This Economy sure sucks!

13468911

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 214
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    1. Being a good steward of the budget, which is false anyway, doesn't necessarily stimulate the economy.



    2. Spendig under Clinton exploded.




    See this WSJ article. It has these numbers for increases in domestic discretionary spending:

    Reagan: -1.3%

    Carter: 2%

    Clinton: 2.5%

    Bush I: 4%

    LBJ: 4.3%

    Nixon: 6.8%

    Ford: 8%

    Bush II: 8.2%



    The Reagan numbers are a bit misleading because he increased military spending so much, whereas under Clinton they decreased. It's also hard to put LBJ in the middle when he signed some of the big entitlement laws. Also, W. has increased entitlements, but he's already the worst so that wouldn't change his ranking.



    Quote:

    3. I'd like some backing on the 1992 campaign welfare claim. Clinton certainly tried to run as a moderate democrat. He didn't govern that way. Nationlized Healthcare, anyone?



    Well he famously ran in 1992 on "ending welfare as we know it," and he eventually signed the welfare reform passed by the Repub congress.
  • Reply 102 of 214
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    A small increase? From 31 to 36%? That's a "small" increase? A 39.6% rate for those earning over $250,000? Lowering the income levels for the upper brackets? Hmmm....



    This does not include taxes on energy, telecommunications, etc. These exploded under Clinton.




    I'd consider it small if you remember that they were above 50% a decade earlier, and were as high as 90% two decades earlier. And remember, we're not counting all those other taxes according to you.
  • Reply 103 of 214
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Here's another little item from another thread where I'm repling to SDW........



    http://money.cnn.com/2004/06/14/news...ex.htm?cnn=yes
  • Reply 104 of 214
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,078member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by jimmac

    ================================================== =========



    " Which arguments have I made that "don't hold water "



    ================================================== =========



    Take your pick.



    http://www.businessweek.com/careers/...6576_ca024.htm





    http://money.cnn.com/2004/06/11/news...reut/index.htm



    You really can't see what's been going on can you?



    Man!




    That doesn't address my arguments. I have not argued about the quality of jobs that I can remember. If we discuss that topic, we need to look at overall historical numbers for job classifications, pay etc. We also need to compare the job creation/quality numbers to past administrations (particularly quality).



    I have little respect for Robert Rubin, so I'm getting into that link with you. I do agree deficits are a problem, and I think we need to address that problem by cutting spending. This is an area that I fault the Bush adminsitration on. I think passing a huge medicare entitlement was a mistake...and I think the same for letting domestic spending explode. I do not fault Bush for military budget increases as I think they are needed. There have also been huge amounts of funding needed for homeland security, 9/11, etc.



    Edit: On the jobs topic, we here a lot about outsourcing. What we don't hear about much is insourcing, or jobs coming to this country from overseas. This happens far more than people realize.



  • Reply 105 of 214
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,078member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by midwinter

    So that's how the budget got balanced! And considering the dems only controlled congress for 2 years in his first term...







    Man. I love my Nationalized Health Care! I never thought it would work, and frankly, when he started his first term by trying to get the ball rolling, I figured that the right wing would launch a massive media campaign--complete with commercials featuring two "average" people trying to make sense of the plan, to which the Admin would have to respond, probably with the President and First Lady spoofing the right-wing ad campaign. I dunno. Something like that. But man, I'm glad that that liberal Clinton stuck to his guns and did what he, and millions of Americans, knew was right.




    1. "Knew was right"? Not judging by his popularity until he came to the center in the mid-nineties.



    2. He proposed it. That's the point. Hello?



    3. Republicans spend too much money too. No argument there.
  • Reply 106 of 214
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    That doesn't address my arguments. I have not argued about the quality of jobs that I can remember. If we discuss that topic, we need to look at overall historical numbers for job classifications, pay etc. We also need to compare the job creation/quality numbers to past administrations (particularly quality).



    I have little respect for Robert Rubin, so I'm getting into that link with you. I do agree deficits are a problem, and I think we need to address that problem by cutting spending. This is an area that I fault the Bush adminsitration on. I think passing a huge medicare entitlement was a mistake...and I think the same for letting domestic spending explode. I do not fault Bush for military budget increases as I think they are needed. There have also been huge amounts of funding needed for homeland security, 9/11, etc.



    Edit: On the jobs topic, we here a lot about outsourcing. What we don't hear about much is insourcing, or jobs coming to this country from overseas. This happens far more than people realize.






    Typical SDW he doesn't like where the quote comes from so he ignores the facts.



    As for answering your question other's and myslef already have to the best of our ability and what facys we have been able to dig up don't support your suppositions.



    Why do we have to compare job quality from past administrations? Why do you need to divert from the topic?
  • Reply 107 of 214
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,078member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BRussell

    See this WSJ article. It has these numbers for increases in domestic discretionary spending:

    Reagan: -1.3%

    Carter: 2%

    Clinton: 2.5%

    Bush I: 4%

    LBJ: 4.3%

    Nixon: 6.8%

    Ford: 8%

    Bush II: 8.2%



    The Reagan numbers are a bit misleading because he increased military spending so much, whereas under Clinton they decreased. It's also hard to put LBJ in the middle when he signed some of the big entitlement laws. Also, W. has increased entitlements, but he's already the worst so that wouldn't change his ranking.



    Well he famously ran in 1992 on "ending welfare as we know it," and he eventually signed the welfare reform passed by the Repub congress.




    Those numbers are quite misleading. The military's budget falls under "discretionary" spending as well. We are spending much, much more than when Clinton was in office. Really, discretionary spending should be called "non-entitlement" spending.



    That being said, I think we need to seriously cut all federal spending by huge amounts. Again...no argument.
  • Reply 108 of 214
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    Those numbers are quite misleading. The military's budget falls under "discretionary" spending as well. We are spending much, much more than when Clinton was in office. Really, discretionary spending should be called "non-entitlement" spending.



    That being said, I think we need to seriously cut all federal spending by huge amounts. Again...no argument.




    "Domestic discretionary spending" excludes military spending.
  • Reply 109 of 214
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,078member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by jimmac

    Typical SDW he doesn't like where the quote comes from so he ignores the facts.



    As for answering your question other's and myslef already have to the best of our ability and what facys we have been able to dig up don't support your suppositions.



    Why do we have to compare job quality from past administrations? Why do you need to divert from the topic?




    I'm not discounting the "source". I am saying that Rubin is making opinion statements, and that he's a well known partisan operator.



    You HAVE NOT answered my question concerning Clinton and the economy.



    You HAVE NOT presented much in the way of facts. You have posted opinion pieces and rhetoric.



    Job quality: Wait...isn't it you that posted this?



    http://www.businessweek.com/careers/...6576_ca024.htm



    Wasn't your point that the new jobs being created are not high quality? Wasn't this point made in a political context? (i.e economic policy of the Bush adminsitration). We must have a frame of reference for things like this...otherwise the numbers really don't have meaning. For example, when you talk about the jobless claims numbers, we must frame them. Historically, anything under 400,000 jobless claims is conisdered a "good" thing. That's not my opinion, it's the opinion of those who are frankly more qualified and knowlegable than either of us. The same holds true of unemployment data.



    Therefore, we need to know what the "job quality" numbers and facts are like for other administrations and time periods. If one administration created 1,000,000 "high paying/high quality" jobs and the other created 300,000...than we can compare.



    What good is data without reference points? That's all I'm saying.
  • Reply 110 of 214
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    I'm not discounting the "source". I am saying that Rubin is making opinion statements, and that he's a well known partisan operator.



    You HAVE NOT answered my question concerning Clinton and the economy.



    You HAVE NOT presented much in the way of facts. You have posted opinion pieces and rhetoric.



    Job quality: Wait...isn't it you that posted this?



    http://www.businessweek.com/careers/...6576_ca024.htm



    Wasn't your point that the new jobs being created are not high quality? Wasn't this point made in a political context? (i.e economic policy of the Bush adminsitration). We must have a frame of reference for things like this...otherwise the numbers really don't have meaning. For example, when you talk about the jobless claims numbers, we must frame them. Historically, anything under 400,000 jobless claims is conisdered a "good" thing. That's not my opinion, it's the opinion of those who are frankly more qualified and knowlegable than either of us. The same holds true of unemployment data.



    Therefore, we need to know what the "job quality" numbers and facts are like for other administrations and time periods. If one administration created 1,000,000 "high paying/high quality" jobs and the other created 300,000...than we can compare.



    What good is data without reference points? That's all I'm saying.






    Clinton helped reduce the deficit through raising taxes and paying our debts. I't pretty clear something was working here because of the spectacular results.



    Just like it's clear that now something isn't working.



    It's up to you to prove otherwise.



    I mean here we are with a republican president and congress and we're worse off than ever deficit wise.



    http://members.tripod.com/~zzpat/graphs.htm



    http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/....prez.clinton/



    How do you explain that? And please try not to get 911 in the mix.



    I'm sorry but this is history now and it's very difficult to argue with the results.



  • Reply 111 of 214
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,078member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by jimmac

    Clinton helped reduce the deficit through raising taxes and paying our debts. I't pretty clear something was working here because of the spectacular results.



    Just like it's clear that now something isn't working.



    It's up to you to prove otherwise.



    I mean here we are with a republican president and congress and we're worse off than ever deficit wise.



    http://members.tripod.com/~zzpat/graphs.htm



    http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/....prez.clinton/



    How do you explain that? And please try not to get 911 in the mix.



    I'm sorry but this is history now and it's very difficult to argue with the results.






    Now hold on, isn't it people of your political persuasion that say Reagan's tax cuts did not help the economy? Reagan got results too. Come to think of it, so has Bush 43. Tell me what the economy was like in March 2001-December 2002. That's a bit of history as well.



    As for deficits, I cannot disagree that the Republican Congress has overspent. However, quite a bit of it is, in fact, defense spending. I'm not even talking about 9/11 related things...I'm talking about the annual defense budget. That being said, we do need to at least acknowledge 9/11, don't we? What about all the money being budgeted for Homeland Security and the TSA? Certainly that plays a part. Granted, we just passed medicare, which I don't support. I'm not making excuses here...the Republican party is starting to look an awful lot like the Democrats right about now in term of they're support of such spending increases. But, some of the reasons for the deficit are valid, inlcuding your favorite topic of the overall economy. When the economy slows, so does revenue. Certainly Bush cannot be blamed for the recession that basically began even before he took office.



    Back to Clinton...which was my original question. Can you show that balanced budgets help the overall economy? What specific economic policy did Clinton implement to help the economy? Believe it or not, I'm not trying to flame you or cause an argument. I agree that the economy in the mid to late 1990's was quite good. All I'm asking is "what exactly did Clinton do to cause it, and what has Bush done to hinder it"?



    Your answer can't just be "deficits". The relationship between deficits and the "state of the economy" is not clear, just as my overall income is not affected by my credit card debts, for example. Granted, my credit card debt matters to my overall fiscal health...but it doesn't affect my income because that generally depends on other factors. Government revenue depends a great deal on the state of the overall economy. Clinton might get some credit (along with the Republican controlled congress) for balancing the budget and helping to ensure overall fiscal health, but what did he do on the "economy" end?



    That's all I'm asking.
  • Reply 112 of 214
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    Now hold on, isn't it people of your political persuasion that say Reagan's tax cuts did not help the economy? Reagan got results too. Come to think of it, so has Bush 43. Tell me what the economy was like in March 2001-December 2002. That's a bit of history as well.



    As for deficits, I cannot disagree that the Republican Congress has overspent. However, quite a bit of it is, in fact, defense spending. I'm not even talking about 9/11 related things...I'm talking about the annual defense budget. That being said, we do need to at least acknowledge 9/11, don't we? What about all the money being budgeted for Homeland Security and the TSA? Certainly that plays a part. Granted, we just passed medicare, which I don't support. I'm not making excuses here...the Republican party is starting to look an awful lot like the Democrats right about now in term of they're support of such spending increases. But, some of the reasons for the deficit are valid, inlcuding your favorite topic of the overall economy. When the economy slows, so does revenue. Certainly Bush cannot be blamed for the recession that basically began even before he took office.



    Back to Clinton...which was my original question. Can you show that balanced budgets help the overall economy? What specific economic policy did Clinton implement to help the economy? Believe it or not, I'm not trying to flame you or cause an argument. I agree that the economy in the mid to late 1990's was quite good. All I'm asking is "what exactly did Clinton do to cause it, and what has Bush done to hinder it"?



    Your answer can't just be "deficits". The relationship between deficits and the "state of the economy" is not clear, just as my overall income is not affected by my credit card debts, for example. Granted, my credit card debt matters to my overall fiscal health...but it doesn't affect my income because that generally depends on other factors. Government revenue depends a great deal on the state of the overall economy. Clinton might get some credit (along with the Republican controlled congress) for balancing the budget and helping to ensure overall fiscal health, but what did he do on the "economy" end?



    That's all I'm asking.






    Oh come on!



    It's pretty common knowlege that deficits affect the economy but that's not what we were talking about. We were talking about deficits being bad in themselves.



    We have to pay for it sometime and it affects our relationship with the dollar vs. other forms of currency in the world.





    Here's a little something to chew on....



    http://www.smartmoney.com/bn/ON/inde...3-1135&nav=ibs



    Just as with your credit debt there is less money to go around when you have a large debt so please don't don't tell me it doesn't effect how much money from your income you have to spend.



    For the billionth time : Nobody is blaming Bush for the recession. After the long bull market a downturn was inevitable. It's what a president does in response to a recession that affects it. Spending money wildly in an unfocused response to terrorism and spending it on an unnecessary war isn't a good response.



    But you already know this. Drop the smoke screen already.
  • Reply 113 of 214
    naplesxnaplesx Posts: 3,743member
    "Over the past six months, 665,000 of the 1.2 million new jobs were in the higher-paying service sector.



    Average Hourly Earnings



    Services, excluding retail and leisure $17.34



    Utilities 25.47



    Information 21.40



    Finance 17.52



    Professional Services 17.37



    Education/Health 16.07



    Manufacturing 15.20



    Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics"



    Quote from WSJ
  • Reply 114 of 214
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by NaplesX

    "Over the past six months, 665,000 of the 1.2 million new jobs were in the higher-paying service sector.



    Average Hourly Earnings



    Services, excluding retail and leisure $17.34



    Utilities 25.47



    Information 21.40



    Finance 17.52



    Professional Services 17.37



    Education/Health 16.07



    Manufacturing 15.20



    Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics"



    Quote from WSJ




    The question is what kind of jobs are these replacing?

    What pay rate did they have?





    That's nice but I thought you weren't going to post on AO anymore?
  • Reply 115 of 214
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,078member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by jimmac

    Oh come on!



    It's pretty common knowlege that deficits affect the economy but that's not what we were talking about. We were talking about deficits being bad in themselves.



    We have to pay for it sometime and it affects our relationship with the dollar vs. other forms of currency in the world.





    Here's a little something to chew on....



    http://www.smartmoney.com/bn/ON/inde...3-1135&nav=ibs



    Just as with your credit debt there is less money to go around when you have a large debt so please don't don't tell me it doesn't effect how much money from your income you have to spend.



    For the billionth time : Nobody is blaming Bush for the recession. After the long bull market a downturn was inevitable. It's what a president does in response to a recession that affects it. Spending money wildly in an unfocused response to terrorism and spending it on an unnecessary war isn't a good response.



    But you already know this. Drop the smoke screen already.




    1. It is not common knowledge. I disagree. The country has run deficits and had tremendous expansion at the same time in the past.



    2. The dollar can weaken due to deficits. That is true. However, a weak dollar is not always a bad thing.



    3. You need to read your own article:



    Quote:

    "The Fed," he said, "won't adjust interest rates simply because the deficit is large. "We respond to the economy," Greenspan said. "To the extent that the budget deficit affects the economy...we will respond to that reaction. But we will not and do not try to calibrate monetary policy to what fiscal policy is doing."



    -The deficit does matter. But it's not necessarily bad for the economy...especially in the short term.



    4. PLEASE STOP TWISTING MY STATEMENTS AND READ: I was not talking about spendable income!!! I am not even talking about fiscal policy. With all due respect, you are completely missing the point. I used the credit card analogy to show that my income would not be affected by my debt load. Of course I would have less of that income to spend on discretionary purchases if I had a large debt. That's not the point. I used the analogy to demonstrate that "the economy" itself is not necessarily affected by the deficit right now...at least not negatively.



    5. What a President does? Bush pushed through two historic tax cuts. Depsite your rhetoric, I as a middle class person got a significant cut in both my marginal rates and through other changes in the law, such as 100% depreciation of equipment in one year. The economy has now recovered.





    You are confusing fiscal policy (which I agree needs serious work) with the state of the economy. They are not the same thing.
  • Reply 116 of 214
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    1. It is not common knowledge. I disagree. The country has run deficits and had tremendous expansion at the same time in the past.



    2. The dollar can weaken due to deficits. That is true. However, a weak dollar is not always a bad thing.



    3. You need to read your own article:







    -The deficit does matter. But it's not necessarily bad for the economy...especially in the short term.



    4. PLEASE STOP TWISTING MY STATEMENTS AND READ: I was not talking about spendable income!!! I am not even talking about fiscal policy. With all due respect, you are completely missing the point. I used the credit card analogy to show that my income would not be affected by my debt load. Of course I would have less of that income to spend on discretionary purchases if I had a large debt. That's not the point. I used the analogy to demonstrate that "the economy" itself is not necessarily affected by the deficit right now...at least not negatively.



    5. What a President does? Bush pushed through two historic tax cuts. Depsite your rhetoric, I as a middle class person got a significant cut in both my marginal rates and through other changes in the law, such as 100% depreciation of equipment in one year. The economy has now recovered.





    You are confusing fiscal policy (which I agree needs serious work) with the state of the economy. They are not the same thing.






    You'd have less spendable income. I'm not twisting your statements at all. If you have to allocate more of your income to make any head way on your debt it's the same thing as not having as much income. Trust me some project or something somewhere will suffer.



    This deficit is so huge even if there was a situation where a deficit could be a good thing that's not applicable here.



    It also affects trade with other countries and you can't tell me that doesn't affect the economy.



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



    " The country has run deficits and had tremendous expansion at the same time in the past. "



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



    Now we have a tremedous deficit and running with little expansion.









    Are you really saying you are ok with leaving this bill to our kids?











  • Reply 117 of 214
    midwintermidwinter Posts: 10,060member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    1. "Knew was right"? Not judging by his popularity until he came to the center in the mid-nineties.



    I don't think you understood the point.



    Quote:

    2. He proposed it. That's the point. Hello?



    It didn't get anywhere. Hello?



    Quote:

    3. Republicans spend too much money too. No argument there. [/B]



    Yes. The problem is that the right wing believes it when Republicans say they spend less. They don't. At all.
  • Reply 118 of 214
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,078member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by midwinter

    I don't think you understood the point.







    It didn't get anywhere. Hello?







    Yes. The problem is that the right wing believes it when Republicans say they spend less. They don't. At all.




    Oh, it's that big, evil "right wing" again.
  • Reply 119 of 214
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    Oh, it's that big, evil "right wing" again.









    I think he's starting to get it!
  • Reply 120 of 214
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,078member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by jimmac

    You'd have less spendable income. I'm not twisting your statements at all. If you have to allocate more of your income to make any head way on your debt it's the same thing as not having as much income. Trust me some project or something somewhere will suffer.



    This deficit is so huge even if there was a situation where a deficit could be a good thing that's not applicable here.



    It also affects trade with other countries and you can't tell me that doesn't affect the economy.



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



    " The country has run deficits and had tremendous expansion at the same time in the past. "



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



    Now we have a tremedous deficit and running with little expansion.









    Are you really saying you are ok with leaving this bill to our kids?




    Oh my God. You're just ridiculous.



    1. I am not talking about spendable income. I am talking about income, period. My credit card debt does not affect my income level. Of course it affects my disposable income. No shit.



    2. I used this analogy to differentiate between fiscal policy and the overall state of the economy. If you want to debate fiscal policy, then we can do that.



    3. The relationship of deficits to the health of "the economy" is unclear at best. If you have data to refute this, then please post it.



    4. No, Mr. Strawman, I do not "want to pass the bill to my kids". I agree that deficits are undesirable. I agree we are spending to much money. I also agree that Republicans have allowed this to happen. I disagree that the recent deficits have harmed the economy...at least in the short term.



    5. The current deficit is not the largest we have run as a percentage of GDP.



    6. We have a solid expansion happening, no matter what rhetorical bullshit you post to the contrary.
Sign In or Register to comment.