1Ghz QS G4, Single 1.25Ghz MDD G4.
Dual 2Ghz G5, Single 2Ghz Xserve G5, Dual 1Ghz QS G4, Single 1.25Ghz MDD G4.
post #5 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by Not Unlike Myself
in truth I think the credit is somewhere in between.

No one would admit as much here though.

FWIW, we're seeing small sh*tty jobs open up here, and the architecture industry is an OK leading indicator of the economy. Nothing much yet (except in China), but things are back from the dead anyway, crawling and slobbering.
post #6 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Just kidding. I have been saying this is what was coming, despite being informed of my massive ignorance, so as a little pat on my own back here is s link. Some very good news, indeed.

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGBY7VFP2VD.html

All that is left is to put a negative spin on it. So go at it.

It's good news. It's around the average of the job growth during the entire Clinton administration.

Something similar happened to Bush the father - the economy was moving nicely by the time Clinton was elected.
post #7 of 215
If someone can point to a single policy that Bush signed into law, which can be shown to help create these jobs (and we've heard bogus "new job claims" before from this administration), then I will give him credit. Gladly.
Aldo is watching....
Aldo is watching....
post #8 of 215
Tax cuts

Relaxing silly gov regulations that hurt buisness(especially whacko envir policies)
"A more sensitive and caring Common man for 2005"
"A more sensitive and caring Common man for 2005"
post #9 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by Common Man

Relaxing silly gov regulations that hurt buisness(especially whacko envir policies)

!!!!

(I am very glad you can't vote)
orange you just glad?
orange you just glad?
post #10 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by Gizzmonic
I am reminded of a political cartoon where two wealthy magnates dine at a fancy restaurant. One says to the other, "The economy's doing just fine-I hear 400,000 jobs were created this year!" The waiter serving them thinks to himself, "I know-I have 3 of them."

Entry-level positions are growing, but income and benefits are dwindling and job security is all but dead. The pay gap between CEO and entry-level worker grows, and the line between haves and have nots becomes more ever more defined...

Incomes are rising. You are wrong.

As for benefits and job security, that has nothing to do with the political situation. It's simply the way of American business today. The pay gap? Oh no! We need to pass some laws, dammit! Those greedy CEO's should be forced by the government to pay the workers more. Right?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #11 of 215
And hmmm...where are you now jimmac? Will you continue to post the state by state unemployment data? I love when you do that.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #12 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by Common Man
Tax cuts

Relaxing silly gov regulations that hurt buisness(especially whacko envir policies)

i have officially decided that Common Man is sarcastic and joking in each of his posts.
post #13 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by progmac
i have officially decided that Common Man is sarcastic and joking in each of his posts.

we're actually praying that's exactly the case.
post #14 of 215
The economy is so bad that I just signed the paperwork to hire four new people. I hope Kerry will forgive me.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
"Stand Up for Chuck"
post #15 of 215
All the jobs that are being created are basically artificial.
There's no nood for the jobs.. but they are created anyway to keep unemployment from rising through the roof. Most of the jobs are very low income and don't 'contribute' to the economy and industry.

Add this to the enormous amount of inflation, the enormous debt (which is backed up only by promise), the Iraq war which is out of control, the coming elections, the high oil price and the stockmarket which is pretty high at the moment and is about to burst.

I'm expecting a crash of the US economy within 6 months. Comparable to the crash in mid 2002 or even greater.

:: Macbook pro
:: iPhone 3G
:: iPad
:: Macbook pro
:: iPhone 3G
:: iPad
post #16 of 215
*jeopardy theme plays in the background*

"...something D-o-o economics... Anyone? Anyone?"

"Voo-DOO economics..."

Aldo is watching....
Aldo is watching....
post #17 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by Moogs
*jeopardy theme plays in the background*

"...something D-o-o economics... Anyone? Anyone?"

"Voo-DOO economics..."


post #18 of 215
Here's what I don't get. If the tax cuts are what helped the economy, why, when the tax cuts were enacted almost immediately after W. came to office, did it take so long? This was I believe the longest jobless recovery we've ever had. It's taken several years to get things going.

Second, if it's the tax cuts that have done this, isn't this a kind of false recovery? Clinton raised taxes, and had the strongest economy almost in US history, and then eventually a balanced budget. Reagan also had a strong economy, but a massive deficit at the end of it all. Now Bush will is doing the same. How is that a good thing?
post #19 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
And hmmm...where are you now jimmac? Will you continue to post the state by state unemployment data? I love when you do that.


State Unemployment Rate
North Dakota 2.7%
South Dakota 2.8%
Virginia 3.4%
Wyoming 3.4%
Nebraska 3.5%
Hawaii 3.6%
Vermont 3.6%
Delaware 3.8%
Georgia 3.8%
Iowa 3.9%
New Hampshire 3.9%
Maryland 4.0%
Minnesota 4.1%
Maine 4.3%
Nevada 4.3%
Idaho 4.4%
Connecticut 4.5%
Utah 4.5%
Florida 4.6%
Kansas 4.6%
Montana 4.6%
Wisconsin 4.6%
Missouri 4.7%
Oklahoma 4.7%
Massachusetts 4.8%
Indiana 4.9%
Tennessee 4.9%
Mississippi 5.0%
Colorado 5.1%
West Virginia 5.2%
Kentucky 5.3%
New Jersey 5.3%
North Carolina 5.3%
Pennsylvania 5.3%
Arizona 5.4%
Arkansas 5.6%
New Mexico 5.6%
U.S. Average (as of May) 5.6%
Rhode Island 5.7%
Alabama 5.8%
Ohio 5.8%
Louisiana 5.9%
Texas 6.0%
Illinois 6.1%
Michigan 6.1%
California 6.2%
New York 6.2%
Washington 6.3%
Oregon 6.7%
South Carolina 6.8%
Alaska 7.1%
District of Columbia 7.3%

Well it's not what I would call great yet but we 're off the bottom of the list.

There's this also :

http://money.cnn.com/2004/06/04/news..._may/index.htm

It does sound better ( before election time ) however we still have 1.4 million jobs to make up for to be where we were 3 years ago.

Also I'd tend to believe what's been said in a post above that these are low level jobs that may not last long. So the numbers may seem good but the reality may not be as good.

God! I hope those aren't hamburger " manufacturing " jobs.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #20 of 215
Thanks...that what I was hoping for.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #21 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Thanks...that what I was hoping for.

You're welcome but you do realize this isn't the only issue with Bush now.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #22 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
Here's what I don't get. If the tax cuts are what helped the economy, why, when the tax cuts were enacted almost immediately after W. came to office, did it take so long? This was I believe the longest jobless recovery we've ever had. It's taken several years to get things going.

Second, if it's the tax cuts that have done this, isn't this a kind of false recovery? Clinton raised taxes, and had the strongest economy almost in US history, and then eventually a balanced budget. Reagan also had a strong economy, but a massive deficit at the end of it all. Now Bush will is doing the same. How is that a good thing?

There is a concept that I have heard referred to as the "Lag Theory"...which basically states that any major economic plan takes at least 2-3 years to take effect. That would fit with what both Reagan and Bush 43 have done re: cutting taxes.

As for Clinton, there is a little bit of historical revision going on. We need to look at the causes of the boom, which really lasted for about 2 years...from 1998-2000. There was economic expansion, but to listen to Democrats today, you'd think the entire 1990's was fantastic. Back in the early to mid nineties, the economy was referred to as the "anemic" 1990's. It is only the latter part of the decade that saw superb growth, largely fueled by the dot-com bubble and exploding tech sector, not to mention low energy prices for most of the country. On thing I will say for Clinton is that he relentlessly pursued US business interests overseas...though this often came at the price of national security (particularly with China and North Korea).

In other words, the economy was good in spite of the tax rate. If someone would like to point out what Clinton did to help the economy through his policies, I'd like to see it. It succeeded in spite of him. Once the tech bubble collapsed, the natural business cycle took effect, and energy prices went through the roof, a very different tax policy was needed.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #23 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
There is a concept that I have heard referred to as the "Lag Theory"...which basically states that any major economic plan takes at least 2-3 years to take effect. That would fit with what both Reagan and Bush 43 have done re: cutting taxes.

As for Clinton, there is a little bit of historical revision going on. We need to look at the causes of the boom, which really lasted for about 2 years...from 1998-2000. There was economic expansion, but to listen to Democrats today, you'd think the entire 1990's was fantastic. Back in the early to mid nineties, the economy was referred to as the "anemic" 1990's. It is only the latter part of the decade that saw superb growth, largely fueled by the dot-com bubble and exploding tech sector, not to mention low energy prices for most of the country. On thing I will say for Clinton is that he relentlessly pursued US business interests overseas...though this often came at the price of national security (particularly with China and North Korea).

In other words, the economy was good in spite of the tax rate. If someone would like to point out what Clinton did to help the economy through his policies, I'd like to see it. It succeeded in spite of him. Once the tech bubble collapsed, the natural business cycle took effect, and energy prices went through the roof, a very different tax policy was needed.


The lag theory.

That must be like the trickle down effect.

It's already been pointed out what Clinton did for the economy. We paid our debts. Just like we're going to have to do after this Bush. It's that deficit thing again.

Just like the early 90's we'll be left with another Bush legacy.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #24 of 215
What Clinton did for the economy? I could be wrong, but isn't balancing the nation's budget and putting us in the black for the first time in God knows how many administrations, worth mentioning? Not saying Clinton did it all by himself (no president does) but, he didn't make a habit of spending out his ass with money he didn't have, thus resulting in the largest debt this nation has ever seen. That's for damn sure....
Aldo is watching....
Aldo is watching....
post #25 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
There is a concept that I have heard referred to as the "Lag Theory"...which basically states that any major economic plan takes at least 2-3 years to take effect. That would fit with what both Reagan and Bush 43 have done re: cutting taxes.

As for Clinton, there is a little bit of historical revision going on. We need to look at the causes of the boom, which really lasted for about 2 years...from 1998-2000. There was economic expansion, but to listen to Democrats today, you'd think the entire 1990's was fantastic. Back in the early to mid nineties, the economy was referred to as the "anemic" 1990's. It is only the latter part of the decade that saw superb growth, largely fueled by the dot-com bubble and exploding tech sector, not to mention low energy prices for most of the country. On thing I will say for Clinton is that he relentlessly pursued US business interests overseas...though this often came at the price of national security (particularly with China and North Korea).

In other words, the economy was good in spite of the tax rate. If someone would like to point out what Clinton did to help the economy through his policies, I'd like to see it. It succeeded in spite of him. Once the tech bubble collapsed, the natural business cycle took effect, and energy prices went through the roof, a very different tax policy was needed.

Clinton opened trade, yes, but the other policy that was key was reducing the deficit. That brings confidence to the US economy and keeps interest rates low, which is good for the economy.

I'd argue that the big dot-com boom you mention of the late 90s probably wasn't a good thing. The slow growth of the mid-90s was the right way to go. The anemic period was more in the early 90s, when, just like in the early 2000s, there was a jobless recovery. But the jobless recovery of the 2000s, which seems to be over now, turned out to be much longer than the one in the early 1990s. And anyway, the entire 1990s was fantastic. It was the longest period of growth in modern American history.

Tax cuts are good for the economy, but only if they're offset with spending decreases. If they're not offset, they just increase government spending because they increase interest payments on the debt. Tax cuts increase government spending unless they're explicitly offset by spending decreases.
post #26 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell


Tax cuts are good for the economy, but only if they're offset with spending decreases. If they're not offset, they just increase government spending because they increase interest payments on the debt. Tax cuts increase government spending unless they're explicitly offset by spending decreases.

exactly. I don't propose making an ammendement that requires a balanced budget (running a deficit does have useful purposes), but this 1/2 trillion dollar deficit is absurd. there should be a limit of say, a couple hundred billion or less...basically any joker of a president can increase government spending (what bush has done by cutting taxes without reducing programs signficantly) and have faux "economic recovery."

The immediate retort here is: "what about FDR and the great depression?" adjusted for inflation, the deficit spending that he introduced to spur economic recovery made the budget deficit about a quarter of what the deficit is today. ($8 billion deficit (at height of spending in 1938) * (1 + .044 ( average inflation rate since 1930s))^66years (amount of time since 1938) = $137 billion of today's dollars = FDR's deficit in today's dollars.

and that was recovery from the freakin' GREAT DEPRESSION. Bush's answer to a recession is a $500 BILLION DOLLAR DEFICIT? It is absurd and harmful to the future of our country
post #27 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
The lag theory.

That must be like the trickle down effect.

It's already been pointed out what Clinton did for the economy. We paid our debts. Just like we're going to have to do after this Bush. It's that deficit thing again.

Just like the early 90's we'll be left with another Bush legacy.

Your misunderstanding of basic economics is astounding. While deficits can have a detrimental impact (particularly with regard to inflation), they are not necessarily bad for the economy. Government budgets and "the economy" are two separate things, though they affect each other.

Here's another question jimmac: How did a balanced budget help the economy during the 1990's? Secondly. was Clinton responsible for said balanced budgets, despite the Republican controlled Congress?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #28 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by Moogs
What Clinton did for the economy? I could be wrong, but isn't balancing the nation's budget and putting us in the black for the first time in God knows how many administrations, worth mentioning? Not saying Clinton did it all by himself (no president does) but, he didn't make a habit of spending out his ass with money he didn't have, thus resulting in the largest debt this nation has ever seen. That's for damn sure....

umm...see my above post. A balanced budget is not the same as a "good economy". Hello?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #29 of 215
BRussell:

Quote:
Tax cuts are good for the economy, but only if they're offset with spending decreases. If they're not offset, they just increase government spending because they increase interest payments on the debt. Tax cuts increase government spending unless they're explicitly offset by spending decreases.

This is completely wrong. Government fiscal policy is not a zero sum game. In other words, cutting taxes stimulates growth, which thereby brings in more revenue. Cutting taxes does not necessarily reduce incoming revene. This was proved in the 1980's, as government revenues doubled.

I do agree that spending cuts are needed...in the sense that spending cannot outstrip the the new found revenue, as it did in the 1980's.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #30 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by progmac
exactly. I don't propose making an ammendement that requires a balanced budget (running a deficit does have useful purposes), but this 1/2 trillion dollar deficit is absurd. there should be a limit of say, a couple hundred billion or less...basically any joker of a president can increase government spending (what bush has done by cutting taxes without reducing programs signficantly) and have faux "economic recovery."

The immediate retort here is: "what about FDR and the great depression?" adjusted for inflation, the deficit spending that he introduced to spur economic recovery made the budget deficit about a quarter of what the deficit is today. ($8 billion deficit (at height of spending in 1938) * (1 + .044 ( average inflation rate since 1930s))^66years (amount of time since 1938) = $137 billion of today's dollars = FDR's deficit in today's dollars.

and that was recovery from the freakin' GREAT DEPRESSION. Bush's answer to a recession is a $500 BILLION DOLLAR DEFICIT? It is absurd and harmful to the future of our country

Well first, let me say that we do need to cut spending. Our government is a bloated nightmare. However, it is worth noting that as a percentage of GDP, this is not the largest deficit we've run. And, as terrible as a 7 trillion dollar debt sounds, that debt is actually quite manageable from a "debt service" perspective.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #31 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
BRussell:
...Cutting taxes does not necessarily reduce incoming revene. This was proved in the 1980's, as government revenues doubled.
...

You have to be careful with that. Reagan cut taxes early but raised taxes nearly every year after that. This was recently pointed out by a Republican congressman.

I think that part of what Clinton did that was good was to reduce the deficit which lowered interest rates which put a huge amount of money in the hands of ordinary people through refinancing their homes. Interest rates around 1990 were about 10 - 11%. At the end of the Clinton administration they were much less, even while the economy boomed.

The problem with Bush's tax cut was that most of it went to a sliver of the richest people in the country. They are only likely to invest that money around the world where they get the best return. To put money in the hands of ordinary people we could have had a one year moratorium on the payroll tax, for example.

Tax cuts are the equivalent of service cuts. I'm an agnostic on both. I think we should find the appropriate level where the pain of taxes is balanced by the blessing of investment in our country.
Unofficial AppleScript Studio Lobbyist
Unofficial AppleScript Studio Lobbyist
post #32 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
BRussell:



This is completely wrong. Government fiscal policy is not a zero sum game. In other words, cutting taxes stimulates growth, which thereby brings in more revenue. Cutting taxes does not necessarily reduce incoming revene. This was proved in the 1980's, as government revenues doubled.

I do agree that spending cuts are needed...in the sense that spending cannot outstrip the the new found revenue, as it did in the 1980's.

I disagree. Bush's dad called that voodoo economics. Revenues could have risen due to inflation, increased population, the business cycle, and a host of other factors. Sure, revenues can rise after tax cuts. I just don't believe that cutting taxes increases revenues beyond what they would have been without the tax cuts.

And neutrino is right that when revenues were falling after the initial Reagan tax cuts, he raised them right away, so it's hard to evaluate the effect of those initial tax cuts.
post #33 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Here's another question jimmac: How did a balanced budget help the economy during the 1990's? Secondly. was Clinton responsible for said balanced budgets, despite the Republican controlled Congress?

1. Reducing deficits keeps interest rates low, which helps the economy in the long run (not the short-run, where deficits help the economy). There's debate on that, and it cuts across party lines, but that's the predominant theory anyway.

2. Clinton was totally responsible for the balanced budgets. Not a single Republican voted for his 1993 plan, and Dems probably lost the Congress due (in part) to that. After that, Congress and Clinton stalemated, and the gov't was shutdown in the standoff. When Congress and Clinton finally did come to an agreement, it made the deficit worse, not better. You could argue that Congress exerted indirect pressure on Clinton by talking about the deficit, just as Perot did. But in the end, it was Clinton who did it.

BTW, Bush is now using Kerry's deficit-reduction votes during that period against him in negative ads.
post #34 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
1. Reducing deficits keeps interest rates low, which helps the economy in the long run (not the short-run, where deficits help the economy). There's debate on that, and it cuts across party lines, but that's the predominant theory anyway.

2. Clinton was totally responsible for the balanced budgets. Not a single Republican voted for his 1993 plan, and Dems probably lost the Congress due (in part) to that. After that, Congress and Clinton stalemated, and the gov't was shutdown in the standoff. When Congress and Clinton finally did come to an agreement, it made the deficit worse, not better. You could argue that Congress exerted indirect pressure on Clinton by talking about the deficit, just as Perot did. But in the end, it was Clinton who did it.

BTW, Bush is now using Kerry's deficit-reduction votes during that period against him in negative ads.

From what I recall, Clinton, even after his tax increase was projecting $250-$300 billion dollar per year deficits for as far as the eye could see. The only thing that changed this equation was the change in Congress in 1994. It is the Republican Congress that forced Clinton to trim the deficit. I wish they would do the same for Mr. Bush but many of the deficit hawks, like John Kasich, returned to private life.

There is talk of an internal fight, even now, between house and Senate Republicans over the current overspending.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

post #35 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by Not Unlike Myself
Hum... just because we don't like Bush doesn't mean we don't like jobs. I'm sure Bush will take ALL the credit, and I'm sure my fellow liberals will be all to happy to give him NO credit when in truth I think the credit is somewhere in between.

tax cuts spur growth...it worked with JFK, and Regan, in the first bush admin, he raised taxes and blam, the early 90's resession, in '93 slick willie raised taxes, then the repubs in '94 lowered taxes and bam, the late 90's boom, in '98 or '99 clinton again raised taxes and thus the econ tumble of this decades first quarter, now taxes are, again lower, and the econ is on the way up.

tax cuts work.

after thought:
if you think taxes are too low, show it by writeing a check for the ballance of what you concider fair. when income taxes are between 20%-35% and then there is social security, medicare, payroll, interest, capitol gains, telecom, and a few more that I cant recall at the moment, we feed the government way too damnd much as it is.
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
post #36 of 215
I just wanted to say I am pleased to see the respectful discussion within this thread.

Keep up the great work everyone

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
post #37 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by Moogs
*jeopardy theme plays in the background*

"...something D-o-o economics... Anyone? Anyone?"

"Voo-DOO economics..."


Im sorry the judges tell me that is not corect, we were looking for "WHAT IS Voo-DOO economics"

and for those of you at home, it is a name given to an economic system that works by people who for some reason think it doesnt....
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
post #38 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Your misunderstanding of basic economics is astounding. While deficits can have a detrimental impact (particularly with regard to inflation), they are not necessarily bad for the economy. Government budgets and "the economy" are two separate things, though they affect each other.

Here's another question jimmac: How did a balanced budget help the economy during the 1990's? Secondly. was Clinton responsible for said balanced budgets, despite the Republican controlled Congress?

That's rich coming from you ( no pun intended ). I've been talking to you for what 2 years now? You've been wrong about almost everything. Sure the economy's showing signs of some improvement. You've been predicting it would do this for a year and a half now. If I talk about the sun blowing up long enough that'll probably happen to!

By the way nobody buys your double speak about this deficit not being bad.

Yes we know the Bush rhetoric. Black is white, bad is good. Yada, yada, yada!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #39 of 215
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
That's rich coming from you ( no pun intended ). I've been talking to you for what 2 years now? You've been wrong about almost everything. Sure the economy's showing signs of some improvement. You've been predicting it would do this for a year and a half now. If I talk about the sun blowing up long enough that'll probably happen to!

By the way nobody buys your double speak about this deficit not being bad.

Yes we know the Bush rhetoric. Black is white, bad is good. Yada, yada, yada!

That is funny, because if you are honest, that could be the motto of the democratic party, particularly the liberal wing.
post #40 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
From what I recall, Clinton, even after his tax increase was projecting $250-$300 billion dollar per year deficits for as far as the eye could see. The only thing that changed this equation was the change in Congress in 1994. It is the Republican Congress that forced Clinton to trim the deficit. I wish they would do the same for Mr. Bush but many of the deficit hawks, like John Kasich, returned to private life.

There is talk of an internal fight, even now, between house and Senate Republicans over the current overspending.

Nick

Oh god!

So now things were good in the 90's because of the republicans?

Geez!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
This thread is locked  
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › This Economy sure sucks!