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.
More rhetoric. I'd like some links on that claim, please. I'd also like a definition of "Real Spending Power" and "Typical Americans". Oh, and since the media saying the economy is recovering means it "bad", does that mean that when they said it was "bad" two and a half years ago it was really getting better? What the hell kind of measure is this? "Every time there has been a a stock decline in August, there has been high humidity and heat indices. Therefore, the economy is going to slump. " I'm using hyperbole of course, but you are sounding a lot like Monty Python right now.
Quote:
People are working longer hours and making less; spending less time with their families, friends, and hobbies. Divorce, suicide, and depression rates have jumped.
People are sacrificing family time for a second income in many cases. I'm not sure how the rest of it is relevant in any way.
Quote:
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.
1. Show me the numbers for the "gap". This is more liberal rhetoric. I'm surprised you didn't say "the rich get richer and poor get poorer". Home ownership is way up, as is income, BTW. In addition, could you please direct me to the relevant section of the US Constitution that says everyone must be bascially equal as far as income and standard of living is concerned? Take your time.
2. Pure emotionalism. "Stirring up trouble int he Middl East" (read: bringing Democracy and stability to the mniddle east while combatting interntaional terror) has NOTHING to do with Public School Funding. And really..."funds STOLEN"? I'm sorry, I thought it was the TAXPAYERS money. Silly me.
3. The Tax Burden? again...Show me. Acutally, you are 100% wrong about that claim. 100%. The Middle Class now pay LESS than they did. You absolutely amaze me!!! Where is you damnation of Clinton for passing the largest Middle Class Tax Increase in history?
Quote:
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.
Tax Cuts are not "borrowing against" anything.
Quote:
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.
Of course you will see your money. If you don't, there will be riots in the streets. Literally. I'll make the signs with you...how's that?
As far as the current leadership, Social Security has beena problem for years because it is ill-concived and was never intended to be permanment. Perhaps publicly mandadted retirement funds are the problem? Again, can you show me the section of the US Constitution that guarantees citizens the right to retire? Again, take your time. As for Social Security, maybe you should look at the flaws in the system that was created and its applications in the modern era, rather than blame on administration for the program's problems. Funny...I don;t seem to remember the last administration doing anything about it either.
Quote:
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."
And again...how would you measure economic growth? Would you get 100 waiters together and take a poll? Would you ignore GDP, the markets and umemployment statistics?
If you are going to talk about spending power, you have to provide some numbers on income growth (which will not compliment your positions), inflation (which will also not compliment them), etc. With all due respect, you obviously don't have an understanding of fiscal and monetary policy and how the economy is measured.
"Oh look!...I got a $1.00 and hour raise and two of my friends got offered jobs! The economy is on the mend! The market is in the shitter and GDP is -5%, but REAL PEOPLE are doing great!
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!!!".
No, I wouldn't be shouting that. Please stop telling me what I would be doing.
If Bush came out and said that we supplied WOMD to Iraq and gave support to Hussein to fight a war with Iran that we didn't want to get directly involved in and now we want to correct that mistake, I would have been perfectly happy with that.
With all due respect, you obviously don't have an understanding of fiscal and monetary policy and how the economy is measured.
You don't get a free pass on personal attacks because you preface them with a formal nicety like "with all due respect." I'm not going report you. I don't feel like silencing the opposition. However, I'm just pointing out the fact that the blade cuts both ways.
More rhetoric. I'd like some links on that claim, please. I'd also like a definition of "Real Spending Power" and "Typical Americans". Oh, and since the media saying the economy is recovering means it "bad", does that mean that when they said it was "bad" two and a half years ago it was really getting better? What the hell kind of measure is this? "Every time there has been a a stock decline in August, there has been high humidity and heat indices. Therefore, the economy is going to slump. " I'm using hyperbole of course, but you are sounding a lot like Monty Python right now.
People are sacrificing family time for a second income in many cases. I'm not sure how the rest of it is relevant in any way.
1. Show me the numbers for the "gap". This is more liberal rhetoric. I'm surprised you didn't say "the rich get richer and poor get poorer". Home ownership is way up, as is income, BTW. In addition, could you please direct me to the relevant section of the US Constitution that says everyone must be bascially equal as far as income and standard of living is concerned? Take your time.
2. Pure emotionalism. "Stirring up trouble int he Middl East" (read: bringing Democracy and stability to the mniddle east while combatting interntaional terror) has NOTHING to do with Public School Funding. And really..."funds STOLEN"? I'm sorry, I thought it was the TAXPAYERS money. Silly me.
3. The Tax Burden? again...Show me. Acutally, you are 100% wrong about that claim. 100%. The Middle Class now pay LESS than they did. You absolutely amaze me!!! Where is you damnation of Clinton for passing the largest Middle Class Tax Increase in history?
Tax Cuts are not "borrowing against" anything.
Of course you will see your money. If you don't, there will be riots in the streets. Literally. I'll make the signs with you...how's that?
As far as the current leadership, Social Security has beena problem for years because it is ill-concived and was never intended to be permanment. Perhaps publicly mandadted retirement funds are the problem? Again, can you show me the section of the US Constitution that guarantees citizens the right to retire? Again, take your time. As for Social Security, maybe you should look at the flaws in the system that was created and its applications in the modern era, rather than blame on administration for the program's problems. Funny...I don;t seem to remember the last administration doing anything about it either.
And again...how would you measure economic growth? Would you get 100 waiters together and take a poll? Would you ignore GDP, the markets and umemployment statistics?
If you are going to talk about spending power, you have to provide some numbers on income growth (which will not compliment your positions), inflation (which will also not compliment them), etc. With all due respect, you obviously don't have an understanding of fiscal and monetary policy and how the economy is measured.
"Oh look!...I got a $1.00 and hour raise and two of my friends got offered jobs! The economy is on the mend! The market is in the shitter and GDP is -5%, but REAL PEOPLE are doing great!
Uh, I don't know what parallel universe you come from but here's a little something about spending power and the economy " on the mend ".
This doesn't sound like a sure thing to me. It sounds like you want us to accept what you're saying on a leap of faith because the facts aren't exactly saying the same thing.
No, I wouldn't be shouting that. Please stop telling me what I would be doing.
If Bush came out and said that we supplied WOMD to Iraq and gave support to Hussein to fight a war with Iran that we didn't want to get directly involved in and now we want to correct that mistake, I would have been perfectly happy with that.
That wouldn't fly though. Be real. The fact is, there were more reasons to go to war than one can count on both both hands. Bush presented many of them, including WMD and links to terror...not to mention the humanitarian situation and stability of the region. But no matter how many reasons were given, some people won't be convinced. If Saddam had put chemical warheads on scuds and attackd Israel, we'd still have people screaming "No war for oil". Bush's mistake, if any, was to focus TOO HEAVILY on WMD.
It doesn't matter now, because there isn't much case that what we did was wrong. What you see as a deterioration of the American Image, I see as other "questionable" governments realizing that we mean business. In other words, if we say "regime change" or "disarm" or "stop supporting terror" we mean it. As I said, Lybia is now actively cooperating in the WOT. Gee, I wonder why? I think there is a serious underestimation of the "are we next?" factor and its ultimate effectiveness. (A lybian government official was quoted as saying "Will they come after us next?". Personally, I think this superb for them to be thinking this. Call me a cowboy if you will, but I think the President's message of "We're not ****ing around with you guys anymore" (so to speak) is quite effective. I wonder why Pakistan got its collective shit together in about two weeks after 9/11?
Wrong. They are when they aren't coupled with equal or greater spending cuts.
No No No!!!
This is EXACTLY what is wrong with the liberal economic mindset. This is not a simple equation where we must do to one side what we do to another. As I've said, taxation is not a zero sum game. Though, I agree that we need big spending cuts anyway.
*pinches himself* I am real. Don't worry, I won't report you for this although I'm not sure what would happen if the tables were turned.
Quote:
The fact is, there were more reasons to go to war than one can count on both both hands.
The reason changed that many times, yes.
Quote:
Bush presented many of them,
And couldn't decide which one was the real one.
Quote:
including WMD
Show me the money.
Quote:
and links to terror
Not the imminent threat against America type of terror.
Quote:
not to mention the humanitarian situation and stability of the region.
And rwanda and the ivory coast and a myriad of other countries.
Quote:
But no matter how many reasons were given, some people won't be convinced.
And no matter how many times reasons are refuted, some people won't be convinced. Blade cuts both ways.
Quote:
If Saddam had put chemical warheads on scuds and attackd Israel, we'd still have people screaming "No war for oil".
And if no WMDs are found in the next twenty years some people will still be screaming "YEAH BUT HE HAD THEM THAT SNEAKY BASTARD!" There are stubborn, obstinate lunatics on both sides. *looks around the room innocently thinking real hard who those might be*
Quote:
It doesn't matter now, because there isn't much case that what we did was wrong.
Sure there isn't, if you cover your ears and close your eyes.
Quote:
What you see as a deterioration of the American Image I see as other "questionable" governments realizing that we mean business. In other words, if we say "regime change" or "disarm" or "stop supporting terror" we mean it. As I said, Lybia is now actively cooperating in the WOT. Gee, I wonder why? I think there is a serious underestimation of the "are we next?" factor and its ultimate effectiveness. (A lybian government official was quoted as saying "Will they come after us next?". Personally, I think this superb for them to be thinking this. Call me a cowboy if you will, but I think the President's message of "We're not ****ing around with you guys anymore" (so to speak) is quite effective. I wonder why Pakistan got its collective shit together in about two weeks after 9/11?
That wouldn't fly though. Be real. The fact is, there were more reasons to go to war than one can count on both both hands. Bush presented many of them, including WMD and links to terror...not to mention the humanitarian situation and stability of the region. But no matter how many reasons were given, some people won't be convinced. If Saddam had put chemical warheads on scuds and attackd Israel, we'd still have people screaming "No war for oil". Bush's mistake, if any, was to focus TOO HEAVILY on WMD.
It doesn't matter now, because there isn't much case that what we did was wrong. What you see as a deterioration of the American Image, I see as other "questionable" governments realizing that we mean business. In other words, if we say "regime change" or "disarm" or "stop supporting terror" we mean it. As I said, Lybia is now actively cooperating in the WOT. Gee, I wonder why? I think there is a serious underestimation of the "are we next?" factor and its ultimate effectiveness. (A lybian government official was quoted as saying "Will they come after us next?". Personally, I think this superb for them to be thinking this. Call me a cowboy if you will, but I think the President's message of "We're not ****ing around with you guys anymore" (so to speak) is quite effective. I wonder why Pakistan got its collective shit together in about two weeks after 9/11?
" Bush's mistake, if any, was to focus TOO HEAVILY on WMD. "
This is EXACTLY what is wrong with the liberal economic mindset. This is not a simple equation where we must do to one side what we do to another. As I've said, taxation is not a zero sum game. Though, I agree that we need big spending cuts anyway.
Who made you the god of taxation? It damn well should be a zero sum game. That's what you whined about when clinton was hoarding his surpluses. OH NO IT DOESN'T BALANCE HOW DARE HE KEEP OUR EXTRA MONEY!!!
This doesn't sound like a sure thing to me. It sounds like you want us to accept what you're saying on a leap of faith because the facts aren't exactly saying the same thing.
Yes, Yes, jimmac. We know. Keep finding those links. The consumer confidence number is NOT bad. It's not GREAT either...but it has improved greatly since the spring...if you actually read anything other than the headline.
The IMF "article" (all three paragraphjs of it) is REALLY vague, and contradicts itself.
Quote:
In its review of the U.S. economy, the International Monetary Fund expressed concern about the erosion in the government budget position, due in part to the latest tax cuts.
"erosion in the government budget position".....oh OK. I can only assume this means deficits. Now, the take last phrase on tax cuts and compare it with this last sentence:
Quote:
he Washington-based lender said "decisive action" was needed on the fiscal front.
Ummm...fiscal policy. There are two categories of this: Taxes and Spending. The onyl real thing the government can do to stimulate the economy on the fiscal side is cut taxes. It's done that twice and now it appears such action is starting to help. The delay is no surprise because Economic Lag Theory states that economic policy changes often take 2-3 years to take effect. in addition, the government has also manipulated monetary policy (interest rates).
I know it benefits you politcally do describe the economy as "not recovering", but most economists and analysts would disagree with you.
Yes, Yes, jimmac. We know. Keep finding those links. The consumer confidence number is NOT bad. It's not GREAT either...but it has improved greatly since the spring...if you actually read anything other than the headline.
The IMF "article" (all three paragraphjs of it) is REALLY vague, and contradicts itself.
"erosion in the government budget position".....oh OK. I can only assume this means deficits. Now, the take last phrase on tax cuts and compare it with this last sentence:
Ummm...fiscal policy. There are two categories of this: Taxes and Spending. The onyl real thing the government can do to stimulate the economy on the fiscal side is cut taxes. It's done that twice and now it appears such action is starting to help. The delay is no surprise because Economic Lag Theory states that economic policy changes often take 2-3 years to take effect. in addition, the government has also manipulated monetary policy (interest rates).
I know it benefits you politcally do describe the economy as "not recovering", but most economists and analysts would disagree with you.
Just to preempt SDW from trumpeting about the fall in unemployment...
Quote:
US jobless rate falls
The US unemployment rate has fallen, but the drop was down to fewer workers searching for jobs rather than more jobs being created.
Official figures showed the jobless rate fell to 6.2% last month, down from 6.4% in June when US unemployment reached its highest level for nine years.
The data suggests that sluggish economic growth is still leading the US economy to shed jobs, with July seeing a net loss of 44,000 jobs, following a revised loss of 72,000 jobs in June.
Meanwhile some 556,000 workers left the potential pool of workers, discouraged that no jobs were available.
They are no longer counted as unemployed because they are not actively searching for work.
Just to be fair, the article does mention that there are signs of eventual recovery. The GDP has increased and there was a slight increase in personal income. However, the current situation is terrible and recovery does not look to be happening all that quickly.
I know it benefits you politcally do describe the economy as "not recovering", but most economists and analysts would disagree with you.
Even a cursory reading of those posts that disagree with you will show that what people are actually saying is that things are still pretty bad and any recovery that may be occuring is still small. Most (sane) economists and analysts would in fact be in agreement with this. You obviously read the CNN article (by economists and analysts at the IMF) that supports the contention that recovery is - so far - minor. If you don't trust all those foreign bankers, then maybe the fact that the Fed's most recent Beige Book supports the case as well will carry some weight with you.
Quote:
Reports from the twelve Federal Reserve districts provided additional signs that the pace of economic activity increased a notch during June and the first half of July. Only the Chicago, St. Louis, and San Francisco districts characterized economic activity as sluggish while Atlanta described conditions as mixed. Reports from the remaining districts suggested somewhat stronger growth in the weeks since the last Beige Book. Consistent with the generally more positive assessments of current economic activity, several districts noted increased optimism about economic prospects in coming months.
Read carefully. This is optimistic, but it is hardly throw-your-hands-up-in-the-air party time stuff.
Don't get me wrong. I am really hoping that the economy is on the mend, almost to the extent that I wouldn't mind Bush getting some undeserved credit for it. But it doesn't take a masters in economics or an MBA to know that it will take time.
Just to be fair, the article does mention that there are signs of eventual recovery. The GDP has increased and there was a slight increase in personal income. However, the current situation is terrible and recovery does not look to be happening all that quickly.
This is true however the problem with this is that it could follow a pattern I've seen before. That is weak recovery then slumping back into the dumps again. By the end of Bush's second term first year we could be right back where we were.
They are not actively seeking employment. They could perhaps be living off of savings, moving back in with their parents, or living like a bum on the streets. I'm sorry but I cannot account for every single one of those people but there are things people can do without a job.
Comments
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.
More rhetoric. I'd like some links on that claim, please. I'd also like a definition of "Real Spending Power" and "Typical Americans". Oh, and since the media saying the economy is recovering means it "bad", does that mean that when they said it was "bad" two and a half years ago it was really getting better? What the hell kind of measure is this? "Every time there has been a a stock decline in August, there has been high humidity and heat indices. Therefore, the economy is going to slump. " I'm using hyperbole of course, but you are sounding a lot like Monty Python right now.
People are working longer hours and making less; spending less time with their families, friends, and hobbies. Divorce, suicide, and depression rates have jumped.
People are sacrificing family time for a second income in many cases. I'm not sure how the rest of it is relevant in any way.
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.
1. Show me the numbers for the "gap". This is more liberal rhetoric. I'm surprised you didn't say "the rich get richer and poor get poorer". Home ownership is way up, as is income, BTW. In addition, could you please direct me to the relevant section of the US Constitution that says everyone must be bascially equal as far as income and standard of living is concerned? Take your time.
2. Pure emotionalism. "Stirring up trouble int he Middl East" (read: bringing Democracy and stability to the mniddle east while combatting interntaional terror) has NOTHING to do with Public School Funding. And really..."funds STOLEN"? I'm sorry, I thought it was the TAXPAYERS money. Silly me.
3. The Tax Burden? again...Show me. Acutally, you are 100% wrong about that claim. 100%. The Middle Class now pay LESS than they did. You absolutely amaze me!!! Where is you damnation of Clinton for passing the largest Middle Class Tax Increase in history?
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.
Tax Cuts are not "borrowing against" anything.
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.
Of course you will see your money. If you don't, there will be riots in the streets. Literally. I'll make the signs with you...how's that?
As far as the current leadership, Social Security has beena problem for years because it is ill-concived and was never intended to be permanment. Perhaps publicly mandadted retirement funds are the problem? Again, can you show me the section of the US Constitution that guarantees citizens the right to retire? Again, take your time. As for Social Security, maybe you should look at the flaws in the system that was created and its applications in the modern era, rather than blame on administration for the program's problems. Funny...I don;t seem to remember the last administration doing anything about it either.
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."
And again...how would you measure economic growth? Would you get 100 waiters together and take a poll? Would you ignore GDP, the markets and umemployment statistics?
If you are going to talk about spending power, you have to provide some numbers on income growth (which will not compliment your positions), inflation (which will also not compliment them), etc. With all due respect, you obviously don't have an understanding of fiscal and monetary policy and how the economy is measured.
"Oh look!...I got a $1.00 and hour raise and two of my friends got offered jobs! The economy is on the mend! The market is in the shitter and GDP is -5%, but REAL PEOPLE are doing great!
Originally posted by SDW2001
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!!!".
No, I wouldn't be shouting that. Please stop telling me what I would be doing.
If Bush came out and said that we supplied WOMD to Iraq and gave support to Hussein to fight a war with Iran that we didn't want to get directly involved in and now we want to correct that mistake, I would have been perfectly happy with that.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Tax Cuts are not "borrowing against" anything.
Wrong. They are when they aren't coupled with equal or greater spending cuts.
Originally posted by SDW2001
With all due respect, you obviously don't have an understanding of fiscal and monetary policy and how the economy is measured.
You don't get a free pass on personal attacks because you preface them with a formal nicety like "with all due respect." I'm not going report you. I don't feel like silencing the opposition. However, I'm just pointing out the fact that the blade cuts both ways.
Originally posted by SDW2001
gizz:
More rhetoric. I'd like some links on that claim, please. I'd also like a definition of "Real Spending Power" and "Typical Americans". Oh, and since the media saying the economy is recovering means it "bad", does that mean that when they said it was "bad" two and a half years ago it was really getting better? What the hell kind of measure is this? "Every time there has been a a stock decline in August, there has been high humidity and heat indices. Therefore, the economy is going to slump. " I'm using hyperbole of course, but you are sounding a lot like Monty Python right now.
People are sacrificing family time for a second income in many cases. I'm not sure how the rest of it is relevant in any way.
1. Show me the numbers for the "gap". This is more liberal rhetoric. I'm surprised you didn't say "the rich get richer and poor get poorer". Home ownership is way up, as is income, BTW. In addition, could you please direct me to the relevant section of the US Constitution that says everyone must be bascially equal as far as income and standard of living is concerned? Take your time.
2. Pure emotionalism. "Stirring up trouble int he Middl East" (read: bringing Democracy and stability to the mniddle east while combatting interntaional terror) has NOTHING to do with Public School Funding. And really..."funds STOLEN"? I'm sorry, I thought it was the TAXPAYERS money. Silly me.
3. The Tax Burden? again...Show me. Acutally, you are 100% wrong about that claim. 100%. The Middle Class now pay LESS than they did. You absolutely amaze me!!! Where is you damnation of Clinton for passing the largest Middle Class Tax Increase in history?
Tax Cuts are not "borrowing against" anything.
Of course you will see your money. If you don't, there will be riots in the streets. Literally. I'll make the signs with you...how's that?
As far as the current leadership, Social Security has beena problem for years because it is ill-concived and was never intended to be permanment. Perhaps publicly mandadted retirement funds are the problem? Again, can you show me the section of the US Constitution that guarantees citizens the right to retire? Again, take your time. As for Social Security, maybe you should look at the flaws in the system that was created and its applications in the modern era, rather than blame on administration for the program's problems. Funny...I don;t seem to remember the last administration doing anything about it either.
And again...how would you measure economic growth? Would you get 100 waiters together and take a poll? Would you ignore GDP, the markets and umemployment statistics?
If you are going to talk about spending power, you have to provide some numbers on income growth (which will not compliment your positions), inflation (which will also not compliment them), etc. With all due respect, you obviously don't have an understanding of fiscal and monetary policy and how the economy is measured.
"Oh look!...I got a $1.00 and hour raise and two of my friends got offered jobs! The economy is on the mend! The market is in the shitter and GDP is -5%, but REAL PEOPLE are doing great!
Uh, I don't know what parallel universe you come from but here's a little something about spending power and the economy " on the mend ".
http://money.cnn.com/2003/08/05/news...ence/index.htm
Also in case you're interested.........
http://money.cnn.com/2003/08/05/news...reut/index.htm
This doesn't sound like a sure thing to me. It sounds like you want us to accept what you're saying on a leap of faith because the facts aren't exactly saying the same thing.
Originally posted by BR
No, I wouldn't be shouting that. Please stop telling me what I would be doing.
If Bush came out and said that we supplied WOMD to Iraq and gave support to Hussein to fight a war with Iran that we didn't want to get directly involved in and now we want to correct that mistake, I would have been perfectly happy with that.
That wouldn't fly though. Be real. The fact is, there were more reasons to go to war than one can count on both both hands. Bush presented many of them, including WMD and links to terror...not to mention the humanitarian situation and stability of the region. But no matter how many reasons were given, some people won't be convinced. If Saddam had put chemical warheads on scuds and attackd Israel, we'd still have people screaming "No war for oil". Bush's mistake, if any, was to focus TOO HEAVILY on WMD.
It doesn't matter now, because there isn't much case that what we did was wrong. What you see as a deterioration of the American Image, I see as other "questionable" governments realizing that we mean business. In other words, if we say "regime change" or "disarm" or "stop supporting terror" we mean it. As I said, Lybia is now actively cooperating in the WOT. Gee, I wonder why? I think there is a serious underestimation of the "are we next?" factor and its ultimate effectiveness. (A lybian government official was quoted as saying "Will they come after us next?". Personally, I think this superb for them to be thinking this. Call me a cowboy if you will, but I think the President's message of "We're not ****ing around with you guys anymore" (so to speak) is quite effective. I wonder why Pakistan got its collective shit together in about two weeks after 9/11?
Originally posted by BR
Wrong. They are when they aren't coupled with equal or greater spending cuts.
No No No!!!
This is EXACTLY what is wrong with the liberal economic mindset. This is not a simple equation where we must do to one side what we do to another. As I've said, taxation is not a zero sum game. Though, I agree that we need big spending cuts anyway.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Be real.
*pinches himself* I am real. Don't worry, I won't report you for this although I'm not sure what would happen if the tables were turned.
The fact is, there were more reasons to go to war than one can count on both both hands.
The reason changed that many times, yes.
Bush presented many of them,
And couldn't decide which one was the real one.
including WMD
Show me the money.
and links to terror
Not the imminent threat against America type of terror.
not to mention the humanitarian situation and stability of the region.
And rwanda and the ivory coast and a myriad of other countries.
But no matter how many reasons were given, some people won't be convinced.
And no matter how many times reasons are refuted, some people won't be convinced. Blade cuts both ways.
If Saddam had put chemical warheads on scuds and attackd Israel, we'd still have people screaming "No war for oil".
And if no WMDs are found in the next twenty years some people will still be screaming "YEAH BUT HE HAD THEM THAT SNEAKY BASTARD!" There are stubborn, obstinate lunatics on both sides. *looks around the room innocently thinking real hard who those might be*
It doesn't matter now, because there isn't much case that what we did was wrong.
Sure there isn't, if you cover your ears and close your eyes.
What you see as a deterioration of the American Image I see as other "questionable" governments realizing that we mean business. In other words, if we say "regime change" or "disarm" or "stop supporting terror" we mean it. As I said, Lybia is now actively cooperating in the WOT. Gee, I wonder why? I think there is a serious underestimation of the "are we next?" factor and its ultimate effectiveness. (A lybian government official was quoted as saying "Will they come after us next?". Personally, I think this superb for them to be thinking this. Call me a cowboy if you will, but I think the President's message of "We're not ****ing around with you guys anymore" (so to speak) is quite effective. I wonder why Pakistan got its collective shit together in about two weeks after 9/11?
Fruit from a poison tree.
Ends don't justify the means.
<insert other cliche here>
Originally posted by SDW2001
That wouldn't fly though. Be real. The fact is, there were more reasons to go to war than one can count on both both hands. Bush presented many of them, including WMD and links to terror...not to mention the humanitarian situation and stability of the region. But no matter how many reasons were given, some people won't be convinced. If Saddam had put chemical warheads on scuds and attackd Israel, we'd still have people screaming "No war for oil". Bush's mistake, if any, was to focus TOO HEAVILY on WMD.
It doesn't matter now, because there isn't much case that what we did was wrong. What you see as a deterioration of the American Image, I see as other "questionable" governments realizing that we mean business. In other words, if we say "regime change" or "disarm" or "stop supporting terror" we mean it. As I said, Lybia is now actively cooperating in the WOT. Gee, I wonder why? I think there is a serious underestimation of the "are we next?" factor and its ultimate effectiveness. (A lybian government official was quoted as saying "Will they come after us next?". Personally, I think this superb for them to be thinking this. Call me a cowboy if you will, but I think the President's message of "We're not ****ing around with you guys anymore" (so to speak) is quite effective. I wonder why Pakistan got its collective shit together in about two weeks after 9/11?
" Bush's mistake, if any, was to focus TOO HEAVILY on WMD. "
Originally posted by SDW2001
No No No!!!
This is EXACTLY what is wrong with the liberal economic mindset. This is not a simple equation where we must do to one side what we do to another. As I've said, taxation is not a zero sum game. Though, I agree that we need big spending cuts anyway.
Who made you the god of taxation? It damn well should be a zero sum game. That's what you whined about when clinton was hoarding his surpluses. OH NO IT DOESN'T BALANCE HOW DARE HE KEEP OUR EXTRA MONEY!!!
Eggo.
Originally posted by jimmac
Uh, I don't know what parallel universe you come from but here's a little something about spending power and the economy " on the mend ".
http://money.cnn.com/2003/08/05/news...ence/index.htm
Also in case you're interested.........
http://money.cnn.com/2003/08/05/news...reut/index.htm
This doesn't sound like a sure thing to me. It sounds like you want us to accept what you're saying on a leap of faith because the facts aren't exactly saying the same thing.
Yes, Yes, jimmac. We know. Keep finding those links. The consumer confidence number is NOT bad. It's not GREAT either...but it has improved greatly since the spring...if you actually read anything other than the headline.
The IMF "article" (all three paragraphjs of it) is REALLY vague, and contradicts itself.
In its review of the U.S. economy, the International Monetary Fund expressed concern about the erosion in the government budget position, due in part to the latest tax cuts.
"erosion in the government budget position".....oh OK. I can only assume this means deficits. Now, the take last phrase on tax cuts and compare it with this last sentence:
he Washington-based lender said "decisive action" was needed on the fiscal front.
Ummm...fiscal policy. There are two categories of this: Taxes and Spending. The onyl real thing the government can do to stimulate the economy on the fiscal side is cut taxes. It's done that twice and now it appears such action is starting to help. The delay is no surprise because Economic Lag Theory states that economic policy changes often take 2-3 years to take effect. in addition, the government has also manipulated monetary policy (interest rates).
I know it benefits you politcally do describe the economy as "not recovering", but most economists and analysts would disagree with you.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Yes, Yes, jimmac. We know. Keep finding those links. The consumer confidence number is NOT bad. It's not GREAT either...but it has improved greatly since the spring...if you actually read anything other than the headline.
The IMF "article" (all three paragraphjs of it) is REALLY vague, and contradicts itself.
"erosion in the government budget position".....oh OK. I can only assume this means deficits. Now, the take last phrase on tax cuts and compare it with this last sentence:
Ummm...fiscal policy. There are two categories of this: Taxes and Spending. The onyl real thing the government can do to stimulate the economy on the fiscal side is cut taxes. It's done that twice and now it appears such action is starting to help. The delay is no surprise because Economic Lag Theory states that economic policy changes often take 2-3 years to take effect. in addition, the government has also manipulated monetary policy (interest rates).
I know it benefits you politcally do describe the economy as "not recovering", but most economists and analysts would disagree with you.
And you keep in denial..........
-------------------------------------------------------------
" The consumer confidence number is NOT bad. It's not GREAT either... "
-------------------------------------------------------------
You've been saying stuff like this for months now.........
US jobless rate falls
The US unemployment rate has fallen, but the drop was down to fewer workers searching for jobs rather than more jobs being created.
Official figures showed the jobless rate fell to 6.2% last month, down from 6.4% in June when US unemployment reached its highest level for nine years.
The data suggests that sluggish economic growth is still leading the US economy to shed jobs, with July seeing a net loss of 44,000 jobs, following a revised loss of 72,000 jobs in June.
Meanwhile some 556,000 workers left the potential pool of workers, discouraged that no jobs were available.
They are no longer counted as unemployed because they are not actively searching for work.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3117145.stm
Please inform the 44,000 newly unemployed and 556,000 discouraged technically no longer unemployed Americans that the economy is doing just fine.
Originally posted by Existence
More gloomy news:
I dare you to tell the economy is rebounding to the unemployed.
thanks existance!
Originally posted by BR
Just to preempt SDW from trumpeting about the fall in unemployment...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3117145.stm
Please inform the 44,000 newly unemployed and 556,000 discouraged technically no longer unemployed Americans that the economy is doing just fine.
question: What then are these 556000 doing?
Originally posted by SDW2001
I know it benefits you politcally do describe the economy as "not recovering", but most economists and analysts would disagree with you.
Even a cursory reading of those posts that disagree with you will show that what people are actually saying is that things are still pretty bad and any recovery that may be occuring is still small. Most (sane) economists and analysts would in fact be in agreement with this. You obviously read the CNN article (by economists and analysts at the IMF) that supports the contention that recovery is - so far - minor. If you don't trust all those foreign bankers, then maybe the fact that the Fed's most recent Beige Book supports the case as well will carry some weight with you.
Reports from the twelve Federal Reserve districts provided additional signs that the pace of economic activity increased a notch during June and the first half of July. Only the Chicago, St. Louis, and San Francisco districts characterized economic activity as sluggish while Atlanta described conditions as mixed. Reports from the remaining districts suggested somewhat stronger growth in the weeks since the last Beige Book. Consistent with the generally more positive assessments of current economic activity, several districts noted increased optimism about economic prospects in coming months.
Read carefully. This is optimistic, but it is hardly throw-your-hands-up-in-the-air party time stuff.
Don't get me wrong. I am really hoping that the economy is on the mend, almost to the extent that I wouldn't mind Bush getting some undeserved credit for it. But it doesn't take a masters in economics or an MBA to know that it will take time.
Originally posted by BR
Just to be fair, the article does mention that there are signs of eventual recovery. The GDP has increased and there was a slight increase in personal income. However, the current situation is terrible and recovery does not look to be happening all that quickly.
This is true however the problem with this is that it could follow a pattern I've seen before. That is weak recovery then slumping back into the dumps again. By the end of Bush's second term first year we could be right back where we were.
Originally posted by Sondjata
question: What then are these 556000 doing?
They are not actively seeking employment. They could perhaps be living off of savings, moving back in with their parents, or living like a bum on the streets. I'm sorry but I cannot account for every single one of those people but there are things people can do without a job.