"I trust Bush with my daughter, but Clinton with my job."

Bush inspired me to register to vote, and when nov. comes around, I'll be there. I'll be there voting for the candidate running against Bush.

the dems have no good candidate running against bush. they are all worthless whiners. I don't see how anyone in good conscience could vote for them.

I wouldn't trust a draft-dodger with my job. :)

Some of you keep discussing how Clinton 'inherited' Bush's economy, which is completely fallacious reasoning, it was high because of the natural ebb and flow of the economy itself. Clinton taking the helm only coincided with the ecomonic boom of the 1990's-the-so called "dot com era". the Democrats rode high and utilized this boom, and in the 2000 election, they were planning on saving all that excess money for the good of the people, because they knew, as the Republicans fail to acknowledge, that after any ecominic boom, lies a period of economic recession. And Now you say Bush "inherited" Clinton's economy? he only inherited the ecomony itself, finally losing the fire of the boom. and Then he gave away the surplus money that we could be using to help keep people and programs afloat, to "give the ecomony a boost". it didn't work.

Now for those of you who say this tax cut will work. It is nothing more than a remaned Reaganomics. the truth of it, is again, that any sort of success during the 80's can be attributed the natural flow of the economy. not Reaganomics. But it goes back even further. The Republicans believe in a system of Lassez Faire "Let Be", to keep Government out of the economy, and to not handle too much of citizens money, taxwise. Just let people keep their paychecks to do with as they please, and let Businesses run as they please. Sounds pretty neat, eh? Try again. before this taxcut, before Reagonomics, was the depression. 1929, Herbert Hoover was president. the stocks fell, and he refused to get involved. (the 1920's were a notoriously successful Republican era, led by faulty business practices, and it seemed awesome, until the depression came and the shit really hit the fan, because the government had no money stored away to soften the blow, in the inevitable case of a recession, and no plan to keep afloat). Hoover cut taxes even further to "boost the economy", and, he let businesses try to get out of this pitiable little rut on their own accord. It failed miserably, for 4 years, people watched at stocked continued to plummet. and Hoover did next to nothing, figguring it would all work out on it's own. Next election came, and fellow by the name of Roosevelt, who had a "New Deal" for the american people was elected one of the biggest landslides in history. His new deal helped alot. Businesses were held more in control by the Government, jobs were created out of thin air, and in 100 days, the economy had begun to rise again.

But again, it goes back even further. in the 1770's and 80's. a newly created system called Lassez Faire held the lower classes in the clutches of the upper class. made them angry enough to rebel. they call it the French Revolution.

So for those of you who think 'Good Ol' Republican Know-How" will help. Think again. you can think having more money in your pocket will help. but perhaps you're just too ignorant to learn from the mistakes of History. it didn't work then. it won't work now.

i don't mind some gov regulation and trustbusting and all that happiness. I just shouldn't be compelled to pay for something that someone else didn't earn. back in the day businesses did get away with too much crap. but the economy is always based on consumer confidence, and if the gov had shot a wad of money into the mix, inflation would have made it all worthless. germany pre world war two is a perfect example. in reality, the prez has so little to do with the economy, except as far as confidence goes. the repubs buy votes by giving people their tax money back. dems buy votes by giving the money away as some kind of unearned benifit or entitlement. it's all bullshit. but for you to take some kind of self righteous stance, talking about lassez faire as the cause of the french revolution. economics played in but the real reason was bad government and law. In addition to economic differences, early modern French society was legally stratified by birth. Its three traditional divisions were the clergy, the nobility, and the common people. this legally stifled economic growth and the sense of self worth and equality in a class that had had it with the fancy boys. this is the same kind of thing we see in india today. in america, the removal of social restrictions allows anyone to succeed. so you can take the two french words you happened to learn while you weren't sleeping in remedial classes in high school and play them some where else.

But, i never stated Lassez Faire was the only reason. obviously wasn't. the lower classes have always been oppressed, throughout all of those years, beyond back God knows when, but the idea of Lassez Faire was instigated in that time, and it WAS, undeniably, a driving force behind the French Revolution. sure, they he oeople were pissed off for other stuff, starving in the streets as Marie and Louis dined in luxury but you can't just write it off. As you said, it was bad Government and Law, a form of Government that oppressed the people, and Lassez Faire, which helped to oppress them even further, helped to send them right off the edge. as for saying i was falling asleep in remedial classes, that's just an assumption you're willing to make because you don't like what i said. cry me a river, build me a bridge and get over it.

Yeah, and the National Guard did us soooooo much good during the Vietnam Era, I'm sure.

I would agree with mystarimatt for the most part, but there is one thing that you have not touched on.

And that is deficits.

And this is something that governments, and in particular presidents have DIRECT control over.

Under George W Bush, the American deficit has soared to over 500 billion dollars annually.

That is unreal.

Clinton was running surpluses, Bush is running massive deficits AND giving out tax cuts to mainly the rich folks in the USA. Now this is a disasterous economic policy that you can lay squarely at the feet of W Bush.

Yes, I know that revenues are falling, and i am especially aware that the USA was attacked on September 11, BUT.....

If you want to play, you have to pay. If you want 500 billion dollars of extra goodies, you have to come up with 500 billion dollars of new revenue.

It works pretty good in the household, it will serve a country the same.

You have to live within your means.

I can not understand for the life of me the sense in cutting taxes while you are in deficit mode.

Essentially George W Bush is borrowing money to give rich people a tax cut.

If inflation rears it's ugly head in the USA you had better watch out because Allan Greenspan will start to raise interest rates to control inflation. He will have no choice. Greenspan (a republican) has consistently warned against deficit spending and how much of a hinderance to growth it is, but Bush doesn't seem to be listening.

If Greenspan starts raising rates when the economy is so weak (and has been week for 3 years), it will be devestating to industry, consumers, AND the US federal gov't who's 500 billion plus loan is going to start costing some very large interest dollars.

That will be a one two punch.

At 500 billion a year, the DEBT (and I am not sure what that is in the USA) is going to grow at an astonishing rate.

Who is going to pay for this???????

All so some guy can have a tax cut and go out and buy himself a new TV???

It's nuts

excuse my humor, those who were offended. I often try to be funny, for funnys sake, with no animosity intended. In the great depression, the economy continued to fail because of deflation, and the deflation continued because hoover insisted on having a balanced budget. Because he would not budge on that, the gov could not affect the flow of money. when nixon took us off of the gold standard in the 70's, that gave the gov the freedom to grow and retard the amount of currency in circulation. It is an accepted theory of keynesian economics that gov's cannot run correctly without a deficit. combining these things allows the gov to actually steer the economy, but not totally control it. the idea behind deficit spending is to give people more of their money so that they will either invest or spend, allowing more capital to be available, or increasing economic activity that will create jobs,(supply and demand) and increase the base of taxable income in the long run. the trick is to control inflation. as long as the gov doesn't increase the available money for economic activity by actually printing more money, then inflation will not increase. by allowing people to simply spend the money they make, more money circulates thru the economy. then the gov revenue grows out of the deficit, and jobs are created. when you get down to it, most people want to be able to pay the cable, drive a decent car, cover the mortgage and want to go out to dinner now and then. because the usa is primarily a service economy, the only way to stimulate the economy is by giving people more money to spend on services. i would rather have a trustworthy (financially) gov in a deficit situation and know that my job is more secure, because the economy is growing or at least humming along, than not have the deficit, and know that my job is tenable. I won't spend any money if i am trying to stockpile against possible job loss. less money moving, less money for people to get what they want. as for tax cuts for the rich, you can only give tax money back to the people who actually pay them. 96% of the income taxes in america are payed by 50% of the taxpayer base. that means a lot of people out there aren't paying taxes (fica type) anyhow. If a rich person gets a tax cut, who am I to bitch, it isn't my money to begin with. the mindset that I should have any say about anyone elses (personal) money is the whole problem in this country. i have found that a lot of wealthy people spend a buttload of money on things that stimulate the economy. works for me.

The problem with the claim that reducing taxes will lead to an increase in jobs and, ultimately, more revenue is that more money in someone's hands doesn't necessarily create jobs--the market dictates the feasability of expansion.

If a market is saturated or the same productivity can be achieved at a similar (or lower) cost then no jobs will be created.

In a strained economy workers' productivity must increase because the labor pool has increased (don't work at %110, get laid off).

very true, the market is going to drive it, and work must be valued correctly. but more than 50% of americans are invested in the stockmarket now, and it changes the dynamic. business naturally looks for the most efficient way to make a profit, including downsizing the labor force. that forces innovation in the labor pool, and more people start a business of their own then. The laws in this country need to be changed to favor small businesses, instead of the punitive nature they have now.

Really, and what happens when 50 cents of every tax dollar is going to pay just the interest on the deficit???

Ask Argentina just how well deficit spending has worked for them, or Brazil, or Venezula, or France even for that matter. Or even Canada where for years our gov't spent money like a bunch of drunken sailors and now we have a huge DEBT that gobbles up 20 some odd cents of every tax dollar. And that's just the interest.

I must have been dreaming when i saw on the news the economic melt downs in Argentina where people's savings became worthless over night.

How many people have mortgages that they never pay down? That's how gov't deficits operate. They keep borrowing and borrowing, which inevitably drives up the cost of borrowing.


Yeah, like chalets in Switzerland, and Ferraris, and winter retreats in the Carribean....

hmm, interesting numbers in the poll.

Now, looking at the poll (pointless to say the least...) It looks like Clintons slimeness works, for you voted for him....sad really...

Bush is not perfect, but I think he is a hell of a lot more inteligent then you give him credit for! For every one of you that bashes Bush, How about you run for president, see if you do any better....Ill bet you do not...

Well put ganon.

To all the people here that are saying live within your means to the government;

Do you have a mortgage? How about a few credit cards? Does that count as living within your means?

That seems to me like you are running a personal deficit.

A government that runs a surplus is taking too much of my money.

You point is taken.

In fact I do have a mortgage, I don't happen to have the kind of cash at hand necessary to buy a house cash.

BUT,

Each year I am paying that mortgage down. Not adding to it.

There in lies the difference.

If I ran my personal finances like gov'ts run deficits, each year I would be getting a bigger and bigger mortgage until all of my income went to paying just the interest on my loans and I had nothing left to buy the basics.

That's what I call a bad idea.

Has it gotten to that point yet for the US gov't?

No, absolutely not.......

But, if they keep borrowing money, more and more tax dollars will be defered to pay the interest only.

Someone has to pay the piper for this sometime.

I don't have a mortgage.

I have a few credit cards. Balances: 0.46 on a 8.9% APR, ~$3,000 on a 0% APR.

I currently ensure I have enough in my saving account to pay off my outstanding balances--I'm earning interest on money that has been lent to me by Discover, however, ATM.

All of my vehicles are fully owned.

My scenario certainly qualifies me as "living within my means."

Now, of course a government that is running with a surplus is holding "your" money. Actually, any money the government has is "your" money--even when we run a deficit.

All economic units, not just families, must save capital in "on" times in order to deal with the "off" times. One can not borrow more money than one is worth--unless a private lender wants to risk his or her money. Even your mortgage is based upon real property--not your word that you'll pay it back, and certainly not whether the market will become invigorated or compressed.

The hydrogen is to be extracted from gasoline. That way, you still have to pay the gas tax. That's also why hybrid cars and ultra-low emission vehicles cause less polution than hydrogen-powered fuel-cell vehicles.

I think we need a better example, but I can't think of one off the top of my head.