This Economy sure sucks!

1356711

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 214
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by NaplesX

    No you can't even elude to that being a possibility, because then you would have to then admit that the economy that bush inherited was partly a result of the previous administrations decisions.



    We wouldn't want to put you in that dilemma.



    Edit: It is much easier to just blame bush for everything. Go with what is easy, that usually works.




    Look the economy runs in cycles. It's what the president does with those cycles that gives him some control.



    During the early 90's we were coming out of a mismanaged Bush cycle and on the upswing. Clinton had the balls to raise taxes and pay our debts. This made the upswing great ( the longest bull market in history ). Let's hope Kerry can do the same with this Bush's legacy ( although it's pretty bad this time around ).



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

    " Edit: It is much easier to just blame bush for everything. Go with what is easy, that usually works. "

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



    If the shoe fits.............
  • Reply 42 of 214
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,454member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by jimmac

    Oh god!



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



    Geez!




    You are welcome to find any Clinton quotes or estimates that show something besides budget deficits through the entire 90's. There was even a famous clip put together of him and his various arguments about having to FINALLY balance the budget thanks to some of the Republican deficit hawks. It shows him quoting estimates for a balanced budget in a range of 7-10 years minimum, repeatedly from about 25-30 different speeches.



    That isn't one vote, one quote or one anything else taken out of context.



    The first year the deficit stopped (and still was not taking out the Social Security Surplus) was 1997. That is past Clinton's entire first term.



    Sadly both Republicans and Democrats have given Bush what he wants in terms of overspending. Heck most Democrats are still complaining about UNDERFUNDING. All this has shown is that regardless of party, we need a balanced budget amendment.



    Nick
  • Reply 43 of 214
    sammi josammi jo Posts: 4,634member
    Quote:

    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? [/B]



    SDW, read this article!

    http://www.sptimes.com/2004/04/26/ne...pensatio.shtml



    The article is written by a business columnist, who, being a professional journalist, probably makes a living wage and can live in relative comfort. If he were to earn the annual salary and perks of Citigroup CEO Sandy Weill, he would have to work for 675 years !!!! That is the equivalent of him starting work around the time of the Battle of Agincourt during the reign of King Henry V, and continuing until this minute, (with no raises). A lowest paid worker, to earn that kind of money, would have to start working when Julius Caesar was emperor of Rome.



    How much compensation for a single human being is too much, SDW?



    *******



    And.....



    A massive problem that seems to be too politically incorrent to even mention, but here goes:



    http://www.sptimes.com/2004/04/07/Co..._shelter.shtml



    Two thirds of major American corporations paid NO Federal Income tax in the 1990s, (under Clinton). This has not changed under Bush. Hundreds of $$ billions are owed, because the wealthiest organizations have the ways and means to cheat and defraud with impunity, or incorporate overseas to avoid paying their dues to America.



    These are the real traitors and parasites.
  • Reply 44 of 214
    naplesxnaplesx Posts: 3,743member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by sammi jo

    SDW, read this article!

    http://www.sptimes.com/2004/04/26/ne...pensatio.shtml



    The article is written by a business columnist, who, being a professional journalist, probably makes a living wage and can live in relative comfort. If he were to earn the annual salary and perks of Citigroup CEO Sandy Weill, he would have to work for 675 years !!!! That is the equivalent of him starting work around the time of the Battle of Agincourt during the reign of King Henry V, and continuing until this minute, (with no raises). A lowest paid worker, to earn that kind of money, would have to start working when Julius Caesar was emperor of Rome.



    How much compensation for a single human being is too much, SDW?



    *******



    And.....



    A massive problem that seems to be too politically incorrent to even mention, but here goes:



    http://www.sptimes.com/2004/04/07/Co..._shelter.shtml



    Two thirds of major American corporations paid NO Federal Income tax in the 1990s, (under Clinton). This has not changed under Bush. Hundreds of $$ billions are owed, because the wealthiest organizations have the ways and means to cheat and defraud with impunity, or incorporate overseas to avoid paying their dues to America.



    These are the real traitors and parasites.




    That sad line of thinking is swiftly put to rest by the endless and ongoing list of "rags to riches" stories that this country alone produces. Capitalism works. Sorry comrade communism has been proven to be inadequate.
  • Reply 45 of 214
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    You are welcome to find any Clinton quotes or estimates that show something besides budget deficits through the entire 90's. There was even a famous clip put together of him and his various arguments about having to FINALLY balance the budget thanks to some of the Republican deficit hawks. It shows him quoting estimates for a balanced budget in a range of 7-10 years minimum, repeatedly from about 25-30 different speeches.



    That isn't one vote, one quote or one anything else taken out of context.



    The first year the deficit stopped (and still was not taking out the Social Security Surplus) was 1997. That is past Clinton's entire first term.



    Sadly both Republicans and Democrats have given Bush what he wants in terms of overspending. Heck most Democrats are still complaining about UNDERFUNDING. All this has shown is that regardless of party, we need a balanced budget amendment.



    Nick




    Yes and it might take more than 4 years to beat this deficit also ( personally I think it will be with us through the rest of my life ). In 97 there was still much of Clinton's second term left so what's your point here?



    Proof please of your claims and. And why aren't they doing it now?
  • Reply 46 of 214
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    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.



    It's true that Clinton's initial projections only saw a deficit cut in half (or so) rather than eliminated completely. But one thing to keep in mind is that he broke precedent (and post-cedent) and used conservative estimates of economic growth. In fact, the deficit didn't dramatically sink until growth really kicked in much later.



    Do you have any evidence that the Republicans forced Clinton to reduce the deficit? The facts, as I remember looking them up before, are that the Republicans didn't really come to any agreements with Clinton for many years. That's where the gov't shutdown came from. The federal budget was just basically on auto-pilot for many years after that initial vote by the Democrats in 1993. When Gingrich and Clinton finally came to an agreement in 1997 (I think it was), that agreement had lots of tax cuts and spending increases. Basically they could come to an agreement if they each got some nice goodies, and those goodies increased the deficit. The other reason they could come to agreement was that the deficit numbers were looking a lot better, and so they could play looser with the budget than had been happening prior to that time.



    In the end, though, the time was just different. People actually cared about the deficit back then. Perot, Clinton, Dems and Repubs in Congress, they all talked about reducing the deficit. Now? And I'm sorry, but this time around it's entirely the Republicans' fault.
  • Reply 47 of 214
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,454member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BRussell

    It's true that Clinton's initial projections only saw a deficit cut in half (or so) rather than eliminated completely. But one thing to keep in mind is that he broke precedent (and post-cedent) and used conservative estimates of economic growth. In fact, the deficit didn't dramatically sink until growth really kicked in much later.



    Do you have any evidence that the Republicans forced Clinton to reduce the deficit? The facts, as I remember looking them up before, are that the Republicans didn't really come to any agreements with Clinton for many years. That's where the gov't shutdown came from. The federal budget was just basically on auto-pilot for many years after that initial vote by the Democrats in 1993. When Gingrich and Clinton finally came to an agreement in 1997 (I think it was), that agreement had lots of tax cuts and spending increases. Basically they could come to an agreement if they each got some nice goodies, and those goodies increased the deficit. The other reason they could come to agreement was that the deficit numbers were looking a lot better, and so they could play looser with the budget than had been happening prior to that time.



    In the end, though, the time was just different. People actually cared about the deficit back then. Perot, Clinton, Dems and Repubs in Congress, they all talked about reducing the deficit. Now? And I'm sorry, but this time around it's entirely the Republicans' fault.




    Well you mention a bit of the history yourself. The shutdown of the federal government was part of fight over reducing the deficit. We started with things like eliminating entire departments, and as you mentioned after the showdown, basically ended up with keeping the rate of growth to less than that of the economy. So Clinton won and instead of getting massive government reductions in spending, we got a small decrease in the rate of growth. The U.S. economy is so strong, that even that was enough to bring the federal budget back into balance. Clinton may have been dragged to the table kicking and screaming but at least he did allow the slower growth.



    As you mention, the times were different, and I fully agree that this time it is completely the Republicans fault. That is why I already said that regardless of party, we need a balanced budget amendment.



    Nick
  • Reply 48 of 214
    naplesxnaplesx Posts: 3,743member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BRussell

    It's true that Clinton's initial projections only saw a deficit cut in half (or so) rather than eliminated completely. But one thing to keep in mind is that he broke precedent (and post-cedent) and used conservative estimates of economic growth. In fact, the deficit didn't dramatically sink until growth really kicked in much later.



    Do you have any evidence that the Republicans forced Clinton to reduce the deficit? The facts, as I remember looking them up before, are that the Republicans didn't really come to any agreements with Clinton for many years. That's where the gov't shutdown came from. The federal budget was just basically on auto-pilot for many years after that initial vote by the Democrats in 1993. When Gingrich and Clinton finally came to an agreement in 1997 (I think it was), that agreement had lots of tax cuts and spending increases. Basically they could come to an agreement if they each got some nice goodies, and those goodies increased the deficit. The other reason they could come to agreement was that the deficit numbers were looking a lot better, and so they could play looser with the budget than had been happening prior to that time.



    In the end, though, the time was just different. People actually cared about the deficit back then. Perot, Clinton, Dems and Repubs in Congress, they all talked about reducing the deficit. Now? And I'm sorry, but this time around it's entirely the Republicans' fault.




    Sure, as long as you don't factor in 9/11, the WoT. You could probably debate the Iraq war but yeah your right, all the republicans fault.



    Maybe I forgot the facts, but did no democrats have a say in any of the laws that were passed or actions of this country? I am sure I remember some democrats also going along with most of those things. In a House and senate divided so closely, I am sure of it.



    If you came back and say they have to go along with the majority, they don't seem to be doing so with the judicial nominees at present. To me they seem to have the power to use when they want to.
  • Reply 49 of 214
    sammi josammi jo Posts: 4,634member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by NaplesX

    That sad line of thinking is swiftly put to rest by the endless and ongoing list of "rags to riches" stories that this country alone produces. Capitalism works. Sorry comrade communism has been proven to be inadequate.



    No, capitalism only works for a tiny minority. If we choose to indulge in a capitalism-based society, then the pennance of social programs are requisite for civilization, That is, unless we want a world reminiscent of that depicted in the movie "Blade Runner".



    Human nature does not allow communism to work, because human beings are all unique and have differing abilities and aspirations. Human nature and the obsession with material acquistion is also the problem with capitalism: when big business assumes too much power, then corruption, criminalilty and greed have no limits.



    Extreme socialism (communism) and extreme capitalism (fascism). only work for those in control, ie at the top. Regular people suffer by default under either system. What works for the largest number of people is a mixed economy. What we have in America is a mixed economy which usually cycles around moderate limits, but is now veering sharply towards the extreme capitalism end.
  • Reply 50 of 214
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by NaplesX

    Sure, as long as you don't factor in 9/11, the WoT. You could probably debate the Iraq war but yeah your right, all the republicans fault.



    Maybe I forgot the facts, but did no democrats have a say in any of the laws that were passed or actions of this country? I am sure I remember some democrats also going along with most of those things. In a House and senate divided so closely, I am sure of it.



    If you came back and say they have to go along with the majority, they don't seem to be doing so with the judicial nominees at present. To me they seem to have the power to use when they want to.




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



    " Sure, as long as you don't factor in 9/11, the WoT. You could probably debate the Iraq war but yeah your right, all the republicans fault. "



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



    Yeah they've sure milked that one to death.



    The war on terror is a lot like the war on drugs was. Unfocused, when it is focused it's on the wrong things, and pretty ineffective.
  • Reply 51 of 214
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,001member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by neutrino23

    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.




    He did not raise taxes "nearly every year after that". Show me. In fact, I'm not sure the marginal rates went up at all after his cuts. We need more info.



    Reducing the deficit did not lower interest rates. Where did you get that from? And actually...at the end of the Clinton administration, the markets started tanking, while the Fed rose rates month after month.



    As for the tax cut, where would YOU cut taxes? Of course most of it went to the upper brackets, because the rich pay the taxes. And honestly, your statement is not entirely correct, because I personally received several points marginal rate reduction, as well as huge benefits from changes in laws such as 100% depreciation of equipment. I am definitely a middle income individual, an dbelieve me when I tell you that I saw the benefits of the tax cuts first hand.
  • Reply 52 of 214
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,001member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BRussell

    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.




    It's not hard to evaluate unless you're trying to spin the data. Even if taxes went up, they were still far below they're original levels. Revenue increases when the economy improves, and tax cuts generally cause that.
  • Reply 53 of 214
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,001member
    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.




    Wait...are you honestly telling me that it was Clinton's 1993 budget that balanced the budget? I'm thinking you're wrong. You should replace "deficit reduction votes" with "vote for the biggest tax increase in history".
  • Reply 54 of 214
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,001member
    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!




    The economy has been improving for well over a year and a half. That's why I've been saying it. And really...show me what I've been wrong about. The only one I can "half" give you is WMD in Iraq. I say "half" because we've technically found chemical weapons, but to be fair there have not been stockpiles. So there you go...I've gotten you started. Please continue....
  • Reply 55 of 214
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,001member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by jimmac

    Look the economy runs in cycles. It's what the president does with those cycles that gives him some control.



    During the early 90's we were coming out of a mismanaged Bush cycle and on the upswing. Clinton had the balls to raise taxes and pay our debts. This made the upswing great ( the longest bull market in history ). Let's hope Kerry can do the same with this Bush's legacy ( although it's pretty bad this time around ).



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

    " Edit: It is much easier to just blame bush for everything. Go with what is easy, that usually works. "

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



    If the shoe fits.............






    You are delusional. The economy was IN RECOVERY by Election 1992. But, it was not strong enough for Bush 41. Unemployment hadn't yet come down.

    Let us not forget jimmac, Bush 41 RAISED taxes. So, what did he do any differently than Clinton? According to your logic, tax increases worked for Clinton, but not for Bush?
  • Reply 56 of 214
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,001member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by sammi jo

    SDW, read this article!

    http://www.sptimes.com/2004/04/26/ne...pensatio.shtml



    The article is written by a business columnist, who, being a professional journalist, probably makes a living wage and can live in relative comfort. If he were to earn the annual salary and perks of Citigroup CEO Sandy Weill, he would have to work for 675 years !!!! That is the equivalent of him starting work around the time of the Battle of Agincourt during the reign of King Henry V, and continuing until this minute, (with no raises). A lowest paid worker, to earn that kind of money, would have to start working when Julius Caesar was emperor of Rome.



    How much compensation for a single human being is too much, SDW?



    *******



    And.....



    A massive problem that seems to be too politically incorrent to even mention, but here goes:



    http://www.sptimes.com/2004/04/07/Co..._shelter.shtml



    Two thirds of major American corporations paid NO Federal Income tax in the 1990s, (under Clinton). This has not changed under Bush. Hundreds of $$ billions are owed, because the wealthiest organizations have the ways and means to cheat and defraud with impunity, or incorporate overseas to avoid paying their dues to America.



    These are the real traitors and parasites.




    How much legislation is enough, sammi jo? What would you propose we DO about those ludicorusly paid CEOs? I agree it's nothing short of disgusting, but that's what their employers pay them. Should we set compensation caps?
  • Reply 57 of 214
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,001member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by sammi jo

    No, capitalism only works for a tiny minority. If we choose to indulge in a capitalism-based society, then the pennance of social programs are requisite for civilization, That is, unless we want a world reminiscent of that depicted in the movie "Blade Runner".



    Human nature does not allow communism to work, because human beings are all unique and have differing abilities and aspirations. Human nature and the obsession with material acquistion is also the problem with capitalism: when big business assumes too much power, then corruption, criminalilty and greed have no limits.



    Extreme socialism (communism) and extreme capitalism (fascism). only work for those in control, ie at the top. Regular people suffer by default under either system. What works for the largest number of people is a mixed economy. What we have in America is a mixed economy which usually cycles around moderate limits, but is now veering sharply towards the extreme capitalism end.




    Wow. You are far more extreme than I first realized. Human nature is human nature. It cannot be changed. The desire for material success has built the free world as we know it. Capitalism and the free market economy DO work. Have you not seen the middle class in this country? Where do you think that came from? Capitalism should be regulated, as it is here, but does work.



    I'm not even sure where you're going with this, sammi jo. It almost sounds like you're saying that philosophies like communism haven't worked because they haven't been implemented the right way. I hope you're not saying that.
  • Reply 58 of 214
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    You are delusional. The economy was IN RECOVERY by Election 1992. But, it was not strong enough for Bush 41. Unemployment hadn't yet come down.

    Let us not forget jimmac, Bush 41 RAISED taxes. So, what did he do any differently than Clinton? According to your logic, tax increases worked for Clinton, but not for Bush?




    Just when you thought it was safe to say something stupid.



    As I've said before the economy is cyclic. So the only effect a president can have is how he responds to it.



    Please don't try to pawn off the 90's recovery and deficit removal on Bush!



    He was better than his son however!
  • Reply 59 of 214
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,001member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by jimmac

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



    " Sure, as long as you don't factor in 9/11, the WoT. You could probably debate the Iraq war but yeah your right, all the republicans fault. "



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



    Yeah they've sure milked that one to death.



    The war on terror is a lot like the war on drugs was. Unfocused, when it is focused it's on the wrong things, and pretty ineffective.




    Right, jimmac. It's all a political ploy. It's not like there are thousands of animals around the globe plotting the demise of our nation and coming up with new and creative ways to kill civilian men, women and children, all so they can realize their vision of a Super-Islamic Totalitarian State.



    Man, we'd be at WAR then!



  • Reply 60 of 214
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,001member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by jimmac

    Just when you thought it was safe to say something stupid.



    As I've said before the economy is cyclic. So the only effect a president can have is how he responds to it.



    Please don't try to pawn off the 90's recovery and deficit removal on Bush!



    He was better than his son however!






    I'm not pawning off anything, I'm just saying Clinton wasn't necessarily responsible either.



    Edit: I'd like to add that you dodged the question I asked you regarding tax increases.



Sign In or Register to comment.