bling -

I am not referring to debt, per se, but to the arguments made in this thread (along with the original concept).

Read it again.

Also, what's missing from Host's post that is a necessary element when delivering information like this???????

It follows along the same criticism I have of this thread.

onetime - And I will continue to wait for your response to the second chart.

You're going to have to be more specific. There are 2 mentions of the deficit in Host's link. One claiming the debt is more important because that is where interest is due (which is irrelevent to this discussion) and the other stating that the deficit does not include monies borrowed from gov't accounts.

I doubt the former is the issue you find relevant. As to the latter, if you have a chart showing monies borrowed from gov't accounts since 1960, please post it.

I do not disagree that context is valuable - but until context is provided and analyzed, I'm not going to dismiss this discussion or concede any opinion. If you don't want to take the time to provide context, that is fine. But don't expect anyone to reverse their opinion that Democrats are better for the economy than Republicans simply because you won't follow up on your own opinion. Information has been provided - a discussion of that information requires more information. You don't "win" a discussion by simply stating that somewhere there is more information.

Onetime tried that. He attempted to dismiss the discussion because the first chart was not up to date. That the up to date chart bolstered the opinion of the original post doesn't help onetime's case in any way. Maybe a chart showing money borrowed from gov't accounts shows that Democrats borrowed less - this would again bolster the opinion of the original post. Until the information is provided, I can't judge it.

I am not trying to "win" anything.

I am pointing out that the discussion is flawed, misleading and based on inadequate information.

My point: It should've been presented better or not presented at all. And, not one person to the left of the political spectrum has had the gumption to recognize this.

Again, I repeat myself, I am not here to further a discussion on this topic. It is too complex and too broad for this type of forum.

And no, you are still missing the point, regarding the missing info on Host's post (not necessarily the link) and the other thing I mentioned. It is intrinsic to a discussion of this type and if you cannot see that then there is no reason to point it out to you (Hint: value).

See, you are missing it again. That was not onetime2's point at all.

He stated, ratherly clearly I might add, that you cannot START a discussion on this type of topic with old and outdated data. You would get laughed off of any economic stage.

Yes, Mephisto posted a second graph, that is not what onetime2 is talking about.

Only as flawed, misleading and based on inadequate information as any and all discussions. Mephisto could not have provided every single piece of relevent data. Even a prolonged discussion (which we have not even begun, because we are arguing over what a discussion actually is) could not provide every single piece of relevent data.
I disagree. It was presented efficiently enough. The problem you have with it is that you do not want to present any other information. In effect, you do not want to have this discussion. You're allowed to not want to have the discussion - but it is not Mephisto's fault that you do not want to have the discussion. You have stated that there is other information out there. Understood.
Ha. "If I don't know what you're talking about, I must not know what I'm talking about." Nice.

Onetime attempted to do something which was impossible: completely discount a discussion because a single piece of 40 pieces of information was not presented. Sorry, but his insistence that the entire crux of the opinion in the first post is invalid because 1 year of 40+ is estimated (but actually known) is absurd.

Yep, and add to that he was a statesman, an intellect, had charisma, was self made, and a lover of women.

God, How I wish he could run again.

Exactly.

bling, the second chart, despite more accurate information, does nothing to offer CONTEXT and has as little relevance as the first when discussing "Good handling of the US economy".

The budget deficit is NOT the economy. It neither drives nor hinders the economy in any substantial way.

In actuality it was two years in the original chart and that was a substantial part of Bush's Presidency. The numbers were wrong and your belief that this fact is irrelevant is equally wrong.

The only evidence presented to begin this thread was that chart. It was submitted as proof of poor handling of the economy. The entire discussion isn't flawed because of a lack of one year's data, it is flawed because no correlation exists between budget deficits and "the good handling of the economy".

But I digress. There is no point in continuing down this path. You believe this thread is substantial while I believe the premise it was based upon was flawed from the outset. There is no reconciling our stances and, quite frankly, I have little inclination to educate you about economics.

2004 numbers do not exist outside of estimates.
This is my point. Your attempt to dismiss the discussion on the grounds that the first chart is outdated was not effective - and you know this to be true, which is why you are now claiming that entire discussion is flawed because it does not include some other information, which you continue to fail to provide. Sorry, no. The discussion is not flawed because you refuse to contribute to the discussion.
Quite frankly, it would be impossible to "learn" anything from you about economics, considering you continue to refuse to provide ANY information on economics. Take your superiority complex elsewhere and please refrain from dismissing discussions simply because you refuse to partake in them.

...enough with the personal attacks.

period.

amen to THAT! The rest of the debate is inconsequential from my point of view because neither side is particularly fiscally responsible. I don't consider the redistribution of wealth, however much it may lead to a "balanced budget," to fall under the realm of responsibility.

You know, I think you have a fair point. Of course I was trying to show that I believe Bush is mishandling the economy compared to his predecessors. Anyone who posts here has a political leaning.

So I accept my initial comments were biased and apologise accordingly. I have gone on record as saying I'll try to find more appropriate figures or analysis... and believe me I've tried.

Well, believe it or not, I wasn't trying to mislead anyone. But I think your criticisms are fair and valid.

Let me be the first to admit that I often tout the "I try to be objective" line quite regularly here. In this circumstance it seems my choice of words were unsatisfactory.

Having said that, I believe it's only natural to show some bias in one's posts. I believe you (KMA) are equally "guilty" of that as me. But in this case, you're right.

I'll keep on looking for more accurate figures, or ones that include things like interest rates and GDP.

Thanks for the insightful and constructive criticism.



Mr Mephisto

Mr. Mephisto, congratulations on the single most considerate post I have ever seen on the Politics board. It's things like that and folks like you who allow me to enjoy this forum and to try to not just spurt fire and sarcasm. If I can do half that well, I wil feel successful.

If Kerry keeps half the promises he made- it can only get worse.
That said I have no idea how Bush plans to get outta this pickle... I've not yet heard any plans by Kerry ( raising taxes on the 'rich' wont cover it)

So much of what caused our current situation happned during clinton years. I was all for the guy btw- a true moderate-


But Enron/Tyco fiasco occured under Clitnon -was uncovered under Bush- yet Bush's numbers take the dive

Yeah, I agree, but these "fiascos" often occur when there is lack of accounting oversight and ever more deregulation of the financial markets--stuff that Republicans tend to push hardest for (with Democrats reluctantly agreeing).

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...gulation/view/

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...llstreet/view/

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...s/dotcon/view/

Well, after much searching I finally found a graph that shows a number of seperate factors and how they have changed (generally for the worse) under Bush.

http://www.ppionline.org/upload_grap...ance_Index.jpg

There are three pages of explanation and comprehensive references to explain this graph if you don't understand or disagree with the data as presented.

http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?...ntentid=252964

This article is also relatively up to date, having only been published about two weeks ago.


I hope this satisfies onetime2 and KMA-628 in their understandable request for more balanced data and information.


Mr Mephisto

where is perot when you need the little foot stool

While interesting, comparing the economic performance while Clinton was in office, perhaps the most staggeringly positive economy in the history of the US (and possibly the world), to the tenure of the very next President who presided over the inevitable fall of said economy and an attack that deeply effected a key economic center (NYC) and countless industries (airlines, hotels, financial services, etc) doesn't exactly lend itself to calls of thorough economic analysis.

Certainly this adds a little more context than your original charts but only marginally more since it only compares the terms of the two most recent Presidents and the economic realities of Bush are inexorably linked to the performance under Clinton.

Hell, this article doesn't even mention the recession that occurred during the second President's term. "Accounting" for the fact that Clinton was in office for 8 years and Bush only 3 1/2 does little good when a fair portion of his term was occupied by the recession.

Other factors that this analysis ignores:

You can not look at jobs data over the last decade plus without discussing, in detail, how the remarkably high productivity growth relates to the overall employment picture. In fact, the productivity increases the article points to as "one of the only bright spots" in Bush's tenure and the productivity growth seen during Clinton's terms have lead to fewer jobs. The more productive a worker is, the fewer employees required by businesses to achieve production needs.

Now, on to GDP. Rather than look at GDP growth from year to year because, with the exception of the mild recession stemming from the tail end of the 90's boom, it paints a pretty good picture for Bush. While looking at GDP per capita is valuable, it is far from the economic panacea this article presents it as. First and foremost, the growing population includes children, elderly, and infirmed. These are hardly factors even remotely controllable by a President. GDP is absolutely the best single measure of the economy and excluding it is questionable at best.

Median household income is not the "best measure of American families' well-being" because it doesn't take into account the stored wealth of the population. Home values, investments, savings, assets, etc play no part in this data. Additionally it doesn't take into account their liabilities. Consumer debt (credit cards, auto and home loans, etc) play a big part in the well being of the family yet play no role whatsoever in this analysis.

Not trying to knock you down at every turn here Mephisto, just trying to get the point across that the economy is incredibly complicated and even a wonderful three page article with endnotes cannot give a complete assessment of the economy by looking only at the two most recent Presidents' terms and focusing on half a dozen or so indicators.

I don't think you are trying to knock me down. I was simply responding to some valid criticism of the first graph with one that shows considerably more data. It took me some time to find this analysis that addresses several economic indicators. Not everyone on this board would do the same.

I challenge you to find one that explains how well Bush has handled the economy. :) Simply knocking it because Clinton's term was successful is not really refuting it.

Finally, whilst a three page article with extensive references and end-notes does not give a complete assessment of the economy, neither does a six paragraph response with absolutely no references or end-notes. :D

Either way, I think it's a fair bet that Bush will be re-elected at this stage. I'm just surprised at how so many people continue to support his handling of the economy.


Mr Mephisto

I agree that not many on the board would do the same. I have posted economic analyses at great length on this board and found very few people willing to do any work at all to understand and/or illustrate what's going on in the economy. I applaud your persistence.

I don't pretend that what I've posted is an accurate portrayal of the economy as a whole, just an accurate response to what you've posted. I guess I'm still a little tired of spending hours researching, writing, and posting economic facts only to have the posts ignored or responses consisting entirely of article postings that have little to no relevance to the discussion.

As far as your surprise over the defense of how Bush has handled the economy, I wish I could say that I am surprised by the criticism he has received but I cannot. The President has virtually no control over the economy. The US economy is over $10 Trillion dollars. It's made up of hundreds of million workers, companies by the hundreds of thousands, and interacts with almost every other economy on earth. The belief that the President does anything but ride the tide of economic forces in 99.9% of cases is wishful thinking.

Perhaps one day soon I will venture to describe the current US economy in detail but not today. It's unlikely that you will find any articles that do anywhere near a comprehensive (or even significant) job of analyzing the economy because most articles need to appeal to the reader. There are very few readers who want an economics article that isn't trying to prove a relatively simple point that they can understand.

You'll find plenty of articles with themes like "Clinton did better than Bush" or "Unemployment is skyrocketing" or even "Homeownership at all time high" but it's rare to find any article that focuses on the current state of the economy. Even in academic or business publications there is almost always a certain tilt that an author will take to make his analysis unique and focused to his/her audience.