The Bush Legacy: Jobs Permanently Gone - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

smooth · 10-23-2003, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Food Eater Lad
And your point is? The fact is that the truth is the opposite of what Harmless Rabbit tried to pass as truth. The economy is on an upswing, and unemployment is lowering, not rising.

According to the article you posted, unemployment rates have primarly dropped because people stopped looking for work once they realized there weren't any jobs--not because jobs came back on the market. Of the jobs that did come back to market, they are only rising at a fraction of the previous years' rates.

Not only is that not an "upswing", according to numerous economists' claims I have read and heard, it appears to be a recipe for long-term, economic disaster.

I'm content with leaving that analysis to them.

DukeLeto · 10-23-2003, 03:39 PM

FEL, I get the distinct impression that you ignored large portions of your own post. The article states that the broadest indicators of employment were <i>unchanged</i>, not that there was an increase in employment. Furthermore, your source refers only to September of this year. A more relevant reference would provide data to show how the job market is faring since the Bush tax cuts, since that seems to be the hot-button issue. Did they provide the stimulus they were allegedly intended to, and if so, was it worth the price in decreased education funding, veterans' benefits, etc., etc.?

To show that the tax cuts are responsible for this spectacular one-month-long trend of tepid employment figures may be possible, but do you really want credit for proving that Bush flushed over a trillion dollars down the toilet in order to generate a single month of mediocre economic news? Yes, a tax cut for low- and middle-income people would have been good. It also would have been affordable, with increases in taxes and penalties for offshore corporate tax cheats and the super-rich, who wouldn't even notice. To free up even more cash, the welfare (I know how much any good individualist hates welfare) that Uncle Sam forks over to oil, timber, agribusiness and nuclear industries could have been eliminated. Then we could have used that money where it was actually needed, rather than handing over half of it to the wealthiest 1% of taxpayers in the nation.

Furthermore, FEL, since you seem intent on perpetuating this fallacy, a tax cut <i>is</i> possible for those who do not make enough to pay income tax. Their SocSec and Medicare taxes could have been eliminated, creating much-needed cash for them that would immediately be spent. Stimulus, anyone? This is far from welfare; it simply allows poor workers to keep every penny they earn. Surely there can be no objections to such a scheme from a true conservative? Hm? (conservative is not equal to Republican, nor is it a pejorative term).

onetime2 · 10-23-2003, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Astrocloud
I can give you a very large list of leading economic PHd's who will say otherwise. Should I call you doctor?

And there is an even larger list that say it is. And perhaps the most knowledgeable economist of them all, Alan Greenspan seems to think it is. Seems he's done a pretty good job of understanding the economy for the last couple of decades, but I guess that doesn't matter.

The economy is far from bad but since that doesn't fit your agenda you don't want to hear it. If it were bad, I'd be the first to state it as such since I've spent a fair portion of my life studying the damned thing.

onetime2 · 10-23-2003, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by smooth
um, ok, let me explain it for you: unemployment rates have dropped because people stopped looking for work once they realized there weren't any jobs--not because jobs came back on the market.

Not only is that not an "upswing", according to economist Ph.D's, it appears to be a recipe for long-term, economic disaster.

Certainly there is a portion of unemployed who have become discouraged and are no longer looking, but this is far from a large segment of the unemployed. As outlined earlier in the thread there are many components to the unemployment figure, pointing to just those that have dropped out of the labor force is naive at best and flat out misleading at worst.

Once again, for those that missed it, the economy is far more complicated than a sound bite mentality allows.

Food Eater Lad · 10-23-2003, 05:59 PM

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/business/6872006.htm

WASHINGTON - The U.S. economy, powered by a red-hot housing market and a huge dose of spending for the war in Iraq, grew at a surprisingly strong 3.3 percent clip last quarter and raised hopes for an even better performance the rest of the year.

The increase announced yesterday in the gross domestic product for the April-June period represented an upward revision from a 3.1 percent estimate a month ago.

Analysts said growth in the July-September quarter would be at a significantly higher rate, fueled by President Bush's newest round of tax cuts, which took effect in July, and continued low interest rates from the Federal Reserve, a combination that has helped to push auto and home sales to record levels.

"The economy is firing on all cylinders," said Sung Won Sohn, chief economist at Wells Fargo in Minneapolis. "The strong economic growth we are predicting in the future should create some new jobs." --Associated Press

smooth · 10-23-2003, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by onetime2
Certainly there is a portion of unemployed who have become discouraged and are no longer looking, but this is far from a large segment of the unemployed. As outlined earlier in the thread there are many components to the unemployment figure, pointing to just those that have dropped out of the labor force is naive at best and flat out misleading at worst.

Once again, for those that missed it, the economy is far more complicated than a sound bite mentality allows.

First of all, I stated that I would defer to the economists (which I think you claimed to be) in terms of the larger picture--no need to insult me by inferring that I'm naive or misleading.

I was pointing out two trends that were apparent in the article FEL posted--that millions of workers (5 million, actually) have been relegated to part-time positions against their will (creating a total of 24 million part-time workers) and that 1.5 million have stopped looking for work for various reasons.

Now if you want to claim that the article isn't the entire picture, fine; it certainly isn't naive to respond that the particular article isn't evidence of a strong economy and doesn't claim that unemployment has gone down due to an expanding economy. In fact, there didn't seem to be any evidence of "growth" in the article except for a few sectors that experienced relative upward trends in hiring. That is, while companies hired workers they did so below the normative rate according to past years.

When I heard Greenspan speak about the topic before Congress he didn't seem as content with the long-term prospects of our economic structure but maybe you heard him somewhere else.

As to the "soundbite mentality": everyone reading this can probably tell by now that we are thinking about these matters and aren't just getting our information from an hourly cable news show.

Astrocloud · 10-23-2003, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by onetime2
And there is an even larger list that say it is.

The source I gave thusfar was Martin Feldstein who (-if you bothered to read the article I so generously cited;) was the CEA chairman during Reagan's first term. He was also being considered as a replacement for Greenspan; until he started criticizing Bushonomics. He is the head of the economics department at some crappy university named Harvard.

But all of this means nothing. You said that Greenspan said otherwise. Prove it. You can't -and if you bothered to read Marty Feldstein's article you would see that he is following what the Fed has been doing and concludes "the Fed has gone unusually far to provide a margin of safety."

Ever heard the expression that actions speak louder than words? Greenspan's actions at the Fed have already spoken... In other words: Why would Greenspan have to provide a margin of safety if everything is as rosey as you think it is?

Quote:

Originally posted by onetime2

The economy is far from bad but since that doesn't fit your agenda you don't want to hear it.

My agenda? Yes here is my agenda:

Do Laundry -check
Feed Cat -check
hand out reality check -NF

Quote:

Originally posted by onetime2

If it were bad, I'd be the first to state it as such since I've spent a fair portion of my life studying the damned thing.

Oh yes, and Alan Greenspan says it is.

Ustwo · 10-23-2003, 09:34 PM

I'm done with this silly thread. You can't teach a blind man to see.

Astrocloud · 10-23-2003, 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ustwo
I'm done with this silly thread. You can't teach a blind man to see.

The last gasp of someone who has lost an argument.

HarmlessRabbit · 10-23-2003, 10:25 PM

ASTROCLOUD WINS!

onetime2 · 10-24-2003, 04:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Astrocloud

But all of this means nothing. You said that Greenspan said otherwise. Prove it. You can't -and if you bothered to read Marty Feldstein's article you would see that he is following what the Fed has been doing and concludes "the Fed has gone unusually far to provide a margin of safety."

Ever heard the expression that actions speak louder than words? Greenspan's actions at the Fed have already spoken... In other words: Why would Greenspan have to provide a margin of safety if everything is as rosey as you think it is?

Oh yes, and Alan Greenspan says it is.

If you'd like to look at actions then please do. Greenspan has always acted in a very cautious way (even during the "boom years" of the last decade). Feldstein's comment that the Fed has "gone unusually far to provide a margin of safety" is ridiculous as that has ALWAYS been a hallmark of Greenspan. His comments are always designed to be on the cautious side.

Have you seen Greenspan say that we need more stimulus? No. He pointedly alludes to low interest rates, home refinancings and cashouts, as well as tax cuts as sources of yet more consumer spending. The policies he has enacted are meant to temper the possibility that the Fed will be caught without the ability to impact the economy through monetary policy. His biggest concern is and always has been falling behind in the fight against keeping a stable economy growing in the 3 to 3.5% range.

And smooth, I don't know what thread you are reading but I have written quite extensively about the mechanics of unemployment, consumer spending, and a number of other issues throughout this thread. The sound bite mentality is obviously not coming from me.

To point out one SMALL piece of unemployment and ignore industry changes that are occuring is both naive and misleading.

And yes, I do claim to be an economist. Whether you choose to believe it or not I don't care. I don't need to quote the thinking of one or two "leading" economists because I have a firm grasp of economic principle.

From the FOMC in September:

"The Committee continues to believe that an accommodative stance of monetary policy, coupled with robust underlying growth in productivity, is providing important ongoing support to economic activity. The evidence accumulated over the intermeeting period confirms that spending is firming, although the labor market has been weakening. Business pricing power and increases in core consumer prices remain muted."

This is Greenspanspeak for "the economy is growing". The "economic activity" cited in this statement is growth.

Food Eater Lad · 10-24-2003, 09:12 AM

I love how direct sources are not accepted, but a secondary opinion is taken as gospel. The thinking is this, if it makes Bush look bad, it must be true.

Peetster · 10-24-2003, 10:02 AM

Ok, let's all take a step back. Please stick to the points, and not attack or berate.

Mojo_PeiPei · 10-24-2003, 10:15 AM

Fact of the matter the stock market is a better indicator of the state of the economy then the jobless rate is. So going by that we have had almost a year of solid growth (full year come November). Plus jobless rates aren't that bad, first off its a guesstimate, secondly 6% is not that bad compared to 10% in the 80's.

Ustwo · 10-24-2003, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by HarmlessRabbit
ASTROCLOUD WINS!

Ok I lied I'm back, but its good to see you here again Harmless, I thought I had banished you already in a pile of underpants.

No one has been able to show in any way why a tax cut costs jobs. You just want to keep your Bush bashing alive, no matter how weak your arguments be my guest, but until one of you lefties (GASP A LABEL) can show me how a tax cut on the people paying taxes hurts the job market, you have nothing to say.

Astrocloud · 10-24-2003, 12:02 PM

I must admit that the Greenspan argument is compelling. Please cite a reputable source for his comments.

http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/mov...es/000009.html

Quote:

From Brad Delong's Journal February 11, 2003
What Greenspan Did Say
He called for reestablishment of something like the Budget Enforcement Act--"I am concerned that, should the enforcement mechanisms governing the budget process not be restored, the resulting lack of clear direction and constructive goals would allow the inbuilt political bias in favor of growing budget deficits to again become entrenched..." He refused to support the reduction of taxes on dividends unless other taxes were raised to make the net effect budget neutral--"the Fed chairman said he continues to support elimination of double taxation on dividends... only if other revenue can be found so as not to raise the budget deficit."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan warned Tuesday that "geopolitical tensions" have added to the uncertainties dogging the U.S. economy, making a recovery difficult, and called for more discipline to control the growing U.S. federal budget deficit.

In response to questions from senators, the Fed chairman said he continues to support elimination of double taxation on dividends, but only if other revenue can be found so as not to raise the budget deficit.

Greenspan, in prepared remarks for his testimony before the Senate Banking Committee, said uncertainties about a possible war with Iraq were "creating formidable barriers to new investment and thus to a resumption of vigorous expansion of overall economic activity."

Greenspan said that the Fed, the nation's central bank, believes that when the risk of war with Iraq is lifted, business spending and the economy will rebound, although he said that was not certain.

"If these uncertainties diminish considerably in the near term, we should be able to tell far better whether we are dealing with a business sector and an economy poised to grow more rapidly -- our more probable expectation -- or one that is still laboring under persisting strains and imbalances that have been misidentified as transitory," he said in his prepared remarks.

Last week, President Bush presented his budget to Congress that projected a record $304 billion deficit for the current fiscal year. Greenspan, calling those projections "sobering," did not directly address whether the deficit should be reduced through spending cuts or elimination of the administration's proposed tax breaks, although he said, "There should be little disagreement about the need to re-establish budget discipline."

"I am concerned that, should the enforcement mechanisms governing the budget process not be restored, the resulting lack of clear direction and constructive goals would allow the inbuilt political bias in favor of growing budget deficits to again become entrenched," he warned.

The Bush administration has argued that tax cuts will spur economic growth needed to lift the government's tax revenues and control future deficits. Greenspan seemed to challenge this assessment, saying, "Faster economic growth, doubtless, would make deficits far easier to contain. But faster economic growth alone is not likely to be the full solution to currently projected long-term deficits."

In response to a question, Greenspan said he disagrees that deficits can rise without an impact on interest rates.

"There's no question that when deficits go up, contrary to what some have said, it does affect long-term interest rates, it does affect the economy," he said.

Greenspan did call for changes to the formula used to calculate cost-of-living increases in federal benefits and changes in federal income tax brackets that he said would have reduced the federal budget deficit by $40 billion through reduced outlays and increased tax collections. He seemed pessimistic that Congress and the administration will take the necessary steps to restrain growing deficits.

"At the present time, there seems to be a large and growing constituency for holding down the deficit, but I sense less appetite to do what is required to achieve that outcome," he said. "Re-establishing budget balance will require discipline on both revenue and spending actions, but restraint on spending may prove the more difficult."...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also worth noting. The G-7 Group said this morning that the Washington Post's reporter had been snookered--had been told that Greenspan was going to be much more favorable to the administration than was in fact the case--and that he believed it and printed it.

The G-7 Group says:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This morning's business section of the Washington Post suggests that Greenspan will throw his weight behind Bush's plan to eliminate taxation of dividends for individuals. Well... sort of.

As we wrote yesterday, Greenspan will acknowledge that he opposes double taxation of any income in principle and therefore believes eliminating such policiy is good long-term tax policy.
But he also has qualms about slashing federal revenue to the Treasury at a time when costs are rising and destined to rise further as the US grapples with war in Iraq and rising Medicare costs.

... Bottom Line: Greenspan will say that he favors elimination of double taxation in principle. But privately, he certainly didn't encourage moderates to back the Bush plan. And we don't expect him to change any minds today.

onetime2 · 10-24-2003, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Astrocloud
I must admit that the Greenspan argument is compelling. Please cite a reputable source for his comments.

His comments were in the latest FOMC (Federal Open Market Committe) press release. Check the Federal Reserve Board website. As far as his comments regarding fiscal responsibility, that has to do with a general long term strategy not a specific short term impact. The article you cite is eight months old and carries the same warnings about fiscal responsibility that he's been espousing since around 1987 when he began his tenure as the head of the Fed.

Sparhawk · 10-24-2003, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by onetime2
His comments were in the latest FOMC (Federal Open Market Committe) press release. Check the Federal Reserve Board website. As far as his comments regarding fiscal responsibility, that has to do with a general long term strategy not a specific short term impact. The article you cite is eight months old and carries the same warnings about fiscal responsibility that he's been espousing since around 1987 when he began his tenure as the head of the Fed.

Funny how when Bush 1 and Clinton (credit to both, where it's due...) commit to fiscal responsibility espoused by Greenspan and we get the longest stretch of economic growth *EVER*, and when Bush 2 tosses fiscal responsibility out the window we get... *shrug*

It isn't a recession, it isn't non-growth, but don't you think the US economy is capable of more, especially considering the evidence of the last 12 years?

Food Eater Lad · 10-24-2003, 07:58 PM

And the worst attack on our soil in history had nothing to do with the down turn, lets blame Bush, and then ignore the upswing when it happens.

Ustwo · 10-24-2003, 09:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Food Eater Lad
And the worst attack on our soil in history had nothing to do with the down turn, lets blame Bush, and then ignore the upswing when it happens.

And lets not forget when the downturn started and just who was president.

Food Eater Lad · 10-24-2003, 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ustwo
And lets not forget when the downturn started and just who was president.

B B But the president isnt responcible for the economy,,, wait, er I mean he is only when its Bush.

HarmlessRabbit · 10-24-2003, 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ustwo
And lets not forget when the downturn started and just who was president.

George Bush? Unfortunately, I am reminded of that every day.

http://www.ibew.org/JustTheFact0309.pdf

Food Eater Lad · 10-24-2003, 10:46 PM

LOL I remember the last year of Clinton's presidency and the sourness of the econony, but of course Harmless Rabbit's fun house mirror of distorted history and facts doesnt.

Ustwo · 10-24-2003, 11:16 PM

Clinton was handed a growing economy in 93 and left with one in decline. Yes its all Bush's fault. *heh*

I still remember a Jay Leno joke about who would want to win the 2000 election since they would inherit the recession.

And remember how MAD the Clintonistas got whenever anyone mentioned the slow down before the election, or even after the election but before Bush took office? Gotta keep that legacy going, while getting paid for those pardons I guess

onetime2 · 10-25-2003, 06:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sparhawk
Funny how when Bush 1 and Clinton (credit to both, where it's due...) commit to fiscal responsibility espoused by Greenspan and we get the longest stretch of economic growth *EVER*, and when Bush 2 tosses fiscal responsibility out the window we get... *shrug*

It isn't a recession, it isn't non-growth, but don't you think the US economy is capable of more, especially considering the evidence of the last 12 years?

I don’t really believe there was ever a commitment to fiscal responsibility by either administration. The surpluses we saw for a few years were due to an incredibly accelerated economy and the politicians were caught off guard by the extra money they had. The debate over what they should spend the surplus on showed that there wasn’t a wide spread commitment to pay down debt or be fiscally responsible. Additionally, the economy was growing before and began its fall during this supposed era of “fiscal responsibility”. But we could debate this subject all day and not get anywhere.

Your second comment is far more thought provoking. You are absolutely right that it wasn’t a recession and wasn’t even a period of non-growth. As far as what the economy is capable of, it is capable of considerably more growth. But with this fast growth comes far greater risks. It’s not unlike driving a car at 100 mph. You may be capable of doing it in short spurts but you’re not likely to be able to sustain it at that level, and even if you could, a bump in the road could cause far more damage at that speed than it would at 55 mph.

There were several drivers within the period of strong growth. Increased productivity, a strong stock market, low interest rates, increased home values, and low inflation combined to create high consumer confidence and impressive levels of consumer spending. Within these drivers we have seen some very good and some very worrisome developments and it was the relatively calm reaction of consumers and investors to these events that kept us from plunging into recession.

Specifically,

The stock market took a slight tumble. Given the increased consumer exposure (everyone from cab drivers to CEOs have ties to the stock market in the form of direct investing, 401ks, pension funds, etc) to events in the stock market, this drop could have precipitated a cut in consumer spending.

Corporate accounting scandals. Had investors/consumers looked at these as commonplace rather than isolated incidents it may have convinced them that their retirement savings were at risk. This probably would have led to pulling money from stocks and cutting back on consumer spending.

Low interest rates allowed consumers to manage their ever-growing debt levels. Had these rates gone up, the cost of servicing these debts (their monthly payments) would have gone up and cut into their spending.

High home prices combined with the above-mentioned low interest rates have allowed homeowners (and that’s a huge portion of the US population with around 2/3 of households owning their own home) to refinance. This has either allowed them to cut their monthly mortgage payments or to cash out some equity (or in some cases both) to pay down debt or go on spending sprees.

High productivity has allowed companies to keep prices steady (i.e., low inflation) and still make a decent profit.

The consumer/investor has become far more sophisticated than just ten years ago. They have taken to heart the advice of experts that investing in the stock market needs to be done over the long haul. They’ve made pretty good use of refinancings and low interest rates to solidify their financial positions and they haven’t over reacted to bad news.

So, while the economy CAN perform at a higher level than it is, it may not be what we should be shooting for. There’s a pretty good chance that this 100 ft economic drop has saved us from a 1000 ft tumble down the road. It’s also quite possible that this slow down will allow our economy to grow for another ten years without hitting a recession. Of course, we’re far from being out of the woods. More corporate scandals, the bottom dropping out of the housing market, widespread layoffs, or anything that causes the consumer to stop spending will push us towards a recession.

Astrocloud · 10-25-2003, 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by onetime2
His comments were in the latest FOMC (Federal Open Market Committe) press release. Check the Federal Reserve Board website.

Kid, you really take the cake. First of all -YOU ARE THE ONE ESPOUSING THAT GREENSPAN SAYS THIS OR GREENSPAN SAYS THAT. WHY DON'T YOU BACK UP WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY WITH QUOTES RATHER THAN HAVING OTHERS FIGURE OUT WHICH COMMENTS YOU ARE DIRECTLY REFERRING TO AND WHICH YOU ARE NOT.

THE "LATEST" FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD PRESS RELEASE says this:

http://www.federalreserve.gov/boardd...2003/20030916/

Quote:

The Committee perceives that the upside and downside risks to the attainment of sustainable growth for the next few quarters are roughly equal.

Roughly equal risks is far from the rosey picture that you paint.

onetime2 · 10-25-2003, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Astrocloud
Kid, you really take the cake. First of all -YOU ARE THE ONE ESPOUSING THAT GREENSPAN SAYS THIS OR GREENSPAN SAYS THAT. WHY DON'T YOU BACK UP WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY WITH QUOTES RATHER THAN HAVING OTHERS FIGURE OUT WHICH COMMENTS YOU ARE DIRECTLY REFERRING TO AND WHICH YOU ARE NOT.

THE "LATEST" FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD PRESS RELEASE says this:

http://www.federalreserve.gov/boardd...2003/20030916/

Roughly equal risks is far from the rosey picture that you paint.

First off I am not a kid. But that’s okay since it’s obvious you have a need to discount my opinions without actually discussing the facts, if you addressing me in this manner helps you to more easily disregard my points, well good for you. As to you having an issue with me pointing you to the source of the quote rather than cutting and pasting it, you’re the one that wanted it. I didn’t have time at that moment to find the link. I’m not sure why you had a problem with finding it yourself as the quote you just posted was the paragraph DIRECTLY beneath the paragraph I quoted.

Now, as to your belief that the statement about roughly equal upside and downside risks not painting a rosy picture, the risks say absolutely nothing about current or future performance. They only speak about the possibility of change from current levels. Is the upside risk 50% and the downside risk 50%? Is the upside .0001% and the downside .0001%? They are both equal but have vastly different meanings.

It’s interesting that you don’t comment on the other half dozen issues I mentioned. I guess you can’t find an article to quote.

And, so long as you’re here, I wanted to address your belief that living on an unpaved road equates to squalor. It’s especially interesting since your comments suddenly became “figurative” after asserting that the government handles road paving efficiently. When it was pointed out that the process is far from efficient, it became a figurative assertion. Further, I find the embracing of paved roads to be antithetical to most liberal ecologic opinion. As you may or may not be aware, road paving impacts the environment immensely. It reduces the surface area which is capable of absorbing precipitation, creates unnatural flows of water, promotes erosion in surrounding areas, and absorbs a considerable amount of heat throughout the day which raises the temperatures during the night in the immediate area. Throw in the environmental impact of asphalt production and the increased salinity due to road salt being used in the winter and you’ve got a pretty big negative thrown into the mix. But I digress, as that’s outside the realm of this topic (I did just want to point out that it was you who brought it up).

Astrocloud · 10-25-2003, 11:03 AM

Quote:

The Committee judges that, on balance, the risk of inflation becoming undesirably low remains the predominant concern for the foreseeable future.

Here's a little history lesson for all the conservatives who think that Greenspan supports 'Bushonomics'.

http://money.cnn.com/2003/02/11/news/economy/greenspan/

Quote:

Greenspan 1, Bush 0

Warning of growing budget deficits, Fed chairman undercuts Bush, GOP arguments for tax cuts.
February 11, 2003: 5:32 PM EST

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan dealt a blow Tuesday to President Bush's hopes for massive tax cuts by stressing the need for budget discipline and saying economic stimulus efforts should be put on hold until uncertainties about Iraq dissipate.

Though the central bank chairman, in his semi-annual Congressional testimony about the state of the economy, supported Bush's plan to eliminate the taxation of some dividends, he said such a measure should only be passed if other revenue could be found to replace the lost tax revenue, so as to keep swelling federal budget deficits under control.

"There should be little disagreement about the need to re-establish budget discipline," Greenspan said.

He also warned against Bush's plan to make 2001's $1.35 trillion tax cut permanent and immediately effective without safeguards to keep it from wrecking the budget. The tax cut was originally intended to be phased in over a period of years -- a plan Greenspan supported.

Bush has presented the dividend tax cut and the acceleration of the 2001 tax cut as a way to help stimulate the U.S. economy, which has been in the doldrums for months, struggling to recover fully from a recession that began in March 2001.

Democrats say Bush's tax cuts, which would mostly benefit higher-income families, are not stimulative enough and are so large they'd create massive deficits. They've offered a plan of smaller tax cuts and spending programs that would come with a smaller price tag.

"[Greenspan's testimony] certainly raises the probability that the structure of any eventual stimulus plan passed by Congress will move closer to that favored by Democrats, a plan that has clearly been associated with lower revenue losses," said Anthony Chan, chief economist at Banc One Investment Advisors.

The White House could not be reached for comment.

But Greenspan also questioned whether any stimulus package was necessary at all, saying he suspected the economy's biggest problem was lingering uncertainty about the prospect of a U.S.-led war in Iraq and the kind of effect such a war might have on the economy.

Greenspan said the Fed believes that, when the risk of war with Iraq is lifted, businesses will feel more confident about making spending plans, and the economy will rebound.

"Unless and until we can make a judgment as to whether there is underlying deterioration going on -- and my own judgment is I suspect not -- then stimulus is actually premature,'' Greenspan said in response to a senator's question.

On the other hand, he also warned that fixing Iraq might not be a cure-all for the economy, and that the Fed might need to again cut short-term interest rates -- already at 40-year lows -- if weakness continued beyond the resolution of the situation in Iraq.

"If these uncertainties diminish considerably in the near term, we should be able to tell far better whether we are dealing with a business sector and an economy poised to grow more rapidly ... or one that is still laboring under persisting strains and imbalances that have been misidentified as transitory," he said in his prepared remarks.

Undercutting GOP arguments

Last week, President Bush presented a budget to Congress that projected a record $304 billion deficit for the current fiscal year and deficits until at least 2008. These projections, which Greenspan called "sobering," do not include the possible cost of a war or post-war rebuilding in Iraq and are based on assumptions about economic growth that some economists think are overly optimistic.

The Bush administration and some economists have argued that deficit spending is desirable when the economy is slow, a theory with which Greenspan didn't disagree, but about which he was not very enthusiastic.

"You can have, in today's environment ... modest, small deficits. That's not inconsistent with stability," he said in response to a senator's question. "But if we get into a position ... where we are finding that the debt-to-GDP (gross domestic product) ratio begins to accelerate, we have to be very careful."

Bush and supporters of his plan have suggested that tax cuts would spur economic growth, which would in turn lift the government's tax revenues and control future deficits.

Greenspan also undercut this argument, saying, "Faster economic growth, doubtless, would make deficits far easier to contain. But faster economic growth alone is not likely to be the full solution to currently projected long-term deficits."

Greenspan also disagreed with the notion, offered lately by some Republicans and economists in support of the President's tax plan, that deficits can rise without having an impact on long-term interest rates.

"There's no question that when deficits go up, contrary to what some have said, it does affect long-term interest rates, it does affect the economy," he said.

Greenspan did agree with Republican arguments that a permanent tax cut would be more readily accepted by businesses and individuals and could lead to greater spending than would a tax cut that would eventually be phased out.

But he also warned such tax cuts should be flexible, subject to checks and balances that would keep them under control if they threatened to create big deficits.

"It would be desirable to have permanent, irrevocable fiscal policy. But if it adds up to a claim on resources which exceeds what is available ... something has to give," he said in response to a question.

Greenspan was unequivocal in his support of Bush's plan to eliminate dividend taxes, saying it was "a sensible long-term program." However, he also said such a plan should be "revenue neutral," meaning Congress should find a way to make up the revenue lost by eliminating the tax.

Greenspan called for changes to the formula used to calculate cost-of-living increases in federal benefits and changes in federal income tax brackets that he said would have reduced the federal budget deficit by $40 billion through reduced outlays and increased tax collections. He seemed pessimistic that Congress and the administration will take the necessary steps to restrain growing deficits.

"At the present time, there seems to be a large and growing constituency for holding down the deficit, but I sense less appetite to do what is required to achieve that outcome," he said. "Re-establishing budget balance will require discipline on both revenue and spending actions, but restraint on spending may prove the more difficult."

In more positive outlook, he said in response to questions that he believes that the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, passed last year to address accounting scandals, had gone a long way toward stemming misbehavior by corporate executives.

"I'm not going to deny we'll find additional examples of atrocious accounting, atrocious behavior," he said. "But I'd be very surprised if [any problem uncovered] was initiated beyond mid-2002." He said that the greater federal attention to corporate oversight had, "chastised the business community in a way to eliminate almost a high fever that had gripped people who were otherwise very ethical."

He also said he was not overly concerned with the risk of a decline in the price of housing, saying that even with a rise in mortgage debt levels, lower interest rates had kept the housing-related debt in line with consumers' incomes.

Greenspan said Fed economists expected gross domestic product (GDP) growth in 2003 of between 3.25 and 3.5 percent, with unemployment of between 5.75 and 6 percent. The forecasts were slightly more pessimistic than the outlook he offered in July, when the Fed expected GDP growth of between 3.5 and 4 percent and unemployment of 5.25 to 5.5 percent.

onetime2 · 10-25-2003, 01:22 PM

Well Astrocloud, it's obvious you don't have a leg to stand on as every article you quote is 8 months old and you still don't bother to discuss any of the economic points I've made. You make it a conservative versus liberal versus Greenspan argument and that has nothing to do with the economic reality of our times.

You choose to ignore the quote which was in the same press release which says that there is economic activity, you ignore the fact that, as much as you want to believe it isn't, the economy IS growing, and you can only debate by proxy since your knowledge of the subject is woefully inadequate.

Further, my contention has continually been that the President has virtually no effect on the economy. This negates any political influence in my analysis as not a single point that I made in describing the drivers of economic growth over the last decade is directly influenced by the party in power. You, however, are blatantly anti Bush and are looking to blame him for the SLOWED economy.

My grasp of economic principle has been well presented throughout this thread, you have only shown an ability to quote out dated articles and misread the statements associated with them.

Astrocloud · 10-25-2003, 05:28 PM

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

Quote:

US slashes growth forecast

The sluggish US economy is taking longer to pick up than anticipated, according to the latest figures and comments from the Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan.

Mr Greenspan, in his twice-yearly testimony to Congress, said the central bank was cutting its forecast for US economic growth this year by three quarters of a percentage point to 2.5-2.75%.

The downgrade came on the day the Bush administration predicted that the federal deficit would surge to a record $455bn this year thanks to tax cuts, economic weakness, and the cost of war in Iraq and the fight against terrorism.
Cautious optimism

Mr Greenspan described economic growth in the first half of 2003 as "sluggish".
He blamed the war in Iraq and ongoing caution by businesses, reluctant to invest or hire more workers.
But he said the Federal Reserve Bank expects economic activity to "accelerate in the second half of this year and to gather momentum in 2004".
"We believe that we are at a turning point," Mr Greenspan said, hinting that there are already some signs of an economic recovery.
A glimmer of hope for the economy came from figures for US retail sales, which rose by 0.5% in June, the biggest increase in three months.
Retail sales are seen as a reliable guide to the health of the economy in the US, where consumer spending accounts for two thirds of all economic activity.
Economists said last month's increase reflected lower interest rates, with homeowners taking advantage of cheaper borrowing costs to remortgage their properties.
Rate cuts

US interest rates are now at a 45-year low, but Mr Greenspan said a further "substantial" cut was possible to guard against any destabilisation and help fuel a faster economic recovery.
On 25 June, the Federal Reserve cut interest rates by a quarter of a percentage point to 1% - their lowest level in 45 years.
The Fed chairman said interest rates would stay low for "as long as it takes".
He said the June meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) had concluded: "The available evidence did not yet compellingly demonstrate that a material step-up in economic growth was underway."
Mr Greenspan said the goal now was to get the US economy growing at a faster rate, and suggested companies will need more employees as productivity picks up.
""If, and as we strongly expect, the growth rate will be picking up in the months ahead and rising above the relevant rate of productivity, then clearly increased work forces will be required to meet the increased growth," he told the House of Representatives.
Deficit fears
But the US deficit continued to cause concern.
The US treasury secretary John Snow described it as "manageable" but "unwelcome".
Mr Snow said the report had prompted him to redouble efforts to cut government spending.
The White House revealed new forecasts for the ballooning budget deficit, suggesting it would reach $455bn this year and $475bn in the next financial year starting 1 October.
"We are drifting into bigger and bigger deficits and what I find alarming is that neither party is willing to give up its political priorities to do anything about it," said Robert Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition.
Mr Greenspan said the deficit "mattered a great deal" and that he had long argued for "fiscal responsibility".
"I trust recent numbers will push government more and more to... a stable fiscal outlook," he said when questioned about the latest deficit figures.
The White House also projected a halving in the deficit to $226bn by 2008.

“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?

MSD · 10-25-2003, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Food Eater Lad
Then why is the economy on the rise?

Because it can't get much worse.

a_divine_martyr · 10-25-2003, 11:28 PM

Hehe, nice one MSD

onetime2 · 10-26-2003, 04:57 AM

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.

onetime2 · 10-26-2003, 05:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by MrSelfDestruct
Because it can't get mcuh worse.

It can get FAR worse. The economy has continued to grow throughout this period. When it does fall, people who have never really experienced a recession will be shocked at just how bad it can get.

Sparhawk · 10-26-2003, 01:42 PM

Thanks for the well-thought out response, ontime2. It really helps illustrate how precarious our position is when you lay it out like that, doesn't it?

The first Bush cleaned up the mess left by the huge S&L crisis, and raised taxes as part of a bipartisan deal to cut back Reagan's deficits.

Clinton did the right thing and raised taxes again in 93, a tax was aimed primarily at high-income households.

I think the misunderstanding here is different definitions of 'fiscal responsibility.' I define it as curbing spending, increasing revenue, reining in pork-barrel projects.

By all three of my markers, the second bush administration becomes a flagrant example of fiscal irresponsibility.

There's a great line in the movie "Dave", where the imposter president brings his friend out to review the government's budget. After spending long hours of study, his remark: "If I ran my business this way, I'd be out of business!"

Truman famously noted that "The Buck Stops Here". Our current president is quite literally passing the buck to the next president, and that person, republican or democrat, has my deepest sympathies.

a_divine_martyr · 10-27-2003, 09:52 AM

http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/P62365.asp

Quote:

In September, 138 million of us were employed, and 9 million -- or about 6.5% -- were officially unemployed. That unemployed number doesn’t include the 5 million people in the United States who work at part time jobs and say they’d like full time jobs if they could find them.

In September, 57,000 more people received paychecks than the month before. The biggest job loss that month came in manufacturing, where 29,000 people lost their spots on the payroll. Yep, the manufacturing sector continued to lose jobs even as the economy as a whole added jobs.

And the biggest gains in jobs came in business and professional services (66,000 workers added to payrolls in this kind of work), health care and social assistance (15,000), and retail (15,000).

Manufacturing jobs in the United States pay an average of $650 a week or about $34,000 a year, according to outplacement firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas. Retail jobs, in contrast, pay an average of $373 a week, or about $19,000 a year. Even as the recovery starts to pick up speed, the U.S. economy is shedding $34,000-a-year jobs and replacing them with $19,000-a-year jobs.

In a way, we're all right, I guess.

Jobs are up, but they're not nearly as decent as they were before.

In the article it says that Sony is going to reduce the number of parts in it's products from 840,000 to 100,000, and the number of supplies from 4,700 to 1,000. This means 3,700 companies are losing, what I will assume to be, a BIG chunk of income.

seretogis · 10-27-2003, 02:29 PM

By the way, I have been unemployed for over a year now, have had multiple unemployment claims denied by the national marketing agency I worked for, and have not stopped looking for work. Soo.. if you need a PHP programmer, pm me!

Astrocloud · 10-28-2003, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by seretogis
By the way, I have been unemployed for over a year now, have had multiple unemployment claims denied by the national marketing agency I worked for, and have not stopped looking for work. Soo.. if you need a PHP programmer, pm me!

Sorry Kid, (meant in a congenial Northern Massachusetts kinda way) -You will have to get in line behind the foreign workers who will be happy to work for less money than you. I guess that the Republicans don't think that there is enough of a high tech labor market glut.

http://sify.com/news/international/f...hp?id=13293386

Quote:

US likely to raise H-1B visa cap Monday, 27 October , 2003, 21:36

Washington: Proposals to allow more high-technology foreign workers into the US are gaining ground in Congress despite assertions by labour and anti-immigrant lobbies that plenty of Americans are available to fill the jobs.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Republican Senator Orin Hatch is pushing a plan to circumvent the 65,000 cap on H-1B temporary worker visas, under which large numbers of Indian and other foreign high-tech workers are employed in the US, by expanding exemptions, The Wall Street Journal reported on Monday quoting Senate aides familiar with the talks.

The talks mark for the first time that influential Senators are pressing for a temporary increase in the limit. While it is unclear if the move would succeed, Hatch's effort paves the way for a full airing of visa-overhaul legislation that has already been introduced and will likely be considered after January, the paper said.

The last-minute effort to modify the visa rules as the Congressional session winds down has been prompted by a growing concern among US multinationals and high-tech companies that the current cap will prevent thousands of expert foreign workers (needed by US business and industry) from entering the US next year.

In addition, said the Journal, immigration lawyers, officials and technology trade groups from India, and major US tech companies are pushing to raise the annual visa limit to more than 100,000. Any rule changes likely would be attached to a "must pass" Appropriation Bill.

"We will continue to work with our colleagues to try and find any appropriate legislative action. But we haven't announced anything yet" a spokeswoman for Hatch said.

She said any plan would include some added protection for US workers, including reinstating a $1,000 fee for each visa that would be used to pay for retraining American workers -- a strategy aimed at gaining Democratic agreement.

So far, an idea being pressed by Intel Corp, the giant computer chip-maker, is getting the most attention. Intel's plan recommends exempting foreign students with graduate technical degrees from the visa cap.

seretogis · 10-28-2003, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Astrocloud
Sorry Kid, (meant in a congenial Northern Massachusetts kinda way) -You will have to get in line behind the foreign workers who will be happy to work for less money than you. I guess that the Republicans don't think that there is enough of a high tech labor market glut.

http://sify.com/news/international/f...hp?id=13293386

Well, if the visa cap isn't raised, more companies will just outsource entire operations to other countries (such as India) rather than import some cheaper labor to the US.

Peetster · 10-28-2003, 05:09 PM

Here's the deal, folks.
Stop namecalling. Stop baiting.
Once you've made a point, don't continue to beat it into the ground.
You probably won't change anyone's mind that is hard over one way or the other.
Stop quoting 500 word posts. Pick out what is germain to your argument.
Finally, if you can't moderate yourself, you will be moderated.

10-23-2003, 03:39 PM	#42 (permalink)
DukeLeto Upright Location: Minneapolis	FEL, I get the distinct impression that you ignored large portions of your own post. The article states that the broadest indicators of employment were <i>unchanged</i>, not that there was an increase in employment. Furthermore, your source refers only to September of this year. A more relevant reference would provide data to show how the job market is faring since the Bush tax cuts, since that seems to be the hot-button issue. Did they provide the stimulus they were allegedly intended to, and if so, was it worth the price in decreased education funding, veterans' benefits, etc., etc.? To show that the tax cuts are responsible for this spectacular one-month-long trend of tepid employment figures may be possible, but do you really want credit for proving that Bush flushed over a trillion dollars down the toilet in order to generate a single month of mediocre economic news? Yes, a tax cut for low- and middle-income people would have been good. It also would have been affordable, with increases in taxes and penalties for offshore corporate tax cheats and the super-rich, who wouldn't even notice. To free up even more cash, the welfare (I know how much any good individualist hates welfare) that Uncle Sam forks over to oil, timber, agribusiness and nuclear industries could have been eliminated. Then we could have used that money where it was actually needed, rather than handing over half of it to the wealthiest 1% of taxpayers in the nation. Furthermore, FEL, since you seem intent on perpetuating this fallacy, a tax cut <i>is</i> possible for those who do not make enough to pay income tax. Their SocSec and Medicare taxes could have been eliminated, creating much-needed cash for them that would immediately be spent. Stimulus, anyone? This is far from welfare; it simply allows poor workers to keep every penny they earn. Surely there can be no objections to such a scheme from a true conservative? Hm? (conservative is not equal to Republican, nor is it a pejorative term). __________________ "I would not dare to so dishonor my Creator God by attaching His name to that book (the Bible)." -- Thomas Paine

10-23-2003, 09:34 PM	#48 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	I'm done with this silly thread. You can't teach a blind man to see. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

10-24-2003, 10:15 AM	#54 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Fact of the matter the stock market is a better indicator of the state of the economy then the jobless rate is. So going by that we have had almost a year of solid growth (full year come November). Plus jobless rates aren't that bad, first off its a guesstimate, secondly 6% is not that bad compared to 10% in the 80's. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

10-24-2003, 11:16 PM	#64 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Clinton was handed a growing economy in 93 and left with one in decline. Yes its all Bush's fault. heh I still remember a Jay Leno joke about who would want to win the 2000 election since they would inherit the recession. And remember how MAD the Clintonistas got whenever anyone mentioned the slow down before the election, or even after the election but before Bush took office? Gotta keep that legacy going, while getting paid for those pardons I guess __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps. Last edited by Ustwo; 10-24-2003 at 11:19 PM..

10-25-2003, 11:28 PM	#72 (permalink)
a_divine_martyr Insane	Hehe, nice one MSD __________________ Censorship and thought control can only exist in secrecy and darkness...

10-23-2003, 05:59 PM	#45 (permalink)
Food Eater Lad Banned	http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/business/6872006.htm WASHINGTON - The U.S. economy, powered by a red-hot housing market and a huge dose of spending for the war in Iraq, grew at a surprisingly strong 3.3 percent clip last quarter and raised hopes for an even better performance the rest of the year. The increase announced yesterday in the gross domestic product for the April-June period represented an upward revision from a 3.1 percent estimate a month ago. Analysts said growth in the July-September quarter would be at a significantly higher rate, fueled by President Bush's newest round of tax cuts, which took effect in July, and continued low interest rates from the Federal Reserve, a combination that has helped to push auto and home sales to record levels. "The economy is firing on all cylinders," said Sung Won Sohn, chief economist at Wells Fargo in Minneapolis. "The strong economic growth we are predicting in the future should create some new jobs." --Associated Press

10-23-2003, 10:25 PM	#50 (permalink)
HarmlessRabbit Junkie Location: San Jose, CA	ASTROCLOUD WINS!

10-24-2003, 09:12 AM	#52 (permalink)
Food Eater Lad Banned	I love how direct sources are not accepted, but a secondary opinion is taken as gospel. The thinking is this, if it makes Bush look bad, it must be true.

10-24-2003, 10:02 AM	#53 (permalink)
Peetster Right Now Location: Home	Ok, let's all take a step back. Please stick to the points, and not attack or berate.

10-24-2003, 07:58 PM	#59 (permalink)
Food Eater Lad Banned	And the worst attack on our soil in history had nothing to do with the down turn, lets blame Bush, and then ignore the upswing when it happens.

10-24-2003, 10:46 PM	#63 (permalink)
Food Eater Lad Banned	LOL I remember the last year of Clinton's presidency and the sourness of the econony, but of course Harmless Rabbit's fun house mirror of distorted history and facts doesnt.

10-25-2003, 01:22 PM	#69 (permalink)
onetime2 Junkie Location: NJ	Well Astrocloud, it's obvious you don't have a leg to stand on as every article you quote is 8 months old and you still don't bother to discuss any of the economic points I've made. You make it a conservative versus liberal versus Greenspan argument and that has nothing to do with the economic reality of our times. You choose to ignore the quote which was in the same press release which says that there is economic activity, you ignore the fact that, as much as you want to believe it isn't, the economy IS growing, and you can only debate by proxy since your knowledge of the subject is woefully inadequate. Further, my contention has continually been that the President has virtually no effect on the economy. This negates any political influence in my analysis as not a single point that I made in describing the drivers of economic growth over the last decade is directly influenced by the party in power. You, however, are blatantly anti Bush and are looking to blame him for the SLOWED economy. My grasp of economic principle has been well presented throughout this thread, you have only shown an ability to quote out dated articles and misread the statements associated with them.

10-26-2003, 01:42 PM	#75 (permalink)
Sparhawk Dubya Location: VA	Thanks for the well-thought out response, ontime2. It really helps illustrate how precarious our position is when you lay it out like that, doesn't it? The first Bush cleaned up the mess left by the huge S&L crisis, and raised taxes as part of a bipartisan deal to cut back Reagan's deficits. Clinton did the right thing and raised taxes again in 93, a tax was aimed primarily at high-income households. I think the misunderstanding here is different definitions of 'fiscal responsibility.' I define it as curbing spending, increasing revenue, reining in pork-barrel projects. By all three of my markers, the second bush administration becomes a flagrant example of fiscal irresponsibility. There's a great line in the movie "Dave", where the imposter president brings his friend out to review the government's budget. After spending long hours of study, his remark: "If I ran my business this way, I'd be out of business!" Truman famously noted that "The Buck Stops Here". Our current president is quite literally passing the buck to the next president, and that person, republican or democrat, has my deepest sympathies. __________________ "In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."

10-27-2003, 02:29 PM	#77 (permalink)
seretogis Huggles, sir? Location: Seattle	By the way, I have been unemployed for over a year now, have had multiple unemployment claims denied by the national marketing agency I worked for, and have not stopped looking for work. Soo.. if you need a PHP programmer, pm me! __________________ seretogis - sieg heil perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

10-28-2003, 05:09 PM	#80 (permalink)
Peetster Right Now Location: Home	Here's the deal, folks. Stop namecalling. Stop baiting. Once you've made a point, don't continue to beat it into the ground. You probably won't change anyone's mind that is hard over one way or the other. Stop quoting 500 word posts. Pick out what is germain to your argument. Finally, if you can't moderate yourself, you will be moderated.