I'm not going to go into detail about it right now, because I'm tired and cranky. If you really think the economy is going to be a lot better than it is right now in a year, you're fooling yourself.
The economy is still going to suck next year, and I don't see a noticeable rebound until about 18-24 months from now. As to whether or not the economy is treating you well, I guess that depends on what business you are in. Do you make missiles? You're probably doing alright then.
But the economy will get better. I see the main issue for the next election as getting this tyrannic madman out of office. Just about anything would be an improvement...
And all those gloomy people are paying how much for houses out in your neck of the woods? Likewise I'm sure the claim of madman will stick for Bush while we still have a gigantic hole in the middle of New York City that use to be called the twin towers. Some of us don't shorten our memories to score political points.
GDP doesn't jump a full point because of "replenishng lots of bombs".
No, you're right, GDP doesn't jump a full point from buying lots of bombs. It jumps 1.7 points - twice the growth contribution of consumer spending. It sounds perfectly reasonable - that works out to about $40B in extra defense spending during the quarter (one-fourth of 1.7% of a $10trillion economy). I suppose it makes the economy bigger only because it's paid for with debt, rather than tax revenue.
And all those gloomy people are paying how much for houses out in your neck of the woods? Likewise I'm sure the claim of madman will stick for Bush while we still have a gigantic hole in the middle of New York City that use to be called the twin towers. Some of us don't shorten our memories to score political points.
Nick
Prices are actually reasonable if you move outside of Boston. The commuter rail is a wonderful thing.
Anyhow, I don't get the whole "crater in new york city" thing. I think Bush handled 9/11 like any president would have. But the way he has handled Iraq and the rest of the world leaves much to be desired. Much. Can't keep playing that ace of spades that is 9/11...
And all those gloomy people are paying how much for houses out in your neck of the woods?
Good question. I have a friend who is a mortgage originator. This month they have THREE TIMES as many mortgages to close as they've EVER done in a single month. And this ain't Boston.
Prices are actually reasonable if you move outside of Boston. The commuter rail is a wonderful thing.
Anyhow, I don't get the whole "crater in new york city" thing. I think Bush handled 9/11 like any president would have. But the way he has handled Iraq and the rest of the world leaves much to be desired. Much. Can't keep playing that ace of spades that is 9/11...
In otherwords it isn't a negative against him because he has had to do what all presidents do during their term. If someone had suggested that Clinton was going to lose with a good economy because of Somalia, Bosnia or Haiti, the result would be laughable. We could go on, Kennedy with Bay of Pigs, etc.
Bush, like all presidents does have clear limits to what he can do. I think anyone with any sense of objectivity will concede that regardless of whether the actions were perfect or even perfectly executed, they were signs of attempted action to bring about the right result. The economy taking a dump, terrorist attacks, Iraq, North Korea and others have made the world a dangerous place. Bush has obviously done his best and attempted to get the best result for the U.S.
In otherwords it isn't a negative against him because he has had to do what all presidents do during their term. If someone had suggested that Clinton was going to lose with a good economy because of Somalia, Bosnia or Haiti, the result would be laughable. We could go on, Kennedy with Bay of Pigs, etc.
Bush, like all presidents does have clear limits to what he can do. I think anyone with any sense of objectivity will concede that regardless of whether the actions were perfect or even perfectly executed, they were signs of attempted action to bring about the right result. The economy taking a dump, terrorist attacks, Iraq, North Korea and others have made the world a dangerous place. Bush has obviously done his best and attempted to get the best result for the U.S.
Nick
Yes, he has done his best. I do not believe that is good enough.
This should be the only voting issue necessary: After 9/11 we had more worldwide goodwill than ever before. He squandered practically all of it because of his lack of diplomatic skills. Yes, Iraq needed to be liberated from Saddam but Bush went about it all wrong and lost all of our goodwill in the process. We had a golden opportunity to lead a world willing to be led into the 21st century. Bush wasted it.
PS: The opposition isn't silenced so easily. I'm back.
As mr. Springsteen put it on the first track of the third disc of his "Live 1975-1985" set: That's good.
As Scott Weiland, lead singer of Stone Temple Pilots, said shortly after being released from prison on drug charges at the 2001 KROQ Weenie Roast, "OOOOOOOOh it's gooood to be home!"
Yes, he has done his best. I do not believe that is good enough.
This should be the only voting issue necessary: After 9/11 we had more worldwide goodwill than ever before. He squandered practically all of it because of his lack of diplomatic skills. Yes, Iraq needed to be liberated from Saddam but Bush went about it all wrong and lost all of our goodwill in the process. We had a golden opportunity to lead a world willing to be led into the 21st century. Bush wasted it.
PS: The opposition isn't silenced so easily. I'm back.
And what showed we had worldwide goodwill? A democratic talking point? People flying planes into our buildings? Was the goodwill really squandered by Bush or was it just the leaders in France and Germany doing just about anything to distract their countrymen from the fact that without the U.S. economy growing at 4% a year, their own countries were thus heading into recessions for which of course they would be blamed.
I'll tell you what, you find a single country that is doing business with us different than before the war and I'll buy your assertion. Otherwise it is just an endlessly repeated Democratic talking point.
As for leading a world that wanted to be lead. Who wants to be lead? China with their billion plus people? I think not. Europe who is forming and adding to the E.U. in hopes of better competing against the U.S.? I think not. They are all riding the bear. Trading and doing their best to stay on good terms until they feel they can get themselves in position to be the bear and hand us the role of second fiddle. If you think anything to the contrary, then you are just naive.
You cannot deny that much of the world had sympathy for what we had to endure for the first time. You cannot deny that it was an opportunity to unite much of the world against terrorism. Flipping off the UN and invading Iraq kinda ruined that.
Quote:
I'll tell you what, you find a single country that is doing business with us different than before the war and I'll buy your assertion. Otherwise it is just an endlessly repeated Democratic talking point.
So business is the measure of goodwill? Nah. Don't buy that.
Quote:
As for leading a world that wanted to be led. Who wants to be lead? China with their billion plus people? I think not. Europe who is forming and adding to the E.U. in hopes of better competing against the U.S.?
Had we led international peacekeeping forces in many parts of Africa and Southeast Asia, yes, much of the world would have been willing to follow along. No, it had to be Iraq first. Then we had to change our reasons 14 times.
You cannot deny that much of the world had sympathy for what we had to endure for the first time. You cannot deny that it was an opportunity to unite much of the world against terrorism. Flipping off the UN and invading Iraq kinda ruined that.
Sympathy doesn't equal action. We had the opportunity to unite the world against terrorism? How you tell me historically when Europe has been willing to deal with an issue that wasn't in their own backyard. Did we seek Europe riding to the rescue during the Cuban missle crisis? Why don't you find the U.N. resolution that authorized force in Afghanistan?
Quote:
So business is the measure of goodwill? Nah. Don't buy that.
So then widen it. Show me a country that has passed a sanction, removed an ambassador, done anything besides express disapproval via one or two verbal speeches which called attention from the way their economies were going.
Quote:
Had we led international peacekeeping forces in many parts of Africa and Southeast Asia, yes, much of the world would have been willing to follow along. No, it had to be Iraq first. Then we had to change our reasons 14 times.
Really and how would they follow? When we requested support from Germany they let slip that 90%+ of all their military arsenal was over 20 years old and almost incapable of working. Who really has something of military value to contribute. All these guys do is send a long a set of troops for token support. They have nothing substative to contribute.
Likewise look at how Europe handles current matters. Do we hear them screaming about how North Korea is going to get nukes? No of course not, that is China and Japan's trouble. It isn't in their backyard. Do we see them yelling to send troops to Liberia? Not in my backyard.
Yes, he has done his best. I do not believe that is good enough.
This should be the only voting issue necessary: After 9/11 we had more worldwide goodwill than ever before. He squandered practically all of it because of his lack of diplomatic skills. Yes, Iraq needed to be liberated from Saddam but Bush went about it all wrong and lost all of our goodwill in the process. We had a golden opportunity to lead a world willing to be led into the 21st century. Bush wasted it.
PS: The opposition isn't silenced so easily. I'm back.
It's nice to know there is someone else who who has a clear focus on what's going on. All Bush knows is how to throw his weight around. " A bull in a china shop " as my dad used to say.
I've heard "the economy is recovering" from the media again and again. It's a sure sign that the economy is bad, and likely to stay that way for some time. Sure, everyone wants to believe that the economy is getting better...but the fact is, the real spending power typical Americans is diminishing, and has been since the early 70's.
People are working longer hours and making less; spending less time with their families, friends, and hobbies. Divorce, suicide, and depression rates have jumped.
Meanwhile, the gap between rich and poor increases, public schools have their funding stolen while billions are spent stirring up trouble in the Middle East. The tax burden is increasingly shifted away from the rich and onto the middle class, with Reaganomics making a comeback. "The top 1% will certainly invest their tax savings into the economy somehow...and that will certainly translate into better economic situations for everyone." This mystical assumption trumps common sense.
"Tax cuts" (actually just more borrowing against the deficit) puts the politically sensitive issue of Social Security off, and the demagogues in the Executive and Legislative branches will continue to avoid this issue.
I have come to accept the fact that I will never see a dollar of the money that I have put into Social Security. That I will be paying for the retirement of the baby boomers, because the current leadership is too cowardly to take on such an issue.
And still, you want to talk about "the economy is doing better." You're avoiding what really matters-the earning (and spending) power of the middle class. It reminds me of a political cartoon from the "Gay 90's." Two wealthy industrialists sitting at a table. One says to the other, "Look how wonderful the economy is doing. There's been over 10,000 jobs created this year!" The waiter in the corner thinks to himself "-and I have 3 of them."
Don't worry, I read the same numbers you guys did. That's great, but in the longterm, this isn't indication enough that the economy is going to be better in a year. It's not.
And I'm not pinning it all on defense spending, but I just wonder about the people who think the economy is improving. I mean, do you people make weapons or something? From my point of view, it's still pretty lousy.
You can show me these numbers all you want, but I'm down here in the melee of it all, man. And it isn't just me, it's a lot of people. We're in a recession, and I don't believe we're coming out of it in a year. Yeah, the numbers right now are good, but keep them consistent over the next two years and let's see if it pulls us out of this rut. I, for one, am not very hopeful.
1. The recession has been over for quite some time. Do you even know what a recession is?
2. Numbers are the only way to measure economic growth. What do you use?
3. You're not hopeful....why? What are your reasons for pessimissm? What economic factors show you continued slow growth?
Perhaps you mean "I'd like the economy to still be sluggish in a year so GWB has a chance at losing".
SDW2001 no offense against your politics. Bush will lose because the average american voter has not a clue what the're doing. I'm really begining to think that if our leaders were elected by allowing monkeys to fling their feces at pictures of candidates we would still have the same social and political issues. Joe Average Voters only care about marginal issues that really do not effect day to day life, but play well in TV and Mail hit ads.
In other words, don't count anything out yet. Bush does not have the charisma that Reagan and Clinton have. So he may not get reelected easily.
My opinion, sorry if I'm off topic.
It's not my politics. It's reality. Barring a cataclysmic event, Bush will be reelected. The issues will be the WOT, The Economy, and "No Raising Taxes". You can quote me on that. The last one was created entirely by Bush. He got the full tax cut he wanted passed for half the term....that way he can campaign on "not raising" taxes by making the cuts permanent. The Dems will have to either do the same, which they can't because it won;t distinguish their positon, or come out for repealing the cuts...(in other words...raising taxes).
It amazes me that while I am called "polarized" by everyone under the sun, some here still cannot ackowledge the politcal reality that Bush will be reelected. Keep chanting "Howard Dean" though....if it makes you feel better.
I think that is but one of a handful of reasons why we can hope he won't get re-elected, but we know he will anyway.
While we disgaree, at least you ackowledge the poltical reality.
Quote:
Prices are actually reasonable if you move outside of Boston. The commuter rail is a wonderful thing.
Anyhow, I don't get the whole "crater in new york city" thing. I think Bush handled 9/11 like any president would have. But the way he has handled Iraq and the rest of the world leaves much to be desired. Much. Can't keep playing that ace of spades that is 9/11...
I disgaree. There is no telling how another President would have handled it. We can only speculate. I've said for awhile that Clinton probably would have done what he did before: Launch a bunch of cruise missles and blow up some aspirin. Gore, I think, may have gone the other way in an attempt to not look like Clinton. I think he may have sent 1,000,000 troops to Afghanistan and reinstituted the draft. Who knows, it's all speculative.
Towel:
Quote:
No, you're right, GDP doesn't jump a full point from buying lots of bombs. It jumps 1.7 points - twice the growth contribution of consumer spending. It sounds perfectly reasonable - that works out to about $40B in extra defense spending during the quarter (one-fourth of 1.7% of a $10trillion economy). I suppose it makes the economy bigger only because it's paid for with debt, rather than tax revenue.
Oh My God. Please tell me you don't believe that and it was just an intellectual exercise.
BR:
Quote:
Yes, he has done his best. I do not believe that is good enough.
This should be the only voting issue necessary: After 9/11 we had more worldwide goodwill than ever before. He squandered practically all of it because of his lack of diplomatic skills. Yes, Iraq needed to be liberated from Saddam but Bush went about it all wrong and lost all of our goodwill in the process. We had a golden opportunity to lead a world willing to be led into the 21st century. Bush wasted it.
PS: The opposition isn't silenced so easily. I'm back.
Could we put away the Big Book of Liberal Cliches for one day please?
There was no goodwill with our "allies". Our "allies" don't determine US National Security actions.
You say Bush squandered our" good will". Tell me how. Bush went to the UN and got a last chance resoltution. The UN, thanks to France and Germany in particular, failed to enforce it's own resolution....again.
Bush did nothing to "squander good will" other than indicate that we would act in our own interests rather than those of a corrupt, socialist third-rate former World Power. Ooooh. They hated THAT!
Quote:
You cannot deny that much of the world had sympathy for what we had to endure for the first time. You cannot deny that it was an opportunity to unite much of the world against terrorism. Flipping off the UN and invading Iraq kinda ruined that.
We HAVE united the world against terror. Any state not cooperating is not going to do so. You have go to be kidding.
Quote:
Had we led international peacekeeping forces in many parts of Africa and Southeast Asia, yes, much of the world would have been willing to follow along. No, it had to be Iraq first. Then we had to change our reasons 14 times.
Yes, by all means. Let's use military force when there is absolutely NO US interest involved. That sounds great to me. And, if the President had used only one argument for war, you'd be shouting "We need more reasons to go to war!!!".
Jimmac:
Quote:
It's nice to know there is someone else who who has a clear focus on what's going on. All Bush knows is how to throw his weight around. " A bull in a china shop " as my dad used to say.
Glad you're back.
"I'm glad that your back because you opinions are very close to mine. It makes me fell all warm and fuzzy. Stupid SDW. We're the best"
---I think that's what you meant. Oh, and the jobs number: Say it with me: Lagging indicator.
Comments
Originally posted by hegor
Bush does not have the charisma that Reagan and Clinton have.
I think that is but one of a handful of reasons why we can hope he won't get re-elected, but we know he will anyway.
Originally posted by LoCash
I'm not going to go into detail about it right now, because I'm tired and cranky. If you really think the economy is going to be a lot better than it is right now in a year, you're fooling yourself.
The economy is still going to suck next year, and I don't see a noticeable rebound until about 18-24 months from now. As to whether or not the economy is treating you well, I guess that depends on what business you are in. Do you make missiles? You're probably doing alright then.
But the economy will get better. I see the main issue for the next election as getting this tyrannic madman out of office. Just about anything would be an improvement...
And all those gloomy people are paying how much for houses out in your neck of the woods? Likewise I'm sure the claim of madman will stick for Bush while we still have a gigantic hole in the middle of New York City that use to be called the twin towers. Some of us don't shorten our memories to score political points.
Nick
Originally posted by SDW2001
GDP doesn't jump a full point because of "replenishng lots of bombs".
No, you're right, GDP doesn't jump a full point from buying lots of bombs. It jumps 1.7 points - twice the growth contribution of consumer spending. It sounds perfectly reasonable - that works out to about $40B in extra defense spending during the quarter (one-fourth of 1.7% of a $10trillion economy). I suppose it makes the economy bigger only because it's paid for with debt, rather than tax revenue.
Originally posted by trumptman
And all those gloomy people are paying how much for houses out in your neck of the woods? Likewise I'm sure the claim of madman will stick for Bush while we still have a gigantic hole in the middle of New York City that use to be called the twin towers. Some of us don't shorten our memories to score political points.
Nick
Prices are actually reasonable if you move outside of Boston. The commuter rail is a wonderful thing.
Anyhow, I don't get the whole "crater in new york city" thing. I think Bush handled 9/11 like any president would have. But the way he has handled Iraq and the rest of the world leaves much to be desired. Much. Can't keep playing that ace of spades that is 9/11...
Originally posted by trumptman
And all those gloomy people are paying how much for houses out in your neck of the woods?
Good question. I have a friend who is a mortgage originator. This month they have THREE TIMES as many mortgages to close as they've EVER done in a single month. And this ain't Boston.
Originally posted by LoCash
Prices are actually reasonable if you move outside of Boston. The commuter rail is a wonderful thing.
Anyhow, I don't get the whole "crater in new york city" thing. I think Bush handled 9/11 like any president would have. But the way he has handled Iraq and the rest of the world leaves much to be desired. Much. Can't keep playing that ace of spades that is 9/11...
In otherwords it isn't a negative against him because he has had to do what all presidents do during their term. If someone had suggested that Clinton was going to lose with a good economy because of Somalia, Bosnia or Haiti, the result would be laughable. We could go on, Kennedy with Bay of Pigs, etc.
Bush, like all presidents does have clear limits to what he can do. I think anyone with any sense of objectivity will concede that regardless of whether the actions were perfect or even perfectly executed, they were signs of attempted action to bring about the right result. The economy taking a dump, terrorist attacks, Iraq, North Korea and others have made the world a dangerous place. Bush has obviously done his best and attempted to get the best result for the U.S.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
In otherwords it isn't a negative against him because he has had to do what all presidents do during their term. If someone had suggested that Clinton was going to lose with a good economy because of Somalia, Bosnia or Haiti, the result would be laughable. We could go on, Kennedy with Bay of Pigs, etc.
Bush, like all presidents does have clear limits to what he can do. I think anyone with any sense of objectivity will concede that regardless of whether the actions were perfect or even perfectly executed, they were signs of attempted action to bring about the right result. The economy taking a dump, terrorist attacks, Iraq, North Korea and others have made the world a dangerous place. Bush has obviously done his best and attempted to get the best result for the U.S.
Nick
Yes, he has done his best. I do not believe that is good enough.
This should be the only voting issue necessary: After 9/11 we had more worldwide goodwill than ever before. He squandered practically all of it because of his lack of diplomatic skills. Yes, Iraq needed to be liberated from Saddam but Bush went about it all wrong and lost all of our goodwill in the process. We had a golden opportunity to lead a world willing to be led into the 21st century. Bush wasted it.
PS: The opposition isn't silenced so easily. I'm back.
Originally posted by BR
PS: The opposition isn't silenced so easily. I'm back.
As mr. Springsteen put it on the first track of the third disc of his "Live 1975-1985" set: That's good.
Originally posted by der Kopf
As mr. Springsteen put it on the first track of the third disc of his "Live 1975-1985" set: That's good.
As Scott Weiland, lead singer of Stone Temple Pilots, said shortly after being released from prison on drug charges at the 2001 KROQ Weenie Roast, "OOOOOOOOh it's gooood to be home!"
Originally posted by BR
Yes, he has done his best. I do not believe that is good enough.
This should be the only voting issue necessary: After 9/11 we had more worldwide goodwill than ever before. He squandered practically all of it because of his lack of diplomatic skills. Yes, Iraq needed to be liberated from Saddam but Bush went about it all wrong and lost all of our goodwill in the process. We had a golden opportunity to lead a world willing to be led into the 21st century. Bush wasted it.
PS: The opposition isn't silenced so easily. I'm back.
And what showed we had worldwide goodwill? A democratic talking point? People flying planes into our buildings? Was the goodwill really squandered by Bush or was it just the leaders in France and Germany doing just about anything to distract their countrymen from the fact that without the U.S. economy growing at 4% a year, their own countries were thus heading into recessions for which of course they would be blamed.
I'll tell you what, you find a single country that is doing business with us different than before the war and I'll buy your assertion. Otherwise it is just an endlessly repeated Democratic talking point.
As for leading a world that wanted to be lead. Who wants to be lead? China with their billion plus people? I think not. Europe who is forming and adding to the E.U. in hopes of better competing against the U.S.? I think not. They are all riding the bear. Trading and doing their best to stay on good terms until they feel they can get themselves in position to be the bear and hand us the role of second fiddle. If you think anything to the contrary, then you are just naive.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
And what showed we had worldwide goodwill?
You cannot deny that much of the world had sympathy for what we had to endure for the first time. You cannot deny that it was an opportunity to unite much of the world against terrorism. Flipping off the UN and invading Iraq kinda ruined that.
I'll tell you what, you find a single country that is doing business with us different than before the war and I'll buy your assertion. Otherwise it is just an endlessly repeated Democratic talking point.
So business is the measure of goodwill? Nah. Don't buy that.
As for leading a world that wanted to be led. Who wants to be lead? China with their billion plus people? I think not. Europe who is forming and adding to the E.U. in hopes of better competing against the U.S.?
Had we led international peacekeeping forces in many parts of Africa and Southeast Asia, yes, much of the world would have been willing to follow along. No, it had to be Iraq first. Then we had to change our reasons 14 times.
Originally posted by BR
You cannot deny that much of the world had sympathy for what we had to endure for the first time. You cannot deny that it was an opportunity to unite much of the world against terrorism. Flipping off the UN and invading Iraq kinda ruined that.
Sympathy doesn't equal action. We had the opportunity to unite the world against terrorism? How you tell me historically when Europe has been willing to deal with an issue that wasn't in their own backyard. Did we seek Europe riding to the rescue during the Cuban missle crisis? Why don't you find the U.N. resolution that authorized force in Afghanistan?
So business is the measure of goodwill? Nah. Don't buy that.
So then widen it. Show me a country that has passed a sanction, removed an ambassador, done anything besides express disapproval via one or two verbal speeches which called attention from the way their economies were going.
Had we led international peacekeeping forces in many parts of Africa and Southeast Asia, yes, much of the world would have been willing to follow along. No, it had to be Iraq first. Then we had to change our reasons 14 times.
Really and how would they follow? When we requested support from Germany they let slip that 90%+ of all their military arsenal was over 20 years old and almost incapable of working. Who really has something of military value to contribute. All these guys do is send a long a set of troops for token support. They have nothing substative to contribute.
Likewise look at how Europe handles current matters. Do we hear them screaming about how North Korea is going to get nukes? No of course not, that is China and Japan's trouble. It isn't in their backyard. Do we see them yelling to send troops to Liberia? Not in my backyard.
Nick
Originally posted by BR
Yes, he has done his best. I do not believe that is good enough.
This should be the only voting issue necessary: After 9/11 we had more worldwide goodwill than ever before. He squandered practically all of it because of his lack of diplomatic skills. Yes, Iraq needed to be liberated from Saddam but Bush went about it all wrong and lost all of our goodwill in the process. We had a golden opportunity to lead a world willing to be led into the 21st century. Bush wasted it.
PS: The opposition isn't silenced so easily. I'm back.
It's nice to know there is someone else who who has a clear focus on what's going on. All Bush knows is how to throw his weight around. " A bull in a china shop " as my dad used to say.
Glad you're back.
Originally posted by trumptman
And what showed we had worldwide goodwill?
US embassy in Copenhagen 11th September 2001
Demonstration against the war in Iraq arriving from the US embassy 15th February 2003
I participated along with a lot of people in both. I wonder what happened in the meantime
Yup, this issue is dissolving like a chunk of concrete.
People are working longer hours and making less; spending less time with their families, friends, and hobbies. Divorce, suicide, and depression rates have jumped.
Meanwhile, the gap between rich and poor increases, public schools have their funding stolen while billions are spent stirring up trouble in the Middle East. The tax burden is increasingly shifted away from the rich and onto the middle class, with Reaganomics making a comeback. "The top 1% will certainly invest their tax savings into the economy somehow...and that will certainly translate into better economic situations for everyone." This mystical assumption trumps common sense.
"Tax cuts" (actually just more borrowing against the deficit) puts the politically sensitive issue of Social Security off, and the demagogues in the Executive and Legislative branches will continue to avoid this issue.
I have come to accept the fact that I will never see a dollar of the money that I have put into Social Security. That I will be paying for the retirement of the baby boomers, because the current leadership is too cowardly to take on such an issue.
And still, you want to talk about "the economy is doing better." You're avoiding what really matters-the earning (and spending) power of the middle class. It reminds me of a political cartoon from the "Gay 90's." Two wealthy industrialists sitting at a table. One says to the other, "Look how wonderful the economy is doing. There's been over 10,000 jobs created this year!" The waiter in the corner thinks to himself "-and I have 3 of them."
Originally posted by LoCash
Don't worry, I read the same numbers you guys did. That's great, but in the longterm, this isn't indication enough that the economy is going to be better in a year. It's not.
And I'm not pinning it all on defense spending, but I just wonder about the people who think the economy is improving. I mean, do you people make weapons or something? From my point of view, it's still pretty lousy.
You can show me these numbers all you want, but I'm down here in the melee of it all, man. And it isn't just me, it's a lot of people. We're in a recession, and I don't believe we're coming out of it in a year. Yeah, the numbers right now are good, but keep them consistent over the next two years and let's see if it pulls us out of this rut. I, for one, am not very hopeful.
1. The recession has been over for quite some time. Do you even know what a recession is?
2. Numbers are the only way to measure economic growth. What do you use?
3. You're not hopeful....why? What are your reasons for pessimissm? What economic factors show you continued slow growth?
Perhaps you mean "I'd like the economy to still be sluggish in a year so GWB has a chance at losing".
Originally posted by hegor
SDW2001 no offense against your politics. Bush will lose because the average american voter has not a clue what the're doing. I'm really begining to think that if our leaders were elected by allowing monkeys to fling their feces at pictures of candidates we would still have the same social and political issues. Joe Average Voters only care about marginal issues that really do not effect day to day life, but play well in TV and Mail hit ads.
In other words, don't count anything out yet. Bush does not have the charisma that Reagan and Clinton have. So he may not get reelected easily.
My opinion, sorry if I'm off topic.
It's not my politics. It's reality. Barring a cataclysmic event, Bush will be reelected. The issues will be the WOT, The Economy, and "No Raising Taxes". You can quote me on that. The last one was created entirely by Bush. He got the full tax cut he wanted passed for half the term....that way he can campaign on "not raising" taxes by making the cuts permanent. The Dems will have to either do the same, which they can't because it won;t distinguish their positon, or come out for repealing the cuts...(in other words...raising taxes).
It amazes me that while I am called "polarized" by everyone under the sun, some here still cannot ackowledge the politcal reality that Bush will be reelected. Keep chanting "Howard Dean" though....if it makes you feel better.
Originally posted by LoCash
I think that is but one of a handful of reasons why we can hope he won't get re-elected, but we know he will anyway.
While we disgaree, at least you ackowledge the poltical reality.
Prices are actually reasonable if you move outside of Boston. The commuter rail is a wonderful thing.
Anyhow, I don't get the whole "crater in new york city" thing. I think Bush handled 9/11 like any president would have. But the way he has handled Iraq and the rest of the world leaves much to be desired. Much. Can't keep playing that ace of spades that is 9/11...
I disgaree. There is no telling how another President would have handled it. We can only speculate. I've said for awhile that Clinton probably would have done what he did before: Launch a bunch of cruise missles and blow up some aspirin. Gore, I think, may have gone the other way in an attempt to not look like Clinton. I think he may have sent 1,000,000 troops to Afghanistan and reinstituted the draft. Who knows, it's all speculative.
Towel:
No, you're right, GDP doesn't jump a full point from buying lots of bombs. It jumps 1.7 points - twice the growth contribution of consumer spending. It sounds perfectly reasonable - that works out to about $40B in extra defense spending during the quarter (one-fourth of 1.7% of a $10trillion economy). I suppose it makes the economy bigger only because it's paid for with debt, rather than tax revenue.
Oh My God. Please tell me you don't believe that and it was just an intellectual exercise.
BR:
Yes, he has done his best. I do not believe that is good enough.
This should be the only voting issue necessary: After 9/11 we had more worldwide goodwill than ever before. He squandered practically all of it because of his lack of diplomatic skills. Yes, Iraq needed to be liberated from Saddam but Bush went about it all wrong and lost all of our goodwill in the process. We had a golden opportunity to lead a world willing to be led into the 21st century. Bush wasted it.
PS: The opposition isn't silenced so easily. I'm back.
Could we put away the Big Book of Liberal Cliches for one day please?
There was no goodwill with our "allies". Our "allies" don't determine US National Security actions.
You say Bush squandered our" good will". Tell me how. Bush went to the UN and got a last chance resoltution. The UN, thanks to France and Germany in particular, failed to enforce it's own resolution....again.
Bush did nothing to "squander good will" other than indicate that we would act in our own interests rather than those of a corrupt, socialist third-rate former World Power. Ooooh. They hated THAT!
You cannot deny that much of the world had sympathy for what we had to endure for the first time. You cannot deny that it was an opportunity to unite much of the world against terrorism. Flipping off the UN and invading Iraq kinda ruined that.
We HAVE united the world against terror. Any state not cooperating is not going to do so. You have go to be kidding.
Had we led international peacekeeping forces in many parts of Africa and Southeast Asia, yes, much of the world would have been willing to follow along. No, it had to be Iraq first. Then we had to change our reasons 14 times.
Yes, by all means. Let's use military force when there is absolutely NO US interest involved. That sounds great to me. And, if the President had used only one argument for war, you'd be shouting "We need more reasons to go to war!!!".
Jimmac:
It's nice to know there is someone else who who has a clear focus on what's going on. All Bush knows is how to throw his weight around. " A bull in a china shop " as my dad used to say.
Glad you're back.
"I'm glad that your back because you opinions are very close to mine. It makes me fell all warm and fuzzy. Stupid SDW. We're the best"
---I think that's what you meant. Oh, and the jobs number: Say it with me: Lagging indicator.