|The worst economy since Hoover was in office||moneyman|
Oct 30, 2003 8:26 AM
|From the Wall Street Journal today:
Gross domestic product, a measure of all the goods and services produced in the U.S., expanded at a greater than expected 7.2% annual rate for the third quarter, more than double the 3.3% rate in the second quarter.
I think we should rescind the tax cuts right away because they are obviously doing what they were intended to do. Why, if this keeps up we could all end up rich! Oh, the outrage....
|That's just the WSJ||TJeanloz|
Oct 30, 2003 8:36 AM
|Wait until the Guardian gets a hold of those figures, I'm sure they'll find some bad news in them.|
Oct 30, 2003 8:50 AM
|I saw that today in the NY Times - that is (seriously) something to be proud of - no other way to spin it
|Maybe yes, maybe no.||MR_GRUMPY|
Oct 30, 2003 9:11 AM
|All I can say is, It ain't happenin' where I sit.
|An amazing story||moneyman|
Oct 30, 2003 9:51 AM
|From the author:
It would be hard for the economy not to surge when you consider how much money the administration has poured into it in the form of tax cuts and government spending.
Wasn't that the point?
|Is runaway government spending a Repub principle?||OldEdScott|
Oct 30, 2003 9:55 AM
|I think I'm missing something.|
|Of course you're missing something...||No_sprint|
Oct 30, 2003 10:00 AM
|You see with blinders.
By the way, according to your view, I guess many sexual assaults are just fine right? Since they're not *sexual relations*?
|No - Leave that alone...||moneyman|
Oct 30, 2003 10:23 AM
|OES asked about runaway spending, not runaway morals.
When one agrees with what the money is being spent on, it is a "necessary investment." When one disagrees, it is "runaway spending."
The total size of the projected federal deficit is the largest in history. As a percentage of GDP, it is nowhere near that mark. The economy is large enough and robust enough to absorb the deficit. Given a few quarters of economic growth AND increased federal receipts that come from the growth, the deficit will be eliminated. Provided, that is, that our friends in Congress, from both sides of the aisle, restrain themselves from spending it all.
|Sorry, it's quite disturbing. nm||No_sprint|
Oct 30, 2003 10:25 AM
|It was the political point||critmass|
Oct 30, 2003 10:45 AM
|The real (Rove/Dubya) purpose of the tax cuts was to dump money into the economy and cause positive election year cycle results. The question isn't whether or not it's possible to spike the economy with sugar it's what the long term sustainability and consequences will be. Will this kind of performance be steady and sustainable? Where will the next sugar come from if needed? Is it a result of irresponsible policies that will burden future generations? If cold one way to generate heat is to burn the furniture or even burn the house down. We have to wait and see performance over a longer term. For a number of reasons, none of them simply political like Rove and Dubya, I hope the economy does boom.
But then isn't it strange that the economy of the 90's couldn't possibly have been attributed to Clinton. Are conservatives now suggesting that the economy (short term at that) can be readily manipulated to positive results by a president? If so why the change?
The real costs of Dubya's lies
As of 10/30/03
414 grieving families
Total U.S. wounded 2084
Total deaths March 20th to aircraft carrier Victory announcement May 2nd: 172.
Total deaths May 2nd to October 30: 242
|Right on! nm||RoyGBiv|
Oct 30, 2003 12:19 PM
|It's great news!||OldEdScott|
Oct 30, 2003 9:39 AM
|Give us another great quarter -- two in a row is key, I think -- and we can conclude that the Clinton Economy was so robust that it has survived even the depredations of Bush's royalist incompetence!|
|Nice try! I gotta give you credit :O) But ...||Live Steam|
Oct 30, 2003 11:19 AM
|Clinton benefited from a whole new sector of industry that had never existed prior. The Internet boom created hundreds of thousands of jobs out of thin air. They disappeared almost as quickly. That is what makes this turn around is so remarkable. Getting the economy to flourish without them, is a real measure of success.|
|Too fast, will Fed increase interest rates? nm||Continental|
Oct 30, 2003 12:11 PM
|Span Man says they'll stay at these levels for a while nm||Live Steam|
Oct 30, 2003 12:19 PM
|Is that what's next?||DJB|
Oct 30, 2003 12:21 PM
|Bush being blamed for the economy rising TOO fast?
The poor guy can't win! LOL
|Isn't it amazing? nm||Live Steam|
Oct 30, 2003 12:34 PM
|These guys can change direction faster than Barry Sanders! (nm)||DJB|
Oct 30, 2003 1:12 PM
|No doubt, and they find bliss in their ignorance...||No_sprint|
Oct 30, 2003 2:02 PM
|Anyone who is so clueless about economics to think that Clinton was *responsible* for the economic conditions present during really only some of his years is entirely too ignorant of the subject to hold any kind of intelligent conversation about it.
It's a big ship and mere mortals can only prod it here and there.
|The question to ask is...||dr hoo|
Oct 30, 2003 2:23 PM
|... who has been left out of this rise in the economy? THAT is the question that will be asked over the next year. People who feel left out might not care about the numbers. With many getting 0% raises this year, and paying more for health insurance, that 7% "boom" plus $2.99 will buy you a happy meal.
Give me 2 more quarters of 3% growth and I will be happy. Give the dems a groundswell for nationalized health insurance and they win huge. The two things are not mutually exclusive.
|I don't believe we will EVER have nationalized health care...||Live Steam|
Oct 30, 2003 2:29 PM
|no matter who is in power. It won't happen.|
|Read very carefully.||dr hoo|
Oct 30, 2003 2:39 PM
|National.... Health .... INSURANCE.
We already have national health insurance. For the old. And for the poor. Why not offer it to everyone?
Why not let the government compete as an insurance provider?
Oct 30, 2003 2:53 PM
|They would surely lose. Nothing is more inherently wasteful and inefficient. Fiscally, we are all better off with more of our own money in our own pockets.|
|Waste and inefficiencies like:||dr hoo|
Oct 31, 2003 4:30 AM
|More people in the billing departments at hospitals than giving care to patients?
Enough extra money floating around for 4 levels of subcontracting in filling out the paper work?
A labor market so efficient that there is a critical and growing shortage of nurses, with no improvement in sight? At the same time, studies show that lower level nurses (associates degree) do a poorer job and lead to more deaths and complications and expense than RNs. Guess what for profit medical care does? Yep, don't hire the RNs because they are too expensive and that hurts profits!
Waste like costs going up WAY more than the rate of inflation for decades?
Keep in mind that you are more likely to die at a for profit hospital than a not for profit one. What efficiencies produced by capitalistic medicine does THAT show?
Your brilliant and well spouted lines of ideology have swayed me that our current systems is doing a GREAT job!
|Waste and inefficiencies like:||Continental|
Oct 31, 2003 6:19 AM
|Throw in some more: Uninsured going to expensive emergency rooms for routine healthcare. Woefully inadequate preventative healthcare, with immunization rates falling. Employers not hiring workers because of health care costs. Workers with health care coverage afraid to move to higher skilled jobs because they'll lose coverage. I'm against socialism, but I can see that our healthcare system needs serious reform.|
|You smart guys ever see government workers *work*?||No_sprint|
Oct 31, 2003 8:12 AM
|LOL I've been in the trenches. Perhaps there are no answers at all, however, I know for sure, government is not one of the better possibilities.
Perhaps you smart guys should be in the proper position to take charge. If you've got all the answers, why aren't you already there?
|re: Thats what the Bush Admin wants you to think||jrm|
Oct 30, 2003 3:27 PM
|And they'll gladly take credit for it too. And if theres any doubt about the figure they'll say its those pesky anti-american democratics.
But its a jobless increase just the same. Just because theres a increased supply doesnt mean theres going to be any demand. If the average joe smo got a $300 rebate you better beleive it went towards the payment of something due to a overextension of credit.
|Still missing: Osama, Saddam & 2.8 million jobs||torquer|
Oct 31, 2003 12:42 PM
|Don't break out that "mission accomplished" banner just yet.|
|Those jobs appeared out of thin air and ...||Live Steam|
Oct 31, 2003 3:09 PM
|that's where they went. Dotcoms sprout out of nowhere and they aren't likely to reappear any time soon.
As for your other point, I don't think anyone is naive enough to believe that it would be easy and that either would be caught readily. They are, however running and their terrorist infrastructure is severely damaged. Why is it so difficult for Bush detractors to see that positive things are happening?
More importantly I still have yet to make it to a Gimbel's ride :O)
|This is what amazes me.....||CARBON110|
Oct 31, 2003 8:58 PM
|I can understand peolpe being loyal to their party however, how the Republicans here can tell others with a straight face that GW hasnt screwed up majorely is hard to swallow. You guys make him sound like JFK or something great. He has made unimaginable mistakes that are effecting our country now and in the future. His foreign policy is and has been HORRIBLE! A great leader doesnt alienate the world, they know how to get people to do what they wants through wisdom,manipulation, bargining and looking beyond others arrogance etc. Always looking to the future and reading the past has allowed our world to avoid conflict after conflict. Or at least win the ones that we ahve to confront
He spends money like no one else period with NO long term goals..long term!! He has more special interest groups influencing policy then anyone anywhere! I don;t believe anything he says since he uses anything from 9/11 to whatever to justify his actions. The Bush administration is the most obviously misleading/untruthful Presidency since Nixon. The only reason he has gotten away with so much is 9/11 and the incompetance of the Democrats
|What exactly made Kennedy a great President?||Live Steam|
Nov 1, 2003 1:07 PM
|He was in office for 3 years. What did he actually do that made him, in your eyes, great? He was personable, I'll give you that, but what did he do, other than die a martyr, that has his Presidency is considered among one of the greatest, in the eyes of the Democrats? He was the first TV Presidet and his life and lifestye looked great in magazines and on TV. He was flamboyant, rich and his wife was considered to be one of the beautiful people, but I don't see any greatness. Sorry. Well maybe the Cuban Missile Crisis was a bold move. I'll give you that.
Your idea that GW should have formed a coalition is false. First of all he did form a coalition. The US and dozens of other countries, including GB, joined in the fight against terrorism and Saddam. France, Russia and Germany didn't and never would have joined such a coalition for obvious reasons. Saddam owed them billions of dollars which they wnated to collect on, but will never collect now that he is gone. Their motives were transparent and self serving. GW mad a tough choice and has a lot at stake. He could have taken the easy road and lobbed a few bombs at Afganistan and Iraq just like Clinton did, but that would have sent a very weak message, just like Clinton did.
Just what conflicts were avoided? I don't understand that statement. Who says we are not winning this conflict, CBS, NBC, CNN, The NY Times? Who? Everything you posted is broad and unsupported. What is untruthful? What are you refering to? Can you support that allegation? I don't think you can.
The economy is on a speedy recovery due to bold initiatives he and the Republican Congress have put in place. Talk to me in 12 - 18 months about the economy and tell me then that these initiatives didn't work. Right now the signs are pretty evident they are working. About the only thing you said of substance is that the Democrats are incompetent :O)
Nov 3, 2003 7:52 AM
|I will post my evidence tonight. Of course, we can continue this discussion as two people attempting to reveal what we beliee the truth to be... ie a friendly discussion. I'd like you to try and convinve me he, GW, is a good pres. This however is equally as long a shot as me convincing you he is not. By the way, even though I like Democrats more then Republicans USUALLY this does not mean Iam not open minded enough to deny a good politician when I see one :)|
|I look forward to it. I will post ....||Live Steam|
Nov 3, 2003 8:35 AM
|my end subsequent to yours. I think that is fair since I asked the question :O) I agree on recgonizing a good politician when I see one. How's this. Clinton is a great politician!!! :O)|| |