Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-06-2008, 11:26 PM
 
Location: On my way to FLA baby !!
1,999 posts, read 1,651,929 times
Reputation: 357

Advertisements

I never have like the job numbers they put out.
For instance.

We created 2 million new jobs in December, well I want to know what those 2million made before and on their new jobs?

If the majority took loses then we should now about it. 2 million new jobs means nothing unless they can match or make more money then they did before.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-07-2008, 02:11 AM
 
Location: Northridge/Porter Ranch, Calif.
24,482 posts, read 33,185,006 times
Reputation: 7602
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Style View Post
Fleet,

to correct you a bit. Lowering taxes can increase spending but it also can increase inflation. There are two sides of that coin.
Lowering taxes and increasing spending are two different things. It's up to the President and Congress how much spending there is.

As for inflation, that may be true. Although the inflation has been low in the last 7 years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2008, 03:56 AM
 
19,198 posts, read 31,402,044 times
Reputation: 4013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleet View Post
52 consecutive months of job growth is "the worst job history since Hoover?"
The point was that the faux 52 months of job growth that you cite followed what had been the worst performance on job growth since Hoover. In September of 2003, despite two and a half years of population growth, fewer Americans were employed than when Bush took office. No one else since Hoover has been able to make a claim like that...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2008, 05:22 AM
 
Location: America
6,993 posts, read 17,320,235 times
Reputation: 2093
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleet View Post
Lowering taxes and increasing spending are two different things. It's up to the President and Congress how much spending there is.

As for inflation, that may be true. Although the inflation has been low in the last 7 years.
two questions

1. who do you think I was refering to when I said "increasing spending", the govt?

2. where do you get your information from on these subjects, besides google I mean?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2008, 05:33 AM
 
19,198 posts, read 31,402,044 times
Reputation: 4013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleet View Post
Right. And the current Bush economy has compared very favorably to the Clinton economy, even with Bush inheriting a recession, the 9/11 attacks and wasn't fortunate enough to be President during the Internet boom.
The Bush economy doesn't compare to the Clinton economy at all. The recession was Bush's creation from the get-go. Damage from the 9/11 attacks had been wrung out by December...after which you had only the stimulus of new jobs, new construction, and of course Bushie's favorite, gearing up for war. The internet boom continues to this day. The simple facts are that no President prior to Bush had ever inherited an economy in better shape. Seven years later and we look like a hollowed-out has-been on the world stage, while confronting persistent distortions, dislocations, and disfunction on the domestic front. It would be hard to fathom how anyone could have accomplished a more consistent record of destruction. Bush's legacy as Worst President in US History is secure. It will be based first on his disastrous war policies, but his record of unending failure and disgrace will be well buttressed as well by the sheer malfeasance inherent in his economic policies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleet View Post
You're too lazy to post the link?
No, laziness has nothing to do with it...see?
Job Growth Sags and Unemployment Jumps in December

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleet View Post
Because the GDP has some factor in the economy.
Not much of a criterion. Makes it seem like you know full well that the current employment picture is a bleak one, so you want to leave yourself room to grasp at straws.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleet View Post
Try to figure out why I used "Hillary" and "tax hikes" in the same sentence.
I'm guessing it's because you think taxes will increase if Hillary is elected President. They will. Get used to the idea, because taxes will increase regardless of who is elected President.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleet View Post
And tax cuts do help the economy... JFK knew it in the '60s, Reagan knew it in the '80s and G.W. Bush knows it in the 2000s.
Fiscal policy is an important tool. It helps to place that tool in the hands of a competent craftsman. Kennedy's tax cuts were an important part of the economic recovery of the early 60's. Reagan's tax cuts were, as predicted, a disaster. He got nowhere at all until he cancelled the final third of his tax-cut package in 1982, purged the silly supply-siders, and enacted tax increases in all of 1983, 1984, 1985, and 1986. The Bushie tax cuts have done tremendous damage to the economy, but unlike Reagan, Bush has not been man enough to recognize his own mistakes. It will be up to his successors to accomplish the now much needed repairs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2008, 05:53 AM
 
19,198 posts, read 31,402,044 times
Reputation: 4013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Style View Post
It's funny that you guys bicker over two sides of the same coin. What has really changed from one party to the next?
A lot. Quite a lot, and not much of it for the better.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Style View Post
Jobs are lost under both, things have gotten progressively worse under both. Bubbles were created under both's watch.
No, no, and there haven't been any bubbles. The word has been grossly misused in the popular press by partisans and by people who don't really know much about economics or economic history, but want to portray themselves as being insiders. Basically, if you come across someone seriously using the word bubble within the context of recent economic events, a little bell should go off indicating that there is every reason to suspect that this person does not know what he or she is talking about.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2008, 06:01 AM
 
19,198 posts, read 31,402,044 times
Reputation: 4013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleet View Post
I'm not bickering. Just correcting inaccurate info and posting facts.
Meanwhile, my job is to point out the deceptions being attempted by the Minister of Disinformation. Fortunately for me, it isn't such a difficult task, what with the facts all being on my side and all... :-)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2008, 06:51 AM
 
Location: Londonderry, NH
41,478 posts, read 59,603,637 times
Reputation: 24858
Regardless of the government provided inflation rates just consider what a gallon of milk or gasoline sold for in 2000 compared to now. The increase is a lot more than 3% compounded for 7 years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2008, 07:11 AM
 
Location: Arizona
5,408 posts, read 7,778,536 times
Reputation: 1198
Still waiting for the link to show the detail behind all these marvelous jobs that have supposedly replaced the 3.2 million manufacturing jobs lost under the Bush watch.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2008, 07:47 AM
 
Location: America
6,993 posts, read 17,320,235 times
Reputation: 2093
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista View Post
A lot. Quite a lot, and not much of it for the better.


No, no, and there haven't been any bubbles. The word has been grossly misused in the popular press by partisans and by people who don't really know much about economics or economic history, but want to portray themselves as being insiders. Basically, if you come across someone seriously using the word bubble within the context of recent economic events, a little bell should go off indicating that there is every reason to suspect that this person does not know what he or she is talking about.
Problem with that theory is, I have a degree in economics. we have had MANY bubbles, the first of which was in the late 90s by way of Mr. Alan Greenspan, then we have had two more subsequent bubbles.

As for the 2001 - 2003 recession, Bush inherited that mess. That started under Clinton, but the pied piper he is, people ran behind him like zombies without noticing the mess. 9/11 just exacerbated a situation which was already starting to get bad.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top