Democrat's Final 2004 Issue Starts to Dissolve

12467

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 130
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,929member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BR

    Who made you the god of taxation? It damn well should be a zero sum game. That's what you whined about when clinton was hoarding his surpluses. OH NO IT DOESN'T BALANCE HOW DARE HE KEEP OUR EXTRA MONEY!!!



    Eggo.




    How do you know what I whined about, if anything? I thought surpluses were OK, but not at the expense of ridiculously high taxes. I didn;t feel strongly about the issue at the time, it just seemed odd to me that Clinton was lauded for his balanced budget, when in fact, it was passed by a Republican Congress. The tax increase was passed before the Republicans took control (fact) and was proposed in Clinton's first budget (fact).



    And BR: Taxation ISN'T Zero sum. "It should be"? What? It's not. I don't even know why you'd argue this point. It's like taking a strong position on why the color of sky should be changed to green. It's not green and it never has been. That's all.



    jimmac:





    Quote:

    And you keep in denial..........



    -------------------------------------------------------------

    " The consumer confidence number is NOT bad. It's not GREAT either... "

    -------------------------------------------------------------



    You've been saying stuff like this for months now.........



    I'm interested in real economic data and common sense. The data shows recovery and so does recent analysis. Keep denying it. The numbers are on my side as usual. I'm not trying to paint a rosay picture at all. A sluggish economy is beginning to recover. That's all I'm saying.



    BR again:



    Quote:

    Just to be fair, the article does mention that there are signs of eventual recovery. The GDP has increased and there was a slight increase in personal income. However, the current situation is terrible and recovery does not look to be happening all that quickly.



    Terrible? And you say you are not polarized.



    GDP was much healthier last quarter. We do not have negative growth, and NEVER had two consecutive quarters of it.



    Unemployment is more than 2% below the hisotrical avergage.



    The markets are way up on the year...as much as 40%.



    More and more economists are indicating recovery is in progress.



    Consumer confidence is better than it was 6 months ago.



    The housing market is still very good.






    Now, terrible? Please. I'll this for you: Recovery is NOT happening quikcly...I agree. The reason is that recoveries don't happen quickly.
  • Reply 62 of 130
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,929member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Sondjata

    question: What then are these 556000 doing?



    I have to ask that question as well. Oh no! They're discouraged!



    jimmac:



    Quote:

    This is true however the problem with this is that it could follow a pattern I've seen before. That is weak recovery then slumping back into the dumps again. By the end of Bush's second term first year we could be right back where we were.



    Of course. I'd like to hear more about this "pattern" you've seen. You like to keep repeating that line, but as usual you have offered no support for it.
  • Reply 63 of 130
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    I have to ask that question as well. Oh no! They're discouraged!



    jimmac:







    Of course. I'd like to hear more about this "pattern" you've seen. You like to keep repeating that line, but as usual you have offered no support for it.






    We've talked about it before and I've lived it. The 70's and parts of the 80's.
  • Reply 64 of 130
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    How do you know what I whined about, if anything? I thought surpluses were OK, but not at the expense of ridiculously high taxes. I didn;t feel strongly about the issue at the time, it just seemed odd to me that Clinton was lauded for his balanced budget, when in fact, it was passed by a Republican Congress. The tax increase was passed before the Republicans took control (fact) and was proposed in Clinton's first budget (fact).



    And BR: Taxation ISN'T Zero sum. "It should be"? What? It's not. I don't even know why you'd argue this point. It's like taking a strong position on why the color of sky should be changed to green. It's not green and it never has been. That's all.



    jimmac:









    I'm interested in real economic data and common sense. The data shows recovery and so does recent analysis. Keep denying it. The numbers are on my side as usual. I'm not trying to paint a rosay picture at all. A sluggish economy is beginning to recover. That's all I'm saying.



    BR again:







    Terrible? And you say you are not polarized.



    GDP was much healthier last quarter. We do not have negative growth, and NEVER had two consecutive quarters of it.



    Unemployment is more than 2% below the hisotrical avergage.



    The markets are way up on the year...as much as 40%.



    More and more economists are indicating recovery is in progress.



    Consumer confidence is better than it was 6 months ago.



    The housing market is still very good.






    Now, terrible? Please. I'll this for you: Recovery is NOT happening quikcly...I agree. The reason is that recoveries don't happen quickly.






    -------------------------------------------------------------



    " I'm interested in real economic data and common sense. The data shows recovery and so does recent analysis. Keep denying it. The numbers are on my side as usual. I'm not trying to paint a rosay picture at all. A sluggish economy is beginning to recover. That's all I'm saying. "

    -------------------------------------------------------------





    Here's another of those links you love so much :





    http://money.cnn.com/2003/08/07/mark...york/index.htm
  • Reply 65 of 130
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,929member
    jimmac:



    The 1970's? The economy really started souring when Carter took office. But I suppose it wad the "Reagan Recession" in your mind. Granted, the mid seventies were not good economically. But what does that mean? The early nineties weren't either. I can't believe you'd try and suggest this is some type of "pattern" caused by Republican Presidents. As far as the 1980's, you have to be more specific. The only recession we had in the 1980's ended in 1983. Things were VERY strong through most of 1987. It did slow down a bit with the market collapse (which came back fairly quickly), but there was no recession.



    BR:



    Links? Links? You link to a ONE DAY snapshot of the market?



    Then of course, there is THIS LINK showing huge productivity gains and a major drop in jobless claims for the third week in a row.
  • Reply 66 of 130
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    jimmac:



    The 1970's? The economy really started souring when Carter took office. But I suppose it wad the "Reagan Recession" in your mind. Granted, the mid seventies were not good economically. But what does that mean? The early nineties weren't either. I can't believe you'd try and suggest this is some type of "pattern" caused by Republican Presidents. As far as the 1980's, you have to be more specific. The only recession we had in the 1980's ended in 1983. Things were VERY strong through most of 1987. It did slow down a bit with the market collapse (which came back fairly quickly), but there was no recession.



    BR:



    Links? Links? You link to a ONE DAY snapshot of the market?



    Then of course, there is THIS LINK showing huge productivity gains and a major drop in jobless claims for the third week in a row.






    I can see you weren't around to wait in line for gas in 74. This wasn't directly the fault of the republicans but it kind of set the stage for the decade. Things looked kind of bleak then. I suggest what ever book or source you're reading for info to look back a little further into the 70's. Most of the 70's were up and down but, the early part was pretty bad. Anyone who had a job back then could tell you. Things would start to look better and then slip right back.



    We've already talked about your denial of the way things were in the 80's ( let me guess you were a young kid then ).



    Yes it hit the fan ( all those years of barrowing ) in 87. A lot of people lost their jobs due to restructuring ( a new way for companies to make a profit ). They called it " Downsizing ". My self and many other's that I knew were victims of this new way to deal with loyal employees ( no matter how long they had been there ).



    Yes I'm pretty familiar with that period.





    Here's another link for you :



    http://money.cnn.com/2003/08/07/news...nomy/index.htm



    Be sure and read the title and what's underneath. The thing to remember is that jobs wise things have been very bad so even if you see a slight improvement we still have a long way to go. As the article says it could effect other aspects of the economy in the mean time.
  • Reply 67 of 130
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,929member
    Jimmac,



    You went through the seventies, so I won't question your memory. But, things weren't all bad as you said. I'm just saying that to label this some "Republican pattern" is not valid. That's all.



    I disagree with your perception of the 1980's. When you say "borrowing"...do you mean private or public borrowing? The latter isn't proven to have had an effect in the late 1980's. As always, it was over speculation, wastefulness in good times (privately and publicly) and notbably, the junk bond fiasco.



    As far today is concerned, I agree the economy has a long way to go. I've never argued that. What I'm saying is that the economy is now in "recovery mode"...unquestionably. I've heard the buzz about businesses not hiring too. The thing is that business hiring is not a leading indicator in any way. Business tends move slowly and recover slowly...just as the economy does. Hiring season will be upon us shortly.



    I don't understand why you will seemingly go to great lengths to prove that the economy is not recovering. The Democrats are focusing on the economy quite a bit, and I started this thread to discuss what happens if that issue basically goes away. The numbers show that is exactly what may happen.
  • Reply 68 of 130
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    Jimmac,



    You went through the seventies, so I won't question your memory. But, things weren't all bad as you said. I'm just saying that to label this some "Republican pattern" is not valid. That's all.



    I disagree with your perception of the 1980's. When you say "borrowing"...do you mean private or public borrowing? The latter isn't proven to have had an effect in the late 1980's. As always, it was over speculation, wastefulness in good times (privately and publicly) and notbably, the junk bond fiasco.



    As far today is concerned, I agree the economy has a long way to go. I've never argued that. What I'm saying is that the economy is now in "recovery mode"...unquestionably. I've heard the buzz about businesses not hiring too. The thing is that business hiring is not a leading indicator in any way. Business tends move slowly and recover slowly...just as the economy does. Hiring season will be upon us shortly.



    I don't understand why you will seemingly go to great lengths to prove that the economy is not recovering. The Democrats are focusing on the economy quite a bit, and I started this thread to discuss what happens if that issue basically goes away. The numbers show that is exactly what may happen.






    Did you go through the 70's? If not then where do you get your info?

    So how can you say they weren't all that bad? The oil embargo screwed things up for a long while. Kids today would be shocked to wait in line at the pump. Sometimes you had to plan to get your gas early otherwise it might be difficult to come by. It also had long lasting effects which might have been a good thing in the long run like smaller more efficient cars.





    The 80's ( the feel good decade never mind the reality of the situation ) seemed to be a good decade for a while but the pay back at the end was a bitch. Six years of up and down.



    The thing about today is that I see it as way too early to start thinking in terms of : " well that's over ". Which is what I'm seeming to hear from you.



    -------------------------------------------------------------

    " Hiring season will be upon us shortly. "



    -------------------------------------------------------------



    How can you say this with such conviction? The issue hasn't gone away yet. I've learned to adopt a policy of I'll believe it when I see it.
  • Reply 69 of 130
    brbr Posts: 8,395member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    [B]And BR: Taxation ISN'T Zero sum. "It should be"? What? It's not. I don't even know why you'd argue this point. It's like taking a strong position on why the color of sky should be changed to green. It's not green and it never has been. That's all.



    1900: Women have always been housewives so why argue the point? It's like taking a strong position on why the color of sky should be changed to green. It's not green and it never has been. That's all.



    Quote:

    Unemployment is more than 2% below the hisotrical avergage.



    You didn't read the article. Unemployment is down because people have just given up looking for work, effectively removing them from the unemployment equation. More jobs were again lost in July.
  • Reply 70 of 130
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,929member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by jimmac

    Did you go through the 70's? If not then where do you get your info?

    So how can you say they weren't all that bad? The oil embargo screwed things up for a long while. Kids today would be shocked to wait in line at the pump. Sometimes you had to plan to get your gas early otherwise it might be difficult to come by. It also had long lasting effects which might have been a good thing in the long run like smaller more efficient cars.





    The 80's ( the feel good decade never mind the reality of the situation ) seemed to be a good decade for a while but the pay back at the end was a bitch. Six years of up and down.



    The thing about today is that I see it as way too early to start thinking in terms of : " well that's over ". Which is what I'm seeming to hear from you.



    -------------------------------------------------------------

    " Hiring season will be upon us shortly. "



    -------------------------------------------------------------



    How can you say this with such conviction? The issue hasn't gone away yet. I've learned to adopt a policy of I'll believe it when I see it.




    1. I already said I wouldn't question your memory on the 70's. Please read. I just said that it's not fair to call it a "pattern".



    2. Your comment of "six years of up and down" is not valid. Please show me.



    3. "It's over". There is some truth to that. The "recession" (which wasn't even really one by historical definition) is over. The economy is improving and hopefully it's not a fluke. I'm saying that judging by the numbers and analysts comments, things are getting better over the last 6 months. I don;t see how you can disagree with that.



    4. "Hiring Season": You misinterpreted my comment. I was being literal...as in "the late summer and fall season...where hiring traditionally takes place".





    BR:





    Quote:

    1900: Women have always been housewives so why argue the point? It's like taking a strong position on why the color of sky should be changed to green. It's not green and it never has been. That's all.





    That's not the same thing. That issue was a societal norm that was CHANGEABLE. Taxation not being "zero sum" is not an alterable fact, because revenue is so dependant on the state of the economy. Maybe your minsinterpreting what I'm saying: I'm not saying that "we shouldn't even attempt to limit spending because deficits don't matter".....not at all. I'm saying that when one cuts taxes, revenue is not necessarily reduced accordingly...especially over the long term. In fact, it can go UP instead of down...depneding on economic activity.







    Quote:

    You didn't read the article. Unemployment is down because people have just given up looking for work, effectively removing them from the unemployment equation. More jobs were again lost in July.



    Oh, dear lord!



    First, I'd like to know more about these people that have suppsoedly "given up" looking for work. Pardon me if I don;t have a lot of sympathy for them. There ARE jobs out there. Perhaps not the ones they watn or are trained for, bu they DO exist.



    Second, the jobless claims numbers, which ALWAYS exist no matter hjow the economy is, went DOWN in July. They also recently dropped below the 400,000 mark, which indicates further improvement in the economy.



    Third, you cannot argue with the overall unemployment statistic. It is 2% or more below the historical average of about 8.5%. The workers who are "no longer seeking" employment existed throughout the last forty years of the unemployment statistic as well, so you can't invalidate the number on that basis.



    Look, I'm rather not continue the pissing contest with you guys. You can't possibly be arguing that the economy is NOT improving, can you?
  • Reply 71 of 130
    kraig911kraig911 Posts: 912member
    Isn't it strange that democratic majority states are the states with the highest unemployment problems?
  • Reply 72 of 130
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by kraig911

    Isn't it strange that democratic majority states are the states with the highest unemployment problems?



    Yeah with Bush not sending them aid I'm not surprised either.
  • Reply 73 of 130
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    1. I already said I wouldn't question your memory on the 70's. Please read. I just said that it's not fair to call it a "pattern".



    2. Your comment of "six years of up and down" is not valid. Please show me.



    3. "It's over". There is some truth to that. The "recession" (which wasn't even really one by historical definition) is over. The economy is improving and hopefully it's not a fluke. I'm saying that judging by the numbers and analysts comments, things are getting better over the last 6 months. I don;t see how you can disagree with that.



    4. "Hiring Season": You misinterpreted my comment. I was being literal...as in "the late summer and fall season...where hiring traditionally takes place".





    BR:









    That's not the same thing. That issue was a societal norm that was CHANGEABLE. Taxation not being "zero sum" is not an alterable fact, because revenue is so dependant on the state of the economy. Maybe your minsinterpreting what I'm saying: I'm not saying that "we shouldn't even attempt to limit spending because deficits don't matter".....not at all. I'm saying that when one cuts taxes, revenue is not necessarily reduced accordingly...especially over the long term. In fact, it can go UP instead of down...depneding on economic activity.











    Oh, dear lord!



    First, I'd like to know more about these people that have suppsoedly "given up" looking for work. Pardon me if I don;t have a lot of sympathy for them. There ARE jobs out there. Perhaps not the ones they watn or are trained for, bu they DO exist.



    Second, the jobless claims numbers, which ALWAYS exist no matter hjow the economy is, went DOWN in July. They also recently dropped below the 400,000 mark, which indicates further improvement in the economy.



    Third, you cannot argue with the overall unemployment statistic. It is 2% or more below the historical average of about 8.5%. The workers who are "no longer seeking" employment existed throughout the last forty years of the unemployment statistic as well, so you can't invalidate the number on that basis.



    Look, I'm rather not continue the pissing contest with you guys. You can't possibly be arguing that the economy is NOT improving, can you?




    SDW,



    The 6 years I refered to were the 6 years after 1987 ending in 1993 which you yourself have refered to.



    Ok we've had these points in the economy crawl up while others have shown little or no change. We'll talk in a few weeks and let's see if there is much change.

    If not......
  • Reply 74 of 130
    shawnshawn Posts: 32member
  • Reply 75 of 130
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Shawn

    Bush Losing Popularity on Slow Economy



    ...Oh well.




    Only the begining.
  • Reply 76 of 130
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,452member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by bunge

    Yeah with Bush not sending them aid I'm not surprised either.



    I haven't really jumped in here, but do you have a link or something to prove this single sentence assertion?



    Nick
  • Reply 77 of 130
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    I haven't really jumped in here, but do you have a link or something to prove this single sentence assertion?



    Ouch.



    I'm not really following the thread or topic either, but the assertion from kraig was so thoughtless I thought it deserved a response.
  • Reply 78 of 130
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,452member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by bunge

    Ouch.



    I'm not really following the thread or topic either, but the assertion from kraig was so thoughtless I thought it deserved a response.




    It seems to me that link shows that monies for unemployment retraining, etc has dropped. Your assertion, from what I understood and read, was the Bush was intentionally withholding or lowering the amount of monies sent to Democratically(the party obviously) represented states.



    Did I misunderstand what you said?



    Nick
  • Reply 79 of 130
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    You assertion, from what I understood and read, was the Bush was intentionally withholding or lowering the amount of monies sent to Democratically(the party obviously) represented states.



    Did I misunderstand what you said?




    Nope.
  • Reply 80 of 130
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,452member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by bunge

    Nope.



    Ah well just so long as we all understand it is a unsupported, baseless assertion then. Move along...



    Nick
Sign In or Register to comment.