Quote:
Originally posted by Astrocloud
First of all this isn't a "conservative versus liberal versus Greenspan" argument. I’ve never cast it as that. This is a reality vs. opinion argument. You are flat denying a basic truth about the current US economy. You said that I am quoting articles that are dated -fair enough. Yet when I asked you to cite directly -you make vague references and then blame me for reading the paragraph directly below it.
You complain loudly when I use the term "kid" to describe you -yet have no problem throwing ad hominems towards me. (i.e. Telling me what my motives are for making a statement rather than addressing any point I'm making. It is insulting to argue with someone who deliberately twists your words and misrepresents your opinions.) Nevertheless, I apologize for calling you "kid". Perhaps we can both take it down a notch.
As far as my alleged 'blaming Bush for the slowed economy' goes... You are way off. I agree that the economy runs at a separate pace than the presidency. "Virtually no effect on the economy" is an exaggeration and an overstatement. Bush can act and have a positive effect on the economy. The economy needs a stimulus and the republicans are in denial. You can argue that Greenspan hasn’t asked for a stimulus but then Greenspan isn’t in a position where he can make bold public statements without having an effect on the current economy. The economy needs a stimulus.
Meanwhile Bush has mismanaged the national debt. His administration treats it a credit card for the next president to pay off. I cited the fact that he could’ve used foreign allies more efficiently in Afghanistan. If he bothered to do this perhaps they would’ve even been on board for an attack on Iraq; but then maybe not. That speculation is irrelevant but seeking outside help during wartime has always been an extremely good strategy, both militarily and economically. So why didn’t Bush use some ally like NATO during the Afghan crisis?
Even though the CNN Money article was sufficient in talking about difficulties with the problems of Bush Deficit spending. I'd like to present two relatively more recent articles pointing to the problem with the deficit. The first article is three months old. Is that too old? –Well maybe except that it has some forecasts and some relevant quotes of the only top dog analyst that you seem to buy –Greenspan
“Mr Greenspan said the deficit "mattered a great deal" and that he had long argued for "fiscal responsibility". So do you think Bush is Fiscally responsible?
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Astrocloud
I’ve never cast it as that. This is a reality vs. opinion argument. You are flat denying a basic truth about the current US economy.
You complain loudly when I use the term "kid" to describe you -yet have no problem throwing ad hominems towards me. (i.e. Telling me what my motives are for making a statement rather than addressing any point I'm making. It is insulting to argue with someone who deliberately twists your words and misrepresents your opinions.) Nevertheless, I apologize for calling you "kid". Perhaps we can both take it down a notch.
The economy needs a stimulus and the republicans are in denial. You can argue that Greenspan hasn’t asked for a stimulus but then Greenspan isn’t in a position where he can make bold public statements without having an effect on the current economy. The economy needs a stimulus.
So why didn’t Bush use some ally like NATO during the Afghan crisis?
–Well maybe except that it has some forecasts and some relevant quotes of the only top dog analyst that you seem to buy –Greenspan
“Mr Greenspan said the deficit "mattered a great deal" and that he had long argued for "fiscal responsibility". So do you think Bush is Fiscally responsible?
|
First off. I didn't complain "loudly" about your your name calling, I said that if it makes you feel better about disregarding my points then good for you. Since you thought it bugged me you decided to continue along those lines. It did give me a good laugh though.
I do not "only" take Greenspan's opinion seriously but that's yet another discussion we could go on with for days. Greenspan can most assuredly ask for a stimulus. The reason he chooses not to, and the reason that he portrays upside and downside risks as equal is that the economy is growing at precisely the rate he has been working towards for his entire tenure.
He has always maintained that the deficit is a weight being carried around by the economy and that national debt should be addressed for long term economic health. There's nothing new here.
As far as Bush being fiscally responsible, that's a laugh. As I pointed out in an earlier response in this thread, neither the Bush nor Clinton administrations have shown a REAL commitment to fiscal responsibility.
As far as war in Afghanistan and Iraq, I think it would have been great if he built a better coalition but even if he had, the US would have carried the majority of costs and would have had to commit the majority of troops.
As far as the economy needing a stimulus, what do you base this on? Growth of 3 to 3.5% isn't enough for you?
When I read your posts, even this last one, I come away with the feeling that you are making it about party needs/wants. If that's not your intention I'm sorry but that is how they come across. In this one you cite Republicans for not pushing for a stimulus and at the same time rail about deficit spending.
I too hope we can have a real dialogue and have attempted that throughout the thread with everyone. I enjoy discussing the economy and that's why I've continued with this thread in spite of the offhanded comments about my education and viewpoints.