Their constituents don't want this law passed. How are they going against them? And they have no duty to the other legislator's constituents.No it's not. And the Texas legislature's rules are absurd. They either should give them the power to stop legislation without being arrested or they should take away their power to stop legislation in this fashion.Me too. So why did the Republicans call them?
so IF THIS IS OK how are republicans ever supossed to pass any bill EVER, is this what you mean by balanced government. No one party is supossed to have this much power.
if they outnumber the republicans they get there way!
if the republicans outnumber them they leave town and get there way!
fireing policeman and paying 25 thousand dollars for a speaker for one day is bad biz practice.
True.
Quote:
Originally posted by JC
and if the economy is not treated as a biz the budget will never balance
Not true. Plenty of businesses don't balance their budgets. Plenty of non-businesses do balance their budgets. The government is not and was never meant to be run like a business. It's far too important.
Not true. Plenty of businesses don't balance their budgets. Plenty of non-businesses do balance their budgets. The government is not and was never meant to be run like a business. It's far too important.
I can't think of a business that would last too long bleeding money. Most of those "losses" are paper losses. My rentals "lose" money every year because the goverment allows you to depreciate the building when in fact they are appreciating.
That being said I believe both the state and federal government budgets should be balanced year to year. John Kasich where are you when we need you?!?
The democrats on the one hand think it is bad if the government has debt. But if individual citizens were to realize a tax cut and be able to pay off $2,000 of debt do the democrats turn a blind eye to that?
Exactly. I said it earlier in a different way. It's a conflicting approach on the Dems part. Debt is bad nationally, or so they say, and on the other hand we shouldn't get tax cuts because we might use the money to pay off debt instead of immediately spending it. The entire premise is dubious anyway...not to mention in direct conflict with their national stance.
Now, on the Big, Bad, Texas Democrat Issue:
Whether legally viable or not, there is no question that leaving the state to avoid a vote is immoral, disinenuous and "slimy". Seriously, anyone who argues otherwise is comical.
Should the Feds be involved? No. Enough said.
The point is that the Republicans have a majority. This fact means certain things, one of them being they are able to pass legislation if they can get their majority to vote one way or another.
And then the Dems say: "Yes, but they were trying to resdistrict! It was a blatant. purely political move!!!
Well....no shit. But hiding out in a Holiday Inn to avoid losing a vote? Oh my God! Can you imgaine if this happened in the US Senate? The Dems just lost the tax cut vote for the same reason....they don;t have a majority. I didn't see them going into hiding. (Though, their judicial fillibuster is getting a bit old.)
It honestly makes me laugh. It is the single most "slime-ball" tactic I have ever seen used...EVER. The voters in Texas should throw them out of office. One word: Dishonorable. Illegal or not....it sucked.
Exactly. I said it earlier in a different way. It's a conflicting approach on the Dems part. Debt is bad nationally, or so they say, and on the other hand we shouldn't get tax cuts because we might use the money to pay off debt instead of immediately spending it. The entire premise is dubious anyway...not to mention in direct conflict with their national stance.
Now, on the Big, Bad, Texas Democrat Issue:
Whether legally viable or not, there is no question that leaving the state to avoid a vote is immoral, disinenuous and "slimy". Seriously, anyone who argues otherwise is comical.
Should the Feds be involved? No. Enough said.
The point is that the Republicans have a majority. This fact means certain things, one of them being they are able to pass legislation if they can get their majority to vote one way or another.
And then the Dems say: "Yes, but they were trying to resdistrict! It was a blatant. purely political move!!!
Well....no shit. But hiding out in a Holiday Inn to avoid losing a vote? Oh my God! Can you imgaine if this happened in the US Senate? The Dems just lost the tax cut vote for the same reason....they don;t have a majority. I didn't see them going into hiding. (Though, their judicial fillibuster is getting a bit old.)
It honestly makes me laugh. It is the single most "slime-ball" tactic I have ever seen used...EVER. The voters in Texas should throw them out of office. One word: Dishonorable. Illegal or not....it sucked.
Can you really expect logic from this man? I wish you were from Oregon where the headline on the on the Statesman Journal reads: " OREGON'S BUDGET FORECAST SLIDES FROM BAD TO WORSE " An please don't try to tell me that local economies have nothing to do with national.For the first time 15 years the private college where I work ( which is usually immune to what's going on in the rest of the world ) is feeling the pinch.
You are so out of touch with what's going on the rest of the world. In 2004 the voters will be sick of this. So you really think this isn't a big deal we're going through. And no I don't think you can keep blaming dot coms and 911. By the way the most slimeball tactic I ever saw in an election involved a republican. I was called Watergate.
You can look at the line up for 2004 all you want. By that time if the economy isn't measurably improved I don't think Bush stands a chance. And really right now the economy doesn't show any solid signs of improvement. The clock's ticking.
You state wild and unproven accuasations as if they are facts and think you are making a point
The only thing I state is that people here is beginning to say if Bush lied (to start the war) he would be like the other president (including Clinton who lied about a BJ).
The importent part of the post was not what I had Bush say but the ***Applaus*** afterwards. I´m not after Bush but those who equalize this to Clintons lie.
You are so out of touch with what's going on the rest of the world. In 2004 the voters will be sick of this. So you really think this isn't a big deal we're going through. And no I don't think you can keep blaming dot coms and 911. By the way the most slimeball tactic I ever saw in an election involved a republican. I was called Watergate.
You can look at the line up for 2004 all you want. By that time if the economy isn't measurably improved I don't think Bush stands a chance. And really right now the economy doesn't show any solid signs of improvement. The clock's ticking.
You live in an alternate reality, jimmac. As far as me being out of touch, I'm not sure what your basis is for that. Nor I am I sure how much longer you will continue to fail to point out any concrete policy of the Bush administration that you feel has hurt the economy. Big surprise: personal insults, rhetoric and no factual information.
As far as this being "no big deal"....well, I never said that. I said, for the one millionth time, that we are not in recession. Not by historical definition, anyway. I understand things aren't great. But look at the numbers: Relatively low unemployment, low interest rates, and economic growth in the 2% range. That spells SLOW GROWTH. We'd all like 4-6% growth. I love how you blame Bush for the fact that your privately funded college is having trouble. A *small* leap there, jimmac.
Put simply, jimmac, I disagree with your assessment of Bush's chances. There are so many variables that have changed since 1992. I know the liberals would love for the same things to happen, but they won't. We don't have Ross Perot, for one thing. The economy is already in a recovery mode and the election is 18 months away for another. In 1992, we were in the very beginnings of a recovery when the election actually took place (so early that the public didn't see it). Finally, Bush Senior ran a shitty campaign. There is no way this Bush will do the same. You also forget: Clinton was elected with a minority of the vote....40% to be exact. Just thought I'd point that out.
Please. One, the allegations are outrageous and in poor taste. Two, these attacks will fail. National Security is Bush's biggest strength. Even if you disagree, the public PERCEIVES it as his biggest stength. They just don't learn.
I get infomative business email/digests from forbes.com and one came up and talked about how obviously the unemployment rate is not uniform. It is up in some places and down in others.
Anyway it just got me thinking a bit. If unemployment were broken down by rate and parts of the country that voted Republican or Democratic during the last election, it might show how various parts would turn-out/vote in the next election.
Those top 5 cities right there look decidedly in Republican areas according to the previous map/graphics posted here. If unemployment is low in middle America and high along the coasts/waterfronts, then it could be an interesting election.
You live in an alternate reality, jimmac. As far as me being out of touch, I'm not sure what your basis is for that. Nor I am I sure how much longer you will continue to fail to point out any concrete policy of the Bush administration that you feel has hurt the economy. Big surprise: personal insults, rhetoric and no factual information.
As far as this being "no big deal"....well, I never said that. I said, for the one millionth time, that we are not in recession. Not by historical definition, anyway. I understand things aren't great. But look at the numbers: Relatively low unemployment, low interest rates, and economic growth in the 2% range. That spells SLOW GROWTH. We'd all like 4-6% growth. I love how you blame Bush for the fact that your privately funded college is having trouble. A *small* leap there, jimmac.
Put simply, jimmac, I disagree with your assessment of Bush's chances. There are so many variables that have changed since 1992. I know the liberals would love for the same things to happen, but they won't. We don't have Ross Perot, for one thing. The economy is already in a recovery mode and the election is 18 months away for another. In 1992, we were in the very beginnings of a recovery when the election actually took place (so early that the public didn't see it). Finally, Bush Senior ran a shitty campaign. There is no way this Bush will do the same. You also forget: Clinton was elected with a minority of the vote....40% to be exact. Just thought I'd point that out.
Keep dreaming, jimmac.
Well you make a loud noise but it's not being echoed by the people and what's going on out there. By the way I'm not the only one at Willamette that thinks that way.
I think your ramblings are pretty funny. I come from an alternate universe? This coming from the guy who thinks the media are run by liberals. Who was the biggest proponent of WOMD in Iraq on this board. The same guy who couldn't answer a simple question about his logic regarding the media and the last election. The same guy who makes light of what's going on economically in the country today. Yeah right! It's not so bad.........in a pigs eye!
The fact that Willamette is feeling the pinch is just an example of what's going on everywhere. You can blame it on Clinton, dotcoms, or 911 but that will only get you so far. It's the current administration that's governing things now. I and many others think it's poor management. You'll notice notice most of what they talk about in that link has happened since 2001.
By the way I have no idea how old you are but I was in my early 30's when we last heard " slow growth " was the wave of the future. Republicans are like that. Slow growth while we slip back into recession every so often. Mean while the rich get richer and the middle man ( which is most of us ) gets the shaft! I think people are smarter than that and the last time we had to endure that is still fresh in their memory.
Bush is following the same line. Things are bad? Give 'em a tax cut! Instead of trying to pay our bills he starts a war. Which costs money. A lot! The simple fact is that to get out of this you can't follow a path like that. It doesn't work. It's been proven already. But people like to hear " Tax cut ". It feels good for a while. I know I'll never convince you. That's why I don't go all over the internet gathering facts to try and change your mind. Even after 2004 and god willing we have someone else in there you'll blame it on something else.
First, a weak dolar is not necessarily a bad thing. There are a lot of folks who will tell you that.
Quote:
This coming from the guy who thinks the media are run by liberals.
That depends what you mean by "run". Obviously, it is "run" by corporate conglomerates. Overall though, the media is liberally biased. Three major exceptions include Fox News, The Washington Times, and The Wall Street Journal. But take NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, the BBC, MSNBC.....they all slant Left. Some are worse than others. I have already provided extensive documentation on more than one occasion. You aren't going to believe it if I do so again, anyway. What's really funny is that rather than DISAGREE with me on this issue, you choose to implicitly call me a wacko right wing nut job for thinking so. But, that's you.
Quote:
The same guy who couldn't answer a simple question about his logic regarding the media and the last election.
I'm not sure what that question was. Please repeat it and I'll do my best to answer.
Quote:
It's the current administration that's governing things now. I and many others think it's poor management. You'll notice notice most of what they talk about in that link has happened since 2001.
True, they are governing. But, what do you mean by poor management? See, that's my point. My God, I can't believe I am asking this again: Which policy, in particular, do you disagree with? What are they "mismanaging".
Quote:
By the way I have no idea how old you are but I was in my early 30's when we last heard " slow growth " was the wave of the future. Republicans are like that. Slow growth while we slip back into recession every so often.
"Republicans are like that"? More typical, meaningless rhetoric. Seriously, that statement doesn't even mean anything. And, by asking me how old I am, you are attempting (I suppose) to show that I am somehow inexperienced and naive. Nice trick, there.
Quote:
Mean while [sic] the rich get richer and the middle man ( which is most of us ) gets the shaft! I think people are smarter than that and the last time we had to endure that is still fresh in their memory.
This is one of the all time best Democratic rhetorical statements ever. "The rich get richer". Is that the best you can do? Nevermind that we have one of the richest men in the world trying to lock up the Democratic nomination (several of them, actually). That statement has NO BASIS in fact. You just hear it and you repeat it. People actually believe this shit. I think they just like the sound of it. It's false and meaningless. It's also part of the class warfare approach. The Democrats still haven't learned that this approach FAILS every time. And tell me, jimmac: How is my getting a tax cut going to ""give me the shaft"? Hmmmm.
Quote:
....The simple fact is that to get out of this you can't follow a path like that. It doesn't work. It's been proven already. But people like to hear " Tax cut ". It feels good for a while. I know I'll never convince you. That's why I don't go all over the internet gathering facts to try and change your mind. Even after 2004 and god willing we have someone else in there you'll blame it on something else.
I won't be convinced for one simple reason: Your argument is factually wrong. Period. It has been PROVEN that when taxes are cut....even when they are cut for "rich" Americans...Government revenue eventually goes UP. In the 1980's, revenue DOUBLED over the decade. Tax Cuts do work. Moreover, I argue that we are taxed at an immoral and confiscatory rate at the federal, state and local levels. That's my real reason for cutting taxes and spending.
Jimmac, not only do Ithink your arguments and assessments are incorrect here, I also think you are totally wrong about me. You accuse me, essentially, of being a knee-jerk reaction sort....a right winger with no mind of his own who blindly follows Bush. The fact is you might just convince me on some things if your arguments had any factual basis. The fact that you won't support anything you say, even with anecdotal evidence for that matter, is the primary reason I won't be convinced or even take you seriously.
You are still unable to to answer the most basic questions as to why you hold certain positions. I also don't follow your thinking about Election 2004. Most reasonable people would conclude that given the President's popularity right now, his successes in the War on Terror, his incumbent status, his percieved handling of 9/11, etc...that IF the economy improves he will be nearly unbeatable. However, if the economy does NOT improve, there may be chance at beating him. As I said, there are so many variables that have changed since 1992. For you to say "Bush doesn't stand a chance" if the economy doesn't improve is a major overstatement. It also flies in the face of what nearly every politcal expert and pundit has said thus far. It's just illogical for you to say it.
You may WANT Bush to have "no chance"....but it's simply not the case. If the economy doesn't improve, it will make him vulnerable, and that's all. Bush isn't his father bu any means. He didn't break a promise to avoid raising taxes. He doesn't have Ross Perot to contend with. His popularity hasn't dropped below the upper fifties since he took office....and now it stands beteen 65-70%, depending on who you ask.
I also need to follow up to something I didn't answer on the economy:
These are the facts:
1) We are not in recession. Technically, we never experienced two consecutive quarters of negative growth...which is the historical definition of one. That being said, we had a "practical" recession. I am certainly not denying that.
2) The economy is growing slowly. GDP is about 2 (+) %.
3) Unemployment, overall, is historically low...around 6%
4) The DOW IND is about 1000 points (+) off its lows in 2002.
5) Consumer confidence is moderately (very moderately) positive as of late. The most recent number for the index is 93.2. This is not bad.
Jimmac, if we don't deal in hard facts here, we are left with what you have been spewing: pointless rhetorical statements such as "things are bad, really bad".
The above is the current state of our economy. There is no arguing with the numbers. So, don't go screaming how terrible things are just because your little college isn't doing well. By all relevant historical indicators, the economy is in "OK" shape.
Originally posted by SDW2001 True, they are governing. But, what do you mean by poor management? See, that's my point. My God, I can't believe I am asking this again: Which policy, in particular, do you disagree with? What are they "mismanaging".
Does this admin have any policies? I'm deadly serious here.
Does this admin have any policies? I'm deadly serious here.
Did the last one? "Policy" is a tough word. One could argue that Clinton's policy was to raise taxes to balance the budget. One could also argue that he placed U.S/ Business interests above all else...including national security. In the end, he got a lot of credit for the boom of the late 1990's. I don't think he deserves most of it, as you might imagine.
Bush policy seems to be cutting taxes. He also favors limited spending, though I think he could do a better job on that.
Did the last one? "Policy" is a tough word. One could argue that Clinton's policy was to raise taxes to balance the budget. One could also argue that he placed U.S/ Business interests above all else...including national security. In the end, he got a lot of credit for the boom of the late 1990's. I don't think he deserves most of it, as you might imagine.
Bush policy seems to be cutting taxes. He also favors limited spending, though I think he could do a better job on that.
I didn't ask about Clinton. And are the rest really matters of policy?
I'm asking whether "tax cuts" and "limited government" (although Bush seems hardly a fan of the latter) are actually *policies*. Is there a difference between "tax cuts" as an economic policy and "no child left behind" as an educational policy? I don't think so. Neither really connects to anything else. Neither is part of some set of positions working in concert to bring about a targeted policial outcome. Neither, in other words, is a policy in and of itself.
Yes, SDW black is white. Yeah, yeah, yeah.Listen I'm tired ( it was commencement today ) and I have better things to do ( like finish my beer ). If you can't remember our original argument about Clinton and the media I'm not going to take the time now to repeat it. We would go the same black is white dialog we had before. You couldn't answer the question which put your whole position in question. You were in mate a long time ago.
Yes, SDW black is white. Yeah, yeah, yeah.Listen I'm tired ( it was commencement today ) and I have better things to do ( like finish my beer ). If you can't remember our original argument about Cl@Ü"yn anÞ¨the media I'm not going to take the time now to repeat it. We would go the same black is white dialog we had before. You couldn't answer the question which put your whole position in question. You were in mate a long time ago.
Wow. What a total dodging of an argument. I simply don't remember your question, jimmac....that's all. As I told you, if you would kindly repeat it I will be happy to answer it. That argument was months ago, if not longer....and I am supposed to remember a specific question?
I don't dodge questions. That's one of your common tactics....you see that I haven't quoted one portion of your post and assume that I am so dumfounded by your wisdom that I am speechless. Please. Just ask me....unless you feel your position is so weak that it can't withstand my answer.
Speaking of dodging a question, you still have haven't answered mine. I'll just keep asking until you do:
What specific Bush administration economic policy do you disagree with?
Comments
Originally posted by BRussell
Their constituents don't want this law passed. How are they going against them? And they have no duty to the other legislator's constituents.No it's not. And the Texas legislature's rules are absurd. They either should give them the power to stop legislation without being arrested or they should take away their power to stop legislation in this fashion.Me too. So why did the Republicans call them?
so IF THIS IS OK how are republicans ever supossed to pass any bill EVER, is this what you mean by balanced government. No one party is supossed to have this much power.
if they outnumber the republicans they get there way!
if the republicans outnumber them they leave town and get there way!
this is really OK with you?
Originally posted by JC
YEs, and now California and californians are going broke. this state is in serious trouble business is dieing
how are things in texas?
Things are not too bad.
Dallas Fed Link
Fellows
Originally posted by JC
fireing policeman and paying 25 thousand dollars for a speaker for one day is bad biz practice.
True.
Originally posted by JC
and if the economy is not treated as a biz the budget will never balance
Not true. Plenty of businesses don't balance their budgets. Plenty of non-businesses do balance their budgets. The government is not and was never meant to be run like a business. It's far too important.
Originally posted by bunge
True.
Not true. Plenty of businesses don't balance their budgets. Plenty of non-businesses do balance their budgets. The government is not and was never meant to be run like a business. It's far too important.
I can't think of a business that would last too long bleeding money. Most of those "losses" are paper losses. My rentals "lose" money every year because the goverment allows you to depreciate the building when in fact they are appreciating.
That being said I believe both the state and federal government budgets should be balanced year to year. John Kasich where are you when we need you?!?
Nick
The democrats on the one hand think it is bad if the government has debt. But if individual citizens were to realize a tax cut and be able to pay off $2,000 of debt do the democrats turn a blind eye to that?
Exactly. I said it earlier in a different way. It's a conflicting approach on the Dems part. Debt is bad nationally, or so they say, and on the other hand we shouldn't get tax cuts because we might use the money to pay off debt instead of immediately spending it. The entire premise is dubious anyway...not to mention in direct conflict with their national stance.
Now, on the Big, Bad, Texas Democrat Issue:
Whether legally viable or not, there is no question that leaving the state to avoid a vote is immoral, disinenuous and "slimy". Seriously, anyone who argues otherwise is comical.
Should the Feds be involved? No. Enough said.
The point is that the Republicans have a majority. This fact means certain things, one of them being they are able to pass legislation if they can get their majority to vote one way or another.
And then the Dems say: "Yes, but they were trying to resdistrict! It was a blatant. purely political move!!!
Well....no shit. But hiding out in a Holiday Inn to avoid losing a vote? Oh my God! Can you imgaine if this happened in the US Senate? The Dems just lost the tax cut vote for the same reason....they don;t have a majority. I didn't see them going into hiding. (Though, their judicial fillibuster is getting a bit old.)
It honestly makes me laugh. It is the single most "slime-ball" tactic I have ever seen used...EVER. The voters in Texas should throw them out of office. One word: Dishonorable. Illegal or not....it sucked.
Originally posted by SDW2001
FCi:
Exactly. I said it earlier in a different way. It's a conflicting approach on the Dems part. Debt is bad nationally, or so they say, and on the other hand we shouldn't get tax cuts because we might use the money to pay off debt instead of immediately spending it. The entire premise is dubious anyway...not to mention in direct conflict with their national stance.
Now, on the Big, Bad, Texas Democrat Issue:
Whether legally viable or not, there is no question that leaving the state to avoid a vote is immoral, disinenuous and "slimy". Seriously, anyone who argues otherwise is comical.
Should the Feds be involved? No. Enough said.
The point is that the Republicans have a majority. This fact means certain things, one of them being they are able to pass legislation if they can get their majority to vote one way or another.
And then the Dems say: "Yes, but they were trying to resdistrict! It was a blatant. purely political move!!!
Well....no shit. But hiding out in a Holiday Inn to avoid losing a vote? Oh my God! Can you imgaine if this happened in the US Senate? The Dems just lost the tax cut vote for the same reason....they don;t have a majority. I didn't see them going into hiding. (Though, their judicial fillibuster is getting a bit old.)
It honestly makes me laugh. It is the single most "slime-ball" tactic I have ever seen used...EVER. The voters in Texas should throw them out of office. One word: Dishonorable. Illegal or not....it sucked.
Can you really expect logic from this man? I wish you were from Oregon where the headline on the on the Statesman Journal reads: " OREGON'S BUDGET FORECAST SLIDES FROM BAD TO WORSE " An please don't try to tell me that local economies have nothing to do with national.For the first time 15 years the private college where I work ( which is usually immune to what's going on in the rest of the world ) is feeling the pinch.
You are so out of touch with what's going on the rest of the world. In 2004 the voters will be sick of this. So you really think this isn't a big deal we're going through. And no I don't think you can keep blaming dot coms and 911. By the way the most slimeball tactic I ever saw in an election involved a republican. I was called Watergate.
You can look at the line up for 2004 all you want. By that time if the economy isn't measurably improved I don't think Bush stands a chance. And really right now the economy doesn't show any solid signs of improvement. The clock's ticking.
Originally posted by JC
You state wild and unproven accuasations as if they are facts and think you are making a point
The only thing I state is that people here is beginning to say if Bush lied (to start the war) he would be like the other president (including Clinton who lied about a BJ).
The importent part of the post was not what I had Bush say but the ***Applaus*** afterwards. I´m not after Bush but those who equalize this to Clintons lie.
You are so out of touch with what's going on the rest of the world. In 2004 the voters will be sick of this. So you really think this isn't a big deal we're going through. And no I don't think you can keep blaming dot coms and 911. By the way the most slimeball tactic I ever saw in an election involved a republican. I was called Watergate.
You can look at the line up for 2004 all you want. By that time if the economy isn't measurably improved I don't think Bush stands a chance. And really right now the economy doesn't show any solid signs of improvement. The clock's ticking.
You live in an alternate reality, jimmac. As far as me being out of touch, I'm not sure what your basis is for that. Nor I am I sure how much longer you will continue to fail to point out any concrete policy of the Bush administration that you feel has hurt the economy. Big surprise: personal insults, rhetoric and no factual information.
As far as this being "no big deal"....well, I never said that. I said, for the one millionth time, that we are not in recession. Not by historical definition, anyway. I understand things aren't great. But look at the numbers: Relatively low unemployment, low interest rates, and economic growth in the 2% range. That spells SLOW GROWTH. We'd all like 4-6% growth. I love how you blame Bush for the fact that your privately funded college is having trouble. A *small* leap there, jimmac.
Put simply, jimmac, I disagree with your assessment of Bush's chances. There are so many variables that have changed since 1992. I know the liberals would love for the same things to happen, but they won't. We don't have Ross Perot, for one thing. The economy is already in a recovery mode and the election is 18 months away for another. In 1992, we were in the very beginnings of a recovery when the election actually took place (so early that the public didn't see it). Finally, Bush Senior ran a shitty campaign. There is no way this Bush will do the same. You also forget: Clinton was elected with a minority of the vote....40% to be exact. Just thought I'd point that out.
Keep dreaming, jimmac.
Link
Please. One, the allegations are outrageous and in poor taste. Two, these attacks will fail. National Security is Bush's biggest strength. Even if you disagree, the public PERCEIVES it as his biggest stength. They just don't learn.
Unemployment
Anyway it just got me thinking a bit. If unemployment were broken down by rate and parts of the country that voted Republican or Democratic during the last election, it might show how various parts would turn-out/vote in the next election.
Those top 5 cities right there look decidedly in Republican areas according to the previous map/graphics posted here. If unemployment is low in middle America and high along the coasts/waterfronts, then it could be an interesting election.
Nick
Originally posted by SDW2001
Jimmac:
You live in an alternate reality, jimmac. As far as me being out of touch, I'm not sure what your basis is for that. Nor I am I sure how much longer you will continue to fail to point out any concrete policy of the Bush administration that you feel has hurt the economy. Big surprise: personal insults, rhetoric and no factual information.
As far as this being "no big deal"....well, I never said that. I said, for the one millionth time, that we are not in recession. Not by historical definition, anyway. I understand things aren't great. But look at the numbers: Relatively low unemployment, low interest rates, and economic growth in the 2% range. That spells SLOW GROWTH. We'd all like 4-6% growth. I love how you blame Bush for the fact that your privately funded college is having trouble. A *small* leap there, jimmac.
Put simply, jimmac, I disagree with your assessment of Bush's chances. There are so many variables that have changed since 1992. I know the liberals would love for the same things to happen, but they won't. We don't have Ross Perot, for one thing. The economy is already in a recovery mode and the election is 18 months away for another. In 1992, we were in the very beginnings of a recovery when the election actually took place (so early that the public didn't see it). Finally, Bush Senior ran a shitty campaign. There is no way this Bush will do the same. You also forget: Clinton was elected with a minority of the vote....40% to be exact. Just thought I'd point that out.
Keep dreaming, jimmac.
Well you make a loud noise but it's not being echoed by the people and what's going on out there. By the way I'm not the only one at Willamette that thinks that way.
Here's somthing small to chew on : http://money.cnn.com/2003/05/18/mark...reut/index.htm
Or : http://money.cnn.com/2003/05/16/comm...life/index.htm
I think your ramblings are pretty funny. I come from an alternate universe? This coming from the guy who thinks the media are run by liberals. Who was the biggest proponent of WOMD in Iraq on this board. The same guy who couldn't answer a simple question about his logic regarding the media and the last election. The same guy who makes light of what's going on economically in the country today. Yeah right! It's not so bad.........in a pigs eye!
The fact that Willamette is feeling the pinch is just an example of what's going on everywhere. You can blame it on Clinton, dotcoms, or 911 but that will only get you so far. It's the current administration that's governing things now. I and many others think it's poor management. You'll notice notice most of what they talk about in that link has happened since 2001.
By the way I have no idea how old you are but I was in my early 30's when we last heard " slow growth " was the wave of the future. Republicans are like that. Slow growth while we slip back into recession every so often. Mean while the rich get richer and the middle man ( which is most of us ) gets the shaft! I think people are smarter than that and the last time we had to endure that is still fresh in their memory.
Bush is following the same line. Things are bad? Give 'em a tax cut! Instead of trying to pay our bills he starts a war. Which costs money. A lot! The simple fact is that to get out of this you can't follow a path like that. It doesn't work. It's been proven already. But people like to hear " Tax cut ". It feels good for a while. I know I'll never convince you. That's why I don't go all over the internet gathering facts to try and change your mind. Even after 2004 and god willing we have someone else in there you'll blame it on something else.
Still in check.
First, a weak dolar is not necessarily a bad thing. There are a lot of folks who will tell you that.
This coming from the guy who thinks the media are run by liberals.
That depends what you mean by "run". Obviously, it is "run" by corporate conglomerates. Overall though, the media is liberally biased. Three major exceptions include Fox News, The Washington Times, and The Wall Street Journal. But take NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, the BBC, MSNBC.....they all slant Left. Some are worse than others. I have already provided extensive documentation on more than one occasion. You aren't going to believe it if I do so again, anyway. What's really funny is that rather than DISAGREE with me on this issue, you choose to implicitly call me a wacko right wing nut job for thinking so. But, that's you.
The same guy who couldn't answer a simple question about his logic regarding the media and the last election.
I'm not sure what that question was. Please repeat it and I'll do my best to answer.
It's the current administration that's governing things now. I and many others think it's poor management. You'll notice notice most of what they talk about in that link has happened since 2001.
True, they are governing. But, what do you mean by poor management? See, that's my point. My God, I can't believe I am asking this again: Which policy, in particular, do you disagree with? What are they "mismanaging".
By the way I have no idea how old you are but I was in my early 30's when we last heard " slow growth " was the wave of the future. Republicans are like that. Slow growth while we slip back into recession every so often.
"Republicans are like that"? More typical, meaningless rhetoric. Seriously, that statement doesn't even mean anything. And, by asking me how old I am, you are attempting (I suppose) to show that I am somehow inexperienced and naive. Nice trick, there.
Mean while [sic] the rich get richer and the middle man ( which is most of us ) gets the shaft! I think people are smarter than that and the last time we had to endure that is still fresh in their memory.
This is one of the all time best Democratic rhetorical statements ever. "The rich get richer". Is that the best you can do? Nevermind that we have one of the richest men in the world trying to lock up the Democratic nomination (several of them, actually). That statement has NO BASIS in fact. You just hear it and you repeat it. People actually believe this shit. I think they just like the sound of it. It's false and meaningless. It's also part of the class warfare approach. The Democrats still haven't learned that this approach FAILS every time. And tell me, jimmac: How is my getting a tax cut going to ""give me the shaft"? Hmmmm.
....The simple fact is that to get out of this you can't follow a path like that. It doesn't work. It's been proven already. But people like to hear " Tax cut ". It feels good for a while. I know I'll never convince you. That's why I don't go all over the internet gathering facts to try and change your mind. Even after 2004 and god willing we have someone else in there you'll blame it on something else.
I won't be convinced for one simple reason: Your argument is factually wrong. Period. It has been PROVEN that when taxes are cut....even when they are cut for "rich" Americans...Government revenue eventually goes UP. In the 1980's, revenue DOUBLED over the decade. Tax Cuts do work. Moreover, I argue that we are taxed at an immoral and confiscatory rate at the federal, state and local levels. That's my real reason for cutting taxes and spending.
Jimmac, not only do Ithink your arguments and assessments are incorrect here, I also think you are totally wrong about me. You accuse me, essentially, of being a knee-jerk reaction sort....a right winger with no mind of his own who blindly follows Bush. The fact is you might just convince me on some things if your arguments had any factual basis. The fact that you won't support anything you say, even with anecdotal evidence for that matter, is the primary reason I won't be convinced or even take you seriously.
You are still unable to to answer the most basic questions as to why you hold certain positions. I also don't follow your thinking about Election 2004. Most reasonable people would conclude that given the President's popularity right now, his successes in the War on Terror, his incumbent status, his percieved handling of 9/11, etc...that IF the economy improves he will be nearly unbeatable. However, if the economy does NOT improve, there may be chance at beating him. As I said, there are so many variables that have changed since 1992. For you to say "Bush doesn't stand a chance" if the economy doesn't improve is a major overstatement. It also flies in the face of what nearly every politcal expert and pundit has said thus far. It's just illogical for you to say it.
You may WANT Bush to have "no chance"....but it's simply not the case. If the economy doesn't improve, it will make him vulnerable, and that's all. Bush isn't his father bu any means. He didn't break a promise to avoid raising taxes. He doesn't have Ross Perot to contend with. His popularity hasn't dropped below the upper fifties since he took office....and now it stands beteen 65-70%, depending on who you ask.
These are the facts:
1) We are not in recession. Technically, we never experienced two consecutive quarters of negative growth...which is the historical definition of one. That being said, we had a "practical" recession. I am certainly not denying that.
2) The economy is growing slowly. GDP is about 2 (+) %.
3) Unemployment, overall, is historically low...around 6%
4) The DOW IND is about 1000 points (+) off its lows in 2002.
5) Consumer confidence is moderately (very moderately) positive as of late. The most recent number for the index is 93.2. This is not bad.
Jimmac, if we don't deal in hard facts here, we are left with what you have been spewing: pointless rhetorical statements such as "things are bad, really bad".
The above is the current state of our economy. There is no arguing with the numbers. So, don't go screaming how terrible things are just because your little college isn't doing well. By all relevant historical indicators, the economy is in "OK" shape.
Checkmate.
Originally posted by SDW2001 True, they are governing. But, what do you mean by poor management? See, that's my point. My God, I can't believe I am asking this again: Which policy, in particular, do you disagree with? What are they "mismanaging".
Does this admin have any policies? I'm deadly serious here.
Originally posted by midwinter
Does this admin have any policies? I'm deadly serious here.
Did the last one? "Policy" is a tough word. One could argue that Clinton's policy was to raise taxes to balance the budget. One could also argue that he placed U.S/ Business interests above all else...including national security. In the end, he got a lot of credit for the boom of the late 1990's. I don't think he deserves most of it, as you might imagine.
Bush policy seems to be cutting taxes. He also favors limited spending, though I think he could do a better job on that.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Did the last one? "Policy" is a tough word. One could argue that Clinton's policy was to raise taxes to balance the budget. One could also argue that he placed U.S/ Business interests above all else...including national security. In the end, he got a lot of credit for the boom of the late 1990's. I don't think he deserves most of it, as you might imagine.
Bush policy seems to be cutting taxes. He also favors limited spending, though I think he could do a better job on that.
I didn't ask about Clinton. And are the rest really matters of policy?
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by SDW2001
I'm not really sure what you are asking.
I'm asking whether "tax cuts" and "limited government" (although Bush seems hardly a fan of the latter) are actually *policies*. Is there a difference between "tax cuts" as an economic policy and "no child left behind" as an educational policy? I don't think so. Neither really connects to anything else. Neither is part of some set of positions working in concert to bring about a targeted policial outcome. Neither, in other words, is a policy in and of itself.
Originally posted by jimmac
Yes, SDW black is white. Yeah, yeah, yeah.Listen I'm tired ( it was commencement today ) and I have better things to do ( like finish my beer ). If you can't remember our original argument about Cl@Ü"yn anÞ¨the media I'm not going to take the time now to repeat it. We would go the same black is white dialog we had before. You couldn't answer the question which put your whole position in question. You were in mate a long time ago.
Wow. What a total dodging of an argument. I simply don't remember your question, jimmac....that's all. As I told you, if you would kindly repeat it I will be happy to answer it. That argument was months ago, if not longer....and I am supposed to remember a specific question?
I don't dodge questions. That's one of your common tactics....you see that I haven't quoted one portion of your post and assume that I am so dumfounded by your wisdom that I am speechless. Please. Just ask me....unless you feel your position is so weak that it can't withstand my answer.
Speaking of dodging a question, you still have haven't answered mine. I'll just keep asking until you do:
What specific Bush administration economic policy do you disagree with?