PDA

View Full Version : Clinton's recession long



eg8r
10-06-2003, 12:37 PM
This is a long quote (and not nearly everything) so feel free to skip it if you would like. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif I am posting this because for some reason, Q thinks the latest recession is Bush's fault. He also for some reason does not understand the difference between deficit and recession. No one argues that Bush is a big spender and should be controlled a little better, but he is pulling us out of the horrible economy that Clinton left for us. Below is a quote from the iconoclast website.

For all the naysayers, I have included at the end, the few "good" things that Clinton did in office as it pertains to the economy (funny that each one was helped along by the Republicans).

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Iconoclast:</font><hr>As the economy in 2003 struggles to regain its footing, after the bursting of the Clinton bubble at the turn of the century and the trauma of the 2001 recession, Americans are currently paying a steep price -- in terms of reduced output, sluggish growth, and lost jobs -- for Clinton's misconceived policies and unfortunate actions. We are likely to be doing so for years to come.

The bill of particulars for Clinton's economic mismanagement includes:

<ul type="square"> a crippling increase in marginal income tax rates 10 years ago that remains the single greatest impediment to economic recovery today, despite the recent modest partial rate rollback;&lt;br&gt;
further legislative actions inimical to saving, investment, and job creation; &lt;br&gt;
systematic abuse of the regulatory mechanism, including the use of executive orders and litigation to mount an unprecedented assault on the property rights of businesses and individuals; and&lt;br&gt;
a pervasive undermining of the rule of law by the executive branch that severely damaged the moral and ethical tone of American life and spilled over into the business climate, with unhappy results for the economy.
[/list]

Let's examine each of these factors in more detail.

<font color="#000080">Taxing Productive Activity </font color>

A key element of Ronald Reagan's rescue of the US economy in the 1980s was the sharp reduction of marginal federal income tax rates, which dropped from 70% in the top bracket to 28% by the time Reagan left office in 1989. Regrettably, George H.W. Bush subsequently agreed to raise that rate to 31% in the disastrous 1990 tax hike that prolonged and deepened the 1990-91 recession and probably cost him the 1992 election.

The Clinton tax hike of 1993 was actually more severe, but the timing was more propitious. It occurred during the extended recovery that had begun on Bush Sr.'s watch in March 1991 and that conveniently served to mask much of the detrimental impact of the Clinton tax increase on business activity -- until the next cyclical downturn made it clear how much that tax increase had weakened the economic structure and the incentive to participate in productive endeavors. The 1993 legislation retroactively raised personal income taxes and elevated the top marginal income tax rate by more than eight additional percentage points to a whopping 39.6% -- almost half again as high as the level under Reagan.

The effects were ultimately devastating. As its name implies, the income tax is levied not on accumulated wealth (a "tax on the rich," as the press often portrays it), but on productive pursuits -- including work, saving, investment, and entrepreneurial risk. All else remaining equal, the more you tax something, the less you get of it. Decisions are usually made at the margin, and decisions to undertake additional productive economic activity are strongly influenced by the marginal tax rate applied to the income this activity generates. This is true in prosperity as well as recession, but the effects are less noticeable while opportunities are plentiful to earn more income, even if the government takes a bigger bite out of it. Thus, the disincentive effects of the massive tax increase -- occurring during the economic boom that Clinton inherited -- were less noticeable in the early 1990s than after the hard times finally came around at the end of the decade and the diminished incentives to engage in productive activity began to bite.

Supporters of Clinton will argue that his tax increase helped to balance the federal budget and create the surpluses of the late 1990s. But this is a dubious claim that ignores the feedback effects of tax-rate changes on the tax base (i.e., on taxable income) -- witness the real decline in personal income tax revenues following Bush Sr.'s 1990 tax rate hike. It's likely that over the years, Clinton's 1993 tax increase was essentially a wash in terms of federal revenues, as the erosion of the tax base from the disincentives of higher marginal rates offset much of the revenue-raising potential of those higher rates.

The fact is that the federal budget was balanced in the late 1990s as a result of two principal forces, neither of which had anything to do with the policies of Bill Clinton -- the growing economy that carried over from the Reagan years, and the spending limitations put into place under Bush Sr. and reinforced in subsequent years by the Republican Congress.

In fact, the Clinton administration and the Congressional Budget Office continually projected large deficits throughout his term in office, and they were as surprised as anyone when the strong economy coupled with spending caps produced the unexpected surpluses.

<font color="#000080">More Bad Acts</font color>

Injurious as it was, the heavier tax burden was not the only source of the damage that occurred to the economic structure under Clinton. Other items on his legislative agenda were enacted that placed a further burden on businesses and served to deter job creation -- both during his term in office and in the subsequent recession and anemic recovery. These items include the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993. In the past, arrangements for workers in the private sector to take time off for personal reasons had traditionally been left to employers and employees to work out between themselves -- either through collective bargaining or through individual agreements on a case-by-case basis. Under Clinton's legislation, they became a government mandate and an expensive new entitlement. Whatever its merits, the new law clearly imposed an extra burden on businesses, raising the cost of hiring and maintaining an adequate work force and jeopardizing existing and future jobs.

An additional job killer was the increased minimum wage, which rose by 21% to $5.15 an hour during Clinton's term in office. Humanitarian as it may sound to mandate higher entry-level wages, the effects are invariably perverse. Employers cannot afford to pay workers more than their value added for any length of time, and it's a reasonably settled proposition in economics that over the years, businesses inevitably adjust their labor/capital mix to reflect higher relative labor costs. A large number of entry-level jobs are likely to disappear within a few years after the government raises the minimum wage, especially when the business cycle turns down and each worker generates less additional revenue. Thus, after predictable lags, the higher minimum wage serves to cut off the bottom rung of the employment ladder for the young and the poor and new entrants to the labor force who, over time, find their job opportunities substantially reduced. This clearly occurred as the 20th century drew to a close, and it is one of the reasons why the economic recovery has so far failed to generate a resurgence in employment.

Taken together, the combined burden of Clinton's tax increase and higher mandated costs fell most heavily on small businesses, which typically produce a high proportion of US goods and services and are usually responsible for creating the majority of new jobs in the economy. The added burden has severely limited their ability and incentive to add workers during the recovery from the recent recession. For example, a new study by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York concludes that in contrast to earlier recessions and previous "jobless recoveries," the current episode is characterized to a much greater degree by the permanent destruction of jobs rather than temporary layoffs. In my view, there is little doubt that a major cause of this situation was the legislation enacted under the Clinton administration that made it more and more expensive to hire and retain workers and that encouraged the substitution of capital for labor -- a conclusion supported by recent productivity data reflecting that substitution.

Finally, it is worth mentioning one more damaging piece of legislation of the early Clinton years that affects you most severely if you are a US senior citizen (or plan to become one some day): the 1993 Social Security "reform" that provided for taxing up to 85% of your benefits above a certain low threshold. Of course, this is not really a tax on the benefits -- it's a tax based upon the other income you earn, including otherwise "tax-exempt" interest income, that puts you above the threshold. In other words, it's an additional tax on the income generated from a lifetime of saving as well as from current productive activity, and it clearly has a negative effect on the personal savings rate -- and thus on business investment -- as well as on labor force participation.

<font color="#000080">Regulatory Abuse</font color>

Clinton came to power at a time when the US economy was in excellent health and needed no assistance from the government to keep it running. It was already taking care of itself rather nicely, generating rapid growth in output and employment with inflation squeezed out of the system. But the activist new president couldn't leave well enough alone, and he presided over an energetic administration brimming with some really bad ideas about how to "fix" an economy that wasn't broken. Among the more bizarre proposals were the nationalization of healthcare, a BTU (energy) tax that would probably have choked off the recovery then and there, and the introduction of "industrial policy" -- Japanese-style government-directed resource allocation of the kind that has helped to produce a decade of stagnation in that once-healthy Asian economy.

Fortunately, these proposals were all shot down, mostly in the Democratic Congress of 1993-94. And the ensuing Republican control of the House of Representatives ensured that Gridlock would continue to thwart the most damaging ideas emanating from the restless spirits in the executive branch. Indeed, the Gridlock of the 1990s is one of the Four Gs (&lt;i&gt;see Part One of this series below&lt;/i&gt;) to which I attribute the prosperity of that era -- to the extent it resulted from the electorate's antipathy to Clinton's overreaching, his political ineptitude inadvertently helped to save the economy from the worst ideas of his own administration. This development also paved the way for the enactment into law of such GOP proposals as further federal spending limitations, welfare reform, and a cut in the capital gains tax -- good ideas that were forced upon Clinton by Congressional Republicans and that helped the economy to continue prospering during his presidency.

Unfortunately, the thwarting of Clinton's legislative initiatives may have served to encourage him to turn to other means to further his economic agenda, giving rise to the Clinton-sanctioned regulatory abuse that did considerable long-lasting damage to the economy and almost certainly contributed to the sluggish business climate and absence of job creation of the last three years. Even as Bill Clinton grandly (and absurdly) proclaimed that the "era of big government is over" in his 1995 State of the Union Address, his administration kept right on loading bigger and more onerous regulatory and redistributive intrusions onto the backs of businesses large and small.

Under Clinton, few areas of private life -- in the workplace, the environment, health and safety, or anywhere else -- were exempt from the intrusion of big government. When legislation was forestalled and regulation would not suffice or was not quick enough to suit his purposes, Clinton ruled by executive order -- unilaterally trampling on individual rights, property rights and states' rights in the areas of environmentalism, affirmative action, emergency powers, and Internet regulation, among others. It's doubtful that he -- or the White House counsel or even the Justice Department -- ever gave a moment's thought to the dubious or nonexistent Constitutional authority for these actions.

<font color="#000080">The Rule Of Law</font color>

In a similar disregard for Constitutional authority and the climate of doing business in the United States, the Clinton White House and Justice Department repeatedly engaged in litigious attacks on American companies and industries -- making war on tobacco, guns, Microsoft, and any number of other juicy targets. The administration attempted to put the tobacco industry under the thumb of the Food &amp; Drug Administration; and other politically unpopular businesses found themselves stripped of traditional legal rights as the executive branch joined with, or actively supported, the predatory plaintiff bar in pursuing abusive, extortionist litigation. While the effects can't be easily quantified, the increased burden on business stemming from the oppressive legal and regulatory climate of the 1990s is almost certainly one of the major impediments to a robust recovery at the current time.

Also difficult to quantify is the impact on the business climate of the Clinton administration's repeated attempts to cover up its many and varied scandals and thwart investigations, it's wanton disregard of almost every provision of the Bill of Rights, and its frequent assaults on property rights and economic liberty. In my view, these have had the cumulative effect of further damaging the rule of law and eroding the indispensable institutions of civil society that make it possible to conduct business and participate in market activity.

The high-flying, zoom-and-boom, lie-and-cheat, get-rich-quick bubble economy of the Clinton era didn't occur in a vacuum. The fish rots from the head, and so does the moral tone and ethical climate in which individuals and businesses make decisions. The fraudulent and criminal activity that corporations, accounting firms, and their executives engaged in can never be justified or blamed on society, and they need to be prosecuted in the civil and criminal courts to the bitter end and the miscreants appropriately punished. But it can't be ignored that all of these depredations occurred in the context of a national climate conditioned by corruption and scandal at the very top of political society. Few if any corporate scandals approaching this magnitude occurred during the so-called "decade of greed" of the 1980s, a period that looks positively innocent in light of the anything-goes atmosphere of the 1990s, which from the top (including both Clintons) on down may well earn a place in history as the "decade of thieves."

<font color="#000080">What Clinton (Reluctantly Or Inadvertently) Did Right</font color>

Still, the 1990s will be remembered as a period of relative prosperity, and it is worthwhile to ask whether Clinton deserves any credit at all for that achievement. The answer is a qualified "yes, but." Despite the overwhelming negatives discussed above, I can suggest four areas in which Clinton grudgingly or unintentionally made a positive contribution to the economic success of his era:

1. Clinton's reappointment of a Republican holdover, Alan Greenspan, to the chairmanship of the Federal Reserve Board. Clinton's more-rational advisers from the financial community and economics profession apparently prevailed in this instance, and we may all be thankful that this was one of the few cases where he was willing to let well enough alone.

2. Clinton's inability to get two of his major economic initiatives enacted during his first term. These were the stimulus package and the health plan, either of which could have torpedoed the noninflationary economic recovery that began in March 1991 under Bush Sr. And as noted above, to the extent that Clinton's policies led to his party's loss of the House of Representatives and the advent of divided government, we can give him further credit for the political gridlock that forestalled passage of much of his proposed legislation that would have been highly detrimental to the economy.

3. Clinton's reluctant and belated support of trade agreements initiated by his Republican predecessors. These included the North American Free Trade Agreement and legislation paving the way for US participation in the new World Trade Organization. These initiatives are still controversial, but whatever their flaws, most economists would agree that they have helped to move the regional and world economies in the direction of free and open international trade.

4. Clinton's reluctant acceptance of major Republican initiatives after his party lost full control of the legislative branch. Such legislation as welfare reform, a tax cut on capital gains, and spending restrictions may have been forced on him by the opposition party, but in the end he signed them and grabbed the credit, even as he helped to make Gingrich's "Contract With America" a reality.
<hr /></blockquote>

Here is the article (http://www.iconoclast.ca/MainPage.asp?page=/newPage20.asp) This section was taken from a section down the page.

eg8r

Wally_in_Cincy
10-06-2003, 01:46 PM
Q responds:

That,s all well and good eg8r

but

-

-

what about TULIA ??? /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

SPetty
10-06-2003, 01:47 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> ...so feel free to skip it if you would like. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif <hr /></blockquote>Oh man, now I feel bad. I've been skipping the "eg8r &amp; Qtec" show for months (and months and months...) now. And now I find that I needed permission! hahaha /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

May I also have permission to skip the "rackmup &amp; all those others" show?

eg8r
10-06-2003, 07:28 PM
No problem. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif No need to ask permission either. We all come here on our own free will.

eg8r

Qtec
10-07-2003, 05:04 AM
Can you read? I posted this right in the begining.

[ QUOTE ]
Monday, 26 November, 2001, 22:06 GMT
US officially enters recession


The US recession, which observers worldwide have predicted for months, has officially begun.
The National Bureau of Economic Research, an official panel of senior economists, has declared that the US entered recession in March this year.



Since then, the decline in the US economy has been further undermined by the 11 September terrorist attacks on Washington and New York.

The US economy has suffered 10 recessions since the end of World War II, the last of which was in March 1991 . <font color="blue"> Bush Sr was President </font color>

The past 10 years of economic growth have been the longest period of expansion in US history, the NBER said . <font color="blue"> Clinton was President. What is it you dont understand?? </font color>

July recovery

But the US economy is likely to recover by July 2002 according to information on previous post-war recessions, NBER committee member Ben Bernanke said.

"Based on past experience, we expect the turnaround to begin anytime from now until July," Mr Bernanke told the BBC's World Business Report. <font color="blue"> This says that GW had nothing to do with it. </font color>


The last US recession stretched from the middle of 1990 to March 1991 after which the record period of expansion began.

The NBER scrutinises monthly figures for employment, income, industrial output and wholesale and retail trade.

Other economists technically define a recession as a six month period of negative growth.

<hr /></blockquote>

According to you , every recession is the fault of the Dems and every period of growth comes from the Reps. Its ridiculous.

Q

eg8r
10-07-2003, 06:27 AM
[ QUOTE ]
The past 10 years of economic growth have been the longest period of expansion in US history, the NBER said . Clinton was President. What is it you dont understand??

<hr /></blockquote> What I don't understand is how your skull grew so thick. Did you read the articles I put on here. They clearly explain what happened while Clinton was in office. This article on this thread is perfectly clear. Clinton rode the wave of his predecessors and shut up when it was time.

Because that fool sat in the White House does not mean he did anything constructive.

I have a question for you Q (and I really do not expect you to answer it thoughtfully)...Can you give an example of economic growth through taxation? No one help Q, he should do just fine with his little search engines.

eg8r &lt;~~~Now positive that Q does not think when he posts

Sid_Vicious
10-07-2003, 08:30 AM
Q...One thing I've learned is that there are more staunch, radically spewing conservative republicans than mushy, liberal thinking democrats. For as much as reps complain about bleeding heart liberals, some of them get the prize for over-expression of their own beliefs, especially this one which wants to always go back and say that it wasn't Clinton's 8 years of prosperity, but Reagan's brilliance that let it trickle down. BUNK! Ya know what Q? You can't argue with these guys. Any time that people want to use logic like that, you can basically give up cuz what they are doing is purely and simply manufacturing a what-if, which you and I know, never-did. It's not even funny how much negative effects to our economy republican administrations have had for as long as I've been living. The best thing they seem to know is to start the war machine up again and pad their buddy's pockets in big business...sid~~~never knew he was a democrat until being confronted with the lunacy of GW

Wally_in_Cincy
10-07-2003, 09:22 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Sid_Vicious:</font><hr>

.....sid~~~never knew he was a democrat until being confronted with the lunacy of GW <hr /></blockquote>

does that mean you have never voted?

cheesemouse
10-07-2003, 09:42 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Sid_Vicious:</font><hr> Q...One thing I've learned is that there are more staunch, radically spewing conservative republicans than mushy, liberal thinking democrats. For as much as reps complain about bleeding heart liberals, some of them get the prize for over-expression of their own beliefs, especially this one which wants to always go back and say that it wasn't Clinton's 8 years of prosperity, but Reagan's brilliance that let it trickle down. BUNK! Ya know what Q? You can't argue with these guys. Any time that people want to use logic like that, you can basically give up cuz what they are doing is purely and simply manufacturing a what-if, which you and I know, never-did. It's not even funny how much negative effects to our economy republican administrations have had for as long as I've been living. The best thing they seem to know is to start the war machine up again and pad their buddy's pockets in big business...sid~~~never knew he was a democrat until being confronted with the lunacy of GW <hr /></blockquote>


Sid,

The good thing about this administrations mantra of ' IT'S BILLYS FAULT NOT OURS' is that their inability to take responsibility for the record just won't cut it when his four years of mistakes are up....no first termer has ever been re-elected while still chanting it was the last guys fault...these guys are incapable of taking responsibility for anything that goes wrong after all they are RIGHT even when the whole thing is coming apart at the seam....IT'S BILLY FAULT! starts to ring hollow after four years pissing down their legs both at home and abroad...

SPetty
10-07-2003, 10:08 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Sid_Vicious:</font><hr> .....sid~~~never knew he was a democrat until being confronted with the lunacy of GW <hr /></blockquote>does that mean you have never voted? <hr /></blockquote>I wouldn't dream of speaking for Sid, but if I hadn't had one conversation with one person years ago, I wouldn't have understood this question...

I was surprised to learn (I learned so much after the yankee invasion in the 80's /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif ) that in some states, you are required to declare affiliation with a political party as part of voter registration. In Texas, you can vote in either primary (but not both), and you don't have to declare yourself affiliated with any party in order to vote. So declaring yourself affiliated with a political party is not a prerequisite to vote in Texas as it apparently is in other states, which I find ludicrous, BTW.

eg8r
10-07-2003, 10:48 AM
Sid, I have asked you many times on end to give examples. You state all this mush and believe it, and you never give an example.

[ QUOTE ]
especially this one which wants to always go back and say that it wasn't Clinton's 8 years of prosperity, but Reagan's brilliance that let it trickle down. BUNK! <hr /></blockquote> I love the word Bunk! LOL, now how about explaining what you mean. What part of the article do you disagree with. If you might, humor me and be specific with the issues in the article you disagree with and give just one good example to refute it. Will you please list some of the things that Clinton has done that have helped the economy? What did he do specifically that helped continue this time of prosperity. If you choose to ignore this request again it will only solidify my point that you do not know what you are talking about and that it all boils down to the fact that you don't like Bush. Fair enough?

[ QUOTE ]
It's not even funny how much negative effects to our economy republican administrations have had for as long as I've been living. <hr /></blockquote> If it is "not even funny" then you must have a laundry list of examples, right? Give them to us. Prove it. The article I posted (and I bet you did not even read it because you cannot get past your own hatred of Bush) gave great information. What part of it do you refute? What do you disagree with.

You do not perform well when asked to be specific. It is too easy to say, "Oh there are so many, blah blah blah, that it is not even funny." Whoop-di-do. Got any examples???????

[ QUOTE ]
sid~~~never knew he was a democrat until being confronted with the lunacy of GW <hr /></blockquote> Given by your past posts, I do not think you know what you are. LOL, do you know the difference between democrats and republicans???? It goes a lot further than Bush and Clinton?

eg8r

eg8r
10-07-2003, 10:49 AM
So cheese, do you give Bush credit for the current upswing in our economy? The current increase in jobs?

eg8r

cheesemouse
10-07-2003, 11:37 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> So cheese, do you give Bush credit for the current upswing in our economy? The current increase in jobs?

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>


Er8r,

Are you sure you want to put yourself on the spot as a conservative and give your man credit for this economy? That is pretty risky behavior. I hope you realize that if you take this posture, Clinton is no longer responsible but you guys are. Did you have some kind of revelation in your sleep? Did you just bump your head or something that made see the light. Clinton did his eight years, he has been gone for over three years, he certainly isn't responsible for this economy...You can bet your plump bottom I will give GW &amp; crew credit for this economy....but the real question is are you taking credit for this economy???.......in the same breath what the jobs...do you mean the ones that are going off shore as fast as big business can send them there...

cheesemouse
10-07-2003, 11:50 AM
[ QUOTE ]
do you know the difference between democrats and republicans???? It goes a lot further than Bush and Clinton?
<hr /></blockquote>


Geez, that question kind of indictates that you do know the difference, would you please inlighten us poor ignorant folks...oh, yes and could you do it in your own words and not from some right wing think tanks talking points you subscribe too...I would love to know the difference between two parties that raise money on the edges but run down the middle...

eg8r
10-07-2003, 01:32 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Are you sure you want to put yourself on the spot as a conservative and give your man credit for this economy? <hr /></blockquote> Re-read my questions Cheese, surely you can do this.

I asked if you give credit to Bush for the UPSWING in the economy. This is not a tough question for you to answer. I am not asking you to give him credit for the state of the economy but merely the upswing of the economy.

Same thing with jobs. Do you give him credit for the increase in jobs?

eg8r

eg8r
10-07-2003, 01:35 PM
[ QUOTE ]
that question kind of indictates that you do know the difference, would you please inlighten us <hr /></blockquote> Ahhh, cheese nice try. Go out and figure it out yourself. I am not the one that was questioning my affiliation, Sid was. I am only asking if he knows the difference since he is now questioning it.

Given his past, Sid probably will not answer. He does not like the direct questions, he avoids them.

eg8r

cheesemouse
10-07-2003, 01:58 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
Are you sure you want to put yourself on the spot as a conservative and give your man credit for this economy? <hr /></blockquote> Re-read my questions Cheese, surely you can do this.

I asked if you give credit to Bush for the UPSWING in the economy. This is not a tough question for you to answer. I am not asking you to give him credit for the state of the economy but merely the upswing of the economy.

Same thing with jobs. Do you give him credit for the increase in jobs?

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>


"ahhh nowaaa there you go again"........you just can't let go of you whipping horse can you....why don't you just plant your feet firmly on the ground and say very slowly......"t h e b u c k s t o p s h e r e".

I give GW credit for everything he and his crew do and I do that because they are RESPONSIBLE for what they do. You do not seem to get that simple fact....Clinton this, Clinton that...Clinton is history...get a grip on it man......take responsiblity for your man...the voter surely will.....LOL

Now about your UPSWING in the economy.....do you really think presidents have a tinkers damn to do with what the economy is doing???? You can not find three Nobel Prize winners in Economics to agree on one thing to do with economics. The economy has'nt got $hit to do with anything GW has done the upswing in the economy is Clintons fault.....LOL.....I couldn't resist because this is how lame most of your chisled in stone opions sound like.

Just what jobs are you talking about??? Are you referring to the partime minimum wage jobs that don't even bring people up to the poverty line...the ones w/o benefits, the ones w/o security, do you mean the jobs they are sending oversea at a faster rate then they make the ones that stay in good old U. S. of A?

eg8r
10-07-2003, 02:10 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I give GW credit for everything he and his crew do and I do that because they are RESPONSIBLE for what they do. You do not seem to get that simple fact....Clinton this, Clinton that...Clinton is history...get a grip on it man......take responsiblity for your man...the voter surely will.....LOL <hr /></blockquote> I am not talking Clinton right now. I am saying that the current upswing is the result of Bush's policy. No more or less. Agree or not? Same can be said with the increase in jobs.

The thread started out and I gave a good article as an example. If you disagree, then give examples of where you disagree. As far as my responses to you, they are about Bush only, do you give him credit for the upswing in the economy and the increase in jobs? This is what scares the Dems even more. The man has won two wars, brought the country out of recession, and is now turning the economy around. He may end up being one of the greatest Presidents we have ever had. I struggle to remember another President that has dealt with as many issues in such a short amount of time.

eg8r

cheesemouse
10-07-2003, 02:40 PM
[ QUOTE ]
As far as my responses to you, they are about Bush only, do you give him credit for the upswing in the economy and the increase in jobs? This is what scares the Dems even more. The man has won two wars, brought the country out of recession, and is now turning the economy around. He may end up being one of the greatest Presidents we have ever had. I struggle to remember another President that has dealt with as many issues in such a short amount of time.
<hr /></blockquote>

Yes...Yes...Yes I give him credit, how many times do I have to repeat it so it penentrates your concrete brain.....are you excepting responsibility for GW's actons??? Wars are not won until they are over or did GW change that rule...GW doesn't have enough time left in office to win either of these two wars.

Let me help you with your struggle to remember good presidents...Goerge Washington, Abe Lincoln and Harry Truman.......I don't think they are going to chisle out any stone on Mount Rushmore anytime soon for GW.

If there ever was an example of EVENTS MAKING THE MAN your guy is its poster child. His only problem is I can't imagine anyone else not being able to accomplish the same things and at the same time keeping the rest of the world on our side instead of turning them against us. Yes, given our amazing power and influence as a country GW has managed to take that great advantage and turned it against us....yahh he is GREAT!!

Wally_in_Cincy
10-07-2003, 02:51 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote cheesemouse:</font><hr>

....do you really think presidents have a tinkers damn to do with what the economy is doing???? You can not find three Nobel Prize winners in Economics to agree on one thing to do with economics.....

<font color="blue">Those are good points and valid to a degree. The economy is mostly cyclical but a President can have some influence thru tax policy and regulatory policy. The best thing the gov't can do for the economy is just stay the hell out of the way /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif IMO </font color>

...Just what jobs are you talking about??? Are you referring to the partime minimum wage jobs that don't even bring people up to the poverty line...

<font color="blue">Well at least they won't be sitting on the stoop, drinking 40's and having sex /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif </font color>


<hr /></blockquote>

eg8r
10-07-2003, 03:03 PM
[ QUOTE ]
GW doesn't have enough time left in office to win either of these two wars.
<hr /></blockquote> How do you define a war as won? I define it as won if the original government has been toppled and is not controlling anymore. Winning the war has nothing to do with the rebuilding process or length of occupation. Saddam and the Taliban are no longer in control. The wars have been won. Now we are in the rebuilding process (this is seperate from actual fighting).

[ QUOTE ]
Let me help you with your struggle to remember good presidents... <hr /></blockquote> How is that helping me...I did not ask for GOOD presidents. Go back and read what I wrote, try and remember what you read and then make an intelligent reply.

[ QUOTE ]
If there ever was an example of EVENTS MAKING THE MAN your guy is its poster child. His only problem is I can't imagine anyone else not being able to accomplish the same things and at the same time ... <hr /></blockquote> I lobbed off the "keeping the rest of the world on our side" crap off. It makes no sense. Which countries are not on our side now, in which we ever cared about before? Which ones, France, Germany, Russia...BS We are the first ones they will call if something happens. They came to us when the crap in South Africa started not too long ago.

As far as anyone else being able to do the same job, who knows, seems like speculation. As far as the economy is concerned I guess you are flat wrong. You just stated in your first paragraph that you give credit to Bush for the upswing in the economy and that it is Bush's policy that has made this happen. So you are saying that Clinton's policy would have done the same thing????? Give me some examples of Clinton policy that actually had a direct impact positively on the economy while he was President. C'mon I am waiting. If you try your little whine about "oh now he is bringing Clinton back into this" then don't bother. I am only mentioning his name because you said you cannot think of anyone that would have not been able to do the same things.

As far as the wars, you are flat wrong. The liberals would never have let us go to war, so they would not have won the 2 wars.

eg8r

cheesemouse
10-07-2003, 03:04 PM
[ QUOTE ]
The best thing the gov't can do for the economy is just stay the hell out of the way IMO
<hr /></blockquote>

Wally, I agree with you 100%....presidents always mess with it though just to cover there a$$

eg8r
10-07-2003, 03:09 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Just what jobs are you talking about??? Are you referring to the partime minimum wage jobs that don't even bring people up to the poverty line... <hr /></blockquote> LOL, you are cracking me up. When the jobs were going down the toilet I did not hear you say, "Don't worry about it, those are just minimum wage jobs that don't even bring people up to the poverty line." You argument is a joke. 57,000 jobs are 57,000 jobs, and they all pay money. Those people that took those jobs are now making more money than they were the day before.

Could you please give me an example of a time in history where the first increase in jobs after a recession started off with the highest possible paying jobs?????

Give me a break. I bet you can't do it, so why do you think this time is any different? An increase is an increase, it does not matter what jobs they are, as long as 57,000 people are now working who were not working the day before.

eg8r

cheesemouse
10-07-2003, 04:04 PM
eg8r,

Here is one that will frost your garbonzo beans: I didn't even read your article. I shoot from the hip, I use my instincts, I use my commonsense but when I read your ad nauseam....list your points....give me examples...please reread what I said......I realize that you have no orginal thoughts. You are simply spoon feed pablum that you repeat thoughtlessly because it fits some conservative formula that stuck in your elephant shaped brain at a very young age. I won't play your game of lists......I do this just to pi$$ you off.....LOL...Now is see you have come back with this amazing number of 57,000 jobs created. The poor bastard only has to come with about 20 more million before his last year is up to equal little ole Billy.....heeheeehee....eg8r you have a very selective memory and your tone is shrill and desperate in defense of your 'boy'. If he wasn't in serious trouble in this next election you wouldn't have to try so hard, you would make sense but you don't...but hey, keep trying...I know you can't change your mind, it is set in stone and no new information is allow unless it comes out in new talking points for your cause, ideas don't have to make sense to you, you will just repeat what your feeders feed you.....to bad I'd say for a pool player.......

If you go back in this thread you will see that I first replied to Sid and you jumped on me......In case you hadn't noticed I gave up on you and your concrete cranium a long time ago. I don't beat my head against stone walls. I play in games that are winable. You won't play my game why should I play yours........Go ahead fire back with more ad nauseam about list, example blahhhhhhhhh blahhhhhhhhhh.......YOUR BOY IS GOING DOWN...... /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Qtec
10-07-2003, 04:17 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I lobbed off the "keeping the rest of the world on our side" crap off. It makes no sense. Which countries are not on our side now, in which we ever cared about before? Which ones, France, Germany, Russia...BS

<font color="blue"> As for not needing anybody else, especially the dreaded French, wasnt your company [ along with 200 other US firms and 150 reps from the Govt. ] recently at the PARIS Air Show? </font color>

We are the first ones they will call if something happens. They came to us when the crap in South Africa started not too long ago <hr /></blockquote> <font color="blue"> Are you reffering to Liberia? That 'crap' was about people being slaughtered by TERRORISTS [ GW's definition ]. I thought GW was hot for terrorists? Or is THAT BS? </font color>


Once again, you astound me. You sound just like Rush L.

Q

[ Good article from Texas. ]

http://www.iconoclast-texas.com/opinion.asp?iArt=4

Qtec
10-07-2003, 04:38 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Here is one that will frost your garbonzo beans: I didn't even read your article <hr /></blockquote> HaHaHa


I didnt read it either. LOL

Q

eg8r
10-07-2003, 04:55 PM
[ QUOTE ]
If you go back in this thread you will see that I first replied to Sid and you jumped on me......In case you hadn't noticed I gave up on you and your concrete cranium a long time ago. I don't beat my head against stone walls. <hr /></blockquote> It was plain to see you had not read the article. It is surely easy for you to imagine my concrete cranium because I am posting facts and as you say, you "shoot from the hip". I did not need for you to say it, but if it helps or provides therapy for yourself so be it.

I am sure it makes Sid feel happy that the only other person besides Q that agrees with him in a public forum is a guy who admits to "shooting from the hip".

eg8r

eg8r
10-07-2003, 04:56 PM
Q, there was no reason for you to read it. It was printed in English and you have vastly proved you are inept at comprehending anything in english.

eg8r

eg8r
10-07-2003, 04:59 PM
Yup they were there and in very limited capacity. Last year the French government was quite upset with us pulling out of the air show (or limiting our part). LM did not care. As for being there last year, it was our government that asked LM to be there. If I can, I will see if I saved the memo. I had the opportunity to work for Aero the LM company with the biggest visibility at the show and we were very limited. We were there at the request of the US government and stock holders.

[ QUOTE ]
Are you reffering to Liberia? That 'crap' was about people being slaughtered by TERRORISTS [ GW's definition ]. I thought GW was hot for terrorists? Or is THAT BS? <hr /></blockquote> I was referring to the actions in Liberia as being crap. I did not refer to our involvement as being crap. The killings that were going on is crap.

Could you please post some of my post and maybe an excerpt from Rush so I can see how you are coming up with you comparison. If not I can understand...

eg8r

cheesemouse
10-07-2003, 05:10 PM
eg8r,

I forgot to mention I shoot straight from the hip in pool and if I could draw an analogy that's what the American voting public does when they vote; they try and remember the sound bits that stick in their brains like&gt; GW CREATED THE BIGGEST DEFECIET IN HISTORY&gt; WHERE IS BINLADIN&gt; SADDAM IS STILL MAKING SONY TAPE RECORDINGS&gt; ONLY 57,000 NEW JOBS AND ALL AT MCDONALDS&gt; HOW HIGH WAS YOUR HEATING BILL LAST WINTER?&gt; ARE YOU BETTER OFF NOW OR BACK WHEN BILLY WAS BOSS?&gt; ONLY 750 AMERICAN DEAD IN IRAQ SINCE GW DECLARES VICTORY&gt; PATRIOT ACT #4 PASSES, ALL AMERICANS NOW HAVE TO SALUTE GOV. OFFICIALS AND THE LOCAL POLICE.........I think you get my point....

Wally_in_Cincy
10-08-2003, 07:23 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote cheesemouse:</font><hr>
Wally, I agree with you 100%....presidents always mess with it though just to cover there a$$ <hr /></blockquote>

Politicians pass laws simply to justify their existence /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Unfortunately too many times it's bad law /ccboard/images/graemlins/frown.gif

Isn't the tax code like 3 million pages or something? That's probably enough for now /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif