Originally Posted By vbdad55 <A negative person will say they are living beyond their means. A positive person will say they have created a life where they have things and are living the American dream. < call me negative but when the average American has a credit card debt of over $10,000 I see that as living beyond your means...and with the days of being able to declare chap 11 anytime you want and keeping your shiny new car and house are ending....
Originally Posted By jonvn I'm not insulting the military. That's a ridiculous statement. The policy we have followed there is a mess. It's not worked, and the country is in civil war.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I'm going to try to answer the actual question posed by the original post. It will surprise no one that I think most of Bush's policies are wrongheaded and some have been plain disasters. I do think he's the worst president of my lifetime. But in the spirit of the original post, I will say I was glad to see Bush not demagogue the immigration issue. He may have done so for the wrong reasons (his business base loves cheap, illegal workers), but it would have been easy to demagogue the whole thing to try to fire up the voters, and he didn't do it. IMO, the only thing that would really come close to solving the problem is serious teeth (i.e. meaningful fines and ultimately jail time) for employers who hire illegals, and that's not in Bush's plan, and so I think it has little chance for success either... but at least he didn't do what might have been seen as the easy political thing and join the House plan. In fact, he risked alienating many in his own party, and I give him props for that.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <I would not be surprised if defaults were up actually. A lot of lenders have set up mortages to people who simply were not ready to own a house. But who's fault is that? > Oooh! Oooh! I know! I know! The person who took out the loan!!!
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <It's done a real number on our deficit, and it will eventually have to be paid for with even higher taxes down the road.> The tax cuts have not hurt the deficit. The deficit increased because revenues fell as we entered a recession during President Clinton's last term, and because we increased spending (mostly on the military after 9/11). The tax cuts will not have to be "paid for"; all we have to do is hold down the increase in spending, and allow a stronger economy to pay down the deficit. The deficit is now about 2.3% of GDP, which is smaller than in 17 of the previous 25 years.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <Oooh! Oooh! I know! I know! The person who took out the loan!!!< I an having an Arnold Horshack flashback as I read this post -- LOL !
Originally Posted By jonvn "The deficit increased because revenues fell as we entered a recession during President Clinton's last term" 1) The recession started after he left office. 2) When you reduce revenue by several billions of dollars via tax cuts, while at the same time increase spending, you balloon the deficit. It is now the largest it has been in history, shortly after our budget was balanced. Spin it any way you want, pathetically blame Clinton all you want, but this is what happened. "The tax cuts will not have to be "paid for"" Yes, and I'm going to win the lottery next week, too. When Reagan cut taxes in the 80s, and ballooned the deficit then, it was followed on by the largest tax increase in history by Bush. This was done because otherwise, there was no way to pay down the deficit caused by the tax cuts. This is what happened. And you know what's going to happen eventually with these tax cuts? They are going to be replaced by tax increases. Where do you think the money is going to come from to pay all these bills? It's just going to fall from the sky? We spend more than we take in. It's not getting better. The tax cuts were a bad idea, and it's going to have to be rectified by another Administration that will have to take the heat for the fiscal incompetence of our current one.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <<1) The recession started after he left office<, only in those who put Bill up on a pedestal and ignore the factt that he himself saw it coming and starting thelast 18 months or so of his presidency. "Clinton was keenly aware of the recession, and his campaign offered change and focused on the economy and the high unemployment rate. He promised health-care reform, tax cuts for the middle class and tax increases for the wealthy, and reductions in defense spending. Taking his message directly to the people, he participated in town meetings, toured the country by bus, and answered questions on television talk shows."
Originally Posted By vbdad55 Bush Caused the Recession? Well this graph of leading economic indicators says that isn't quite true. <a href="http://www.steveverdon.com/archives/economics/000121.html" target="_blank">http://www.steveverdon.com/arc hives/economics/000121.html</a> (Click on the graph to see a larger version.) If you look carefully you'll note that the downward trend in the leading economic indicators from ECRI started early on in 2000. Bush didn't take office until February of 2001 January 20th 2001. Everyone gets so sensitive that something, anything mightnot have been perfectly rosey when Bill was in the White House 6.5 + years of 8 of a solid economy is a pretty good record , yet people aren;t OK with that- they have to blame Bush for everything or else their model does not work. This does not make Clinton out to be a bad guy, or that he didn't keep his eye on the ball when he had personal issues to deal with daily in the media, it simply means the economy stated to cool pretty quickly in early 2000... It just appears in W/E at times, Clinton and his admin has to be totally right or wrong and vice versa for Bush..can't it be based on reality rather than partisan politics. Give Clinton a solid B to a B+ for the economic status during his presidency, but to ignore that it was cooling well before he left is ignoring reality...
Originally Posted By vbdad55 I also agree that the Hot economy being claimed under Bush is just not true....unemployment rates are very misleading as so many have stopped looking or taken lowpaying service jobs after 10M professional white collar jobs were allowed to leave the US for 'off-shore" in thelast 7 years... The tax cuts while I am for them in some cases, do not target the real middle class as they were advertised, but make over %500K and have a huge portfolio of investments, and the abilty to buy a lot of speculative real estate over the past 5 years, and yeah, they were great at that level. A lot of economic issues need to be seriously addressed and very soon...the health of private pension plans ( and potential defaults to the gov't like United tried), the fact that most corporations are allowed to reneg on verbal agreements for pension amounts, the off- shoring ofnot only 10 million jobs in 7 years, but the resulting hit on the future of our children's opportunites as those jobs are never coming back, the health of social security and it's future as the boomer generation who has paid into it for 30 - 40 years now looks to get their money back. The cost of oil is somewhat explained, but the cost of natural gas and the allowance of monopolistic companies to gouge ( yes gouge) consumers needs to be dealt with...( and spare me the supply and demand talk as most people have only one option to purchase their energy so it is NOT a free market ) -- So just as I don't blame Clinton for the economy softening a lot from Jan 2000 on ( or the .com bust as he as a person did not orchestrate) - I don't blame Bush personally for where we are today, but someone needs to address the ills facing us before they become worse..and that ball lies on both sides of the aisle
Originally Posted By jonvn "only in those who put Bill up on a pedestal" I don't put anyone up on a pedestal. I do, however, prefer facts as opposed to empty rhetoric. The recession started in 2001. Things started slowing around November or so of 2000. "Everyone gets so sensitive that something, anything mightnot have been perfectly rosey when Bill was in the White House" No. I think people are just sick of Republicans screaming about how terrible Clinton was anytime a Bush shortcoming is noted, much like you have. It goes like this: Person 1: Bush is doing a terrible job. Person 2: CLINTON!!!!!!!!! No logic or reasoned response as to the current situation, just empty bashing of the last President. But when you do it about the current guy, oh, then you're a traitor, yes? This is how it certainly comes across. "It just appears in W/E at times, Clinton and his admin has to be totally right or wrong and vice versa for Bush.." Bush is literally going down as one of our worst. That's the consensus of historians at the moment. Not just the opinion of many (if not most) people here. Clinton went down as mediocre. The only reason he often compares favorably to Bush is that mediocre is better than one of the worst.
Originally Posted By jonvn "The tax cuts while I am for them in some cases, do not target the real middle class as they were advertised" Yes, the tax cuts were only for the wealthiest of people. And the real middle class? They are totally socked with taxes. You can't make it out of middle class if you worked yourself to death with the way the tax system is set up. You are kept to your place, or kept lower. The ranks are closed to you moving up. Post 50 is a pretty reasonable take on things.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<Yes, the tax cuts were only for the wealthiest of people. And the real middle class? They are totally socked with taxes. You can't make it out of middle class if you worked yourself to death with the way the tax system is set up.>> Not true. I am middle class as are my friends. We all got more money back once the tax cuts went into effect. A lot more money. My accountant always talks about the bigger returns for average Americans since the Bush tax cute. Tax cuts for the rich is a libral myth that is nothing more than pathetic class envy and jealousy all wrapped in a lie. The rich are the people who give you your job. The rich are the ones who buy things that keep the economy humming along. The rich have to be here if we want to have a strong country. Yet liberals want to penalize these achievers and run them out of town or the country. If you are bitching about jobs going overseas look no further than the taxes that are forcing these compaines to leave America. Taxes the democrats promise to impose if they fool enough people to vote for them.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <I don't put anyone up on a pedestal. I do, however, prefer facts as opposed to empty rhetoric. The recession started in 2001. Things started slowing around November or so of 2000. < so a 13 month drop in the key economic indicators before Bush took office are not facts ? In january 02 to June 02 the indictors were stronger than that - does Bush get credit for that ? Also again starting in March 03 the facts are there--the bottoming out point is not a 'start' in November
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <No. I think people are just sick of Republicans screaming about how terrible Clinton was anytime a Bush shortcoming is noted, much like you have< reading ability is a skill-- I suggest you get off your rhetoric horse and show me wehre I bashed Clinton in my post -- anywhere ? This is why people can;t talk around here -- you have your mind made up all was perfect under Clinton and it wasn't. I am not here defending Bush, i am here to state facts -- which you choose to move around for your own ends --
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Bush inherited a recession from Clinton. He also inherited the dot com bust and 9-11. Yet here we are doing well if you consider all the challenges our Country has had the last 5 years. Tax cuts are the reason. They let the average person keep more of his ot her money and businesses have been able to take their profits and create jobs instead of giving it to the governemnt. The bonus is that the governemnt because of all of this economic activity is getting record tax renues and the decficit is being reduced. Question.. how are the democrats going to create more jobs, help the economy and keep jobs here at home?
Originally Posted By jonvn "We all got more money back once the tax cuts went into effect." What did you get, $300? Big deal. That buys a nice meal or two in a restaurant. In the meantime, the middle class is hit by every sort of dodge you can imagine. Deductions being capped, credits going away, etc. That $300 costs me thousands. "Tax cuts for the rich is a libral myth" Can't make a post without the L word, eh? When you have to constantly resort to the bogeyman to blame things on, your position and opinion becomes fairly meaningless. "so a 13 month drop in the key economic indicators before Bush took office are not facts ?" I said that things started slowing prior to Bush going into office, but that the recession didn't start until after he was in office. I mentioned November of 2000. It didn't bottom out in November. It didn't bottom out for quite some time after that. "reading ability is a skill-- I suggest you get off your rhetoric horse and show me wehre I bashed Clinton in my post -- anywhere ?" So is being able to hold a polite conversation. I suggest you get off your own rhetoric horse and act like a reasoned adult if you want to be treated like one. In any case, I didn't bring up Bill Clinton's name in this. That would be you, and talking about how people put him up on a pedestal.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <Post 50 is a pretty reasonable take on things.< if you go back and re read as I suggest and see I am not bashing Clinton in 50 or the post before that.. you will see I am a moderate. I am a middle class American who wants whomever in 2008 to take over the administration and focus on our economy. I don;t care which party it is if they actually do that. I am neither a Bush apologist , nor a Bush basher. I also remember people saying Reagan wold go down as one of our worst presidents - turns out not to be even close...too early yet to finally judge Bill or George...both will have positives and negatives just like very other president in history, but until they all play out...too early to callon some things as emotions still in the ay of clear thinking for many... It would be nice to have a concensus candidate, but with the politcallandscape booby trapped with people willing to either praise to high heaven or slam with eyes shut a person from either party right now I just don;t see that happening. I realize I am probably a rarity here at W/E, as I am a registered GOP voter ( have been for years) but worked for the Democratic party while i lived in the city of Chicago for 20 years as the mayoral administration there ( Dem) has done tremendous things for the city. And that also helped balance off a GOp governor for 90% of the last 40 years. A check and balance system- what a concept. there are some members of the GOP party I would never vote for for President, just as there are some Dem's that fall into that same category. As far as I am concerned, they are all lucky there is not a viable 3rd party in this country and both sides of the aisle want to keep it that way as I truly believe there are a whole heck of a lot of people just like me out there. The former Reagan democrats would be an example..the GOP members who voted fo Clinton ( especially the 1st time ) -- there is a chance for us to take back our government, but the rhetoric has got to tone down...like I said nowhere did I bash Clinton. What I said was the last 18 months or so showed a decline starting - and yes by late 00 it was in full bloom ( not starting) - was that his fault -no. But is that really the most important thing about it- to lay blame ? To me it is not. after you re read let me know again and I am glad you agreed with post 50 --
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>As far as I am concerned, they are all lucky there is not a viable 3rd party in this country<< That's for sure. And you're right, both parties do everything possible via gerrymandering to make sure that a third party never comes into play. If a party that represented the interests of moderates (what most people in this country really are) ever got a foothold, Democrat and Republican politicians would quickly go the way of the Whigs and the dodo birds.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <If you are bitching about jobs going overseas look no further than the taxes that are forcing these compaines to leave America. Taxes the democrats promise to impose if they fool enough people to vote for them. < um no -- these are taxes that are in place now... and if really believe that taxes are the cause for jobs leaving then you are very naive as to what's going on in corporate america. I work this area every day of my working life. Taxes are not in the top 5 for why jobs are going overseas Beau. PROFITS -- for the rich and wealthy ( yes them) - the CEO's and major stockholders, not the little guys. Look at corporate profits rightnow, they are at all time highs for many fortune 500 companies WhY? because i can hire an MBA in Brazil for $400 /month to do a job that would pay $60K+ here -- and if they ar enot as good, I'll hire 2. Who cares as long as profits increase. Taxes are a miniscule issue if off shoring my friend. Health care costs -- in low wage countries - comapnies do not offer health care- here it adds 25% - 35% to the base wage earnings of employees. Most companies have their HQ in limited tax states and in areas whee they get significant tax breaks... So let's not blame off shoring on taxes, there is no truth to it... you say your wife places ' executives' - tell her to ask one why the jobs are going overseas and to exxplain the 'shared services' cirporate models ( if any of them are at that level) - it's labor costs / health costs and the resulting profits period.
