raveneye

Remember the centerpiece of Clinton's economic plan? It was his deficit reduction program. Well, it was an incredible success as the graph above shows. Republicans of course screamed at the time that his taxes were going to destroy the U.S. economy. Did it happen? Nope.

Nevertheless, the first thing that Bush did in 2000 was to cut taxes to improve the economy. What happened? We started to slide into a recession. Then Bush wanted to cut taxes to prevent a recession. What happened? We entered a recession. Then he wanted to cut taxes to bring us out of a recession. What happened? The recession got worse.

When is the U.S. media going to stop their knee jerk assumption that cutting taxes is good for the economy, and increasing them is bad? Wasn't the postwar period, when the marginal top rate was the highest in history, a period of tremendous economic growth?

When you have a deficit as high as we do know, the dollar is threatened. It has tumbled recently. If it continues to tumble, our economic woes could make the last couple years look like a walk in the park.

Scott McClellan says that Bush is going to attack the deficit by "promoting economic growth." Presumably that means by cutting taxes.

Sure. That'll help a lot.

Meantime, the U.N. is observing that the twin U.S. deficits (in trade and budget) are "throwing the global economy off balance," and is frantic to find a way to solve the problem.

Here's a good first step: bring our military home from Iraq.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...get_deficit_dc
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/01/...ess/trade.html

Charlatan

Didn't Bush just ask for more $$ for the war in Iraq?

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

projectself

i love the whole "well, it didn't work the first time, so let's give it a go again" mentality. then again, what do you expect?

wnker85

The economy is on a slow wave like cycle. We can not stay on the high that came around during the Clition Years. Where there are ups there have to be downs.

Remember the stock market fell at the end of the Clition Era, so the economic trend was already started down again before Bush came into office.

And less taxes mean that the economy does well. Such as when the US industrialised, there were no taxes and busisness boomed. Lower taxes is an effort for Businesses to expad and to creat jobs.

Remember the economy cycles last more than four or eight years. The Prez's influences take time to take effect.

Paradise Lost

According to an article I read recently, the financial problems at the national level are
only going to get worse before they better. Most of the money that we get are
borrowed from international banking organizations or freakin wealthy international
brokerages and securities firms, I believe. As it stands right now, because there is
no sign whatsoever that the economy is going to make a come back, most banks are
wary to lend us money, because a.) They'll never see it again, and b.) even if they
are hoping to get it back, interest rates are so low that everybody will all be dead
before they make it all back.

Another way to make money is for other countries to buy bonds of one kind or another
from the government, but because of low interest rates, we'll hardly make any money
off of the bonds.

Tax reduction always makes the problem worse - especially when it comes to tax
breaks for corporations, while they help the corporations, a marginal amount of profits
make their way back into the hands of the government, thereby not really helping
our economy at all, other than the fact they'll produce cheap-ass goods, and we buy
them - giving them all the profits. People complain about taxes, but the fact is, it's
the only way for a large amount of our government to pay for stuff. A tough reality
would be to raise certain taxes, so that, if anything, it'll at least keep us from losing
any more money.

Also, in response to one of the first replies, post-War economy was such
a huge success because every country on earth was broke and they
borrowed a bazillion dollars from us, all of which they had to pay back.

__________________
"Marino could do it."

martinguerre

nevermind short term recessionary cycles, etc...

what i'm hella worried about is the long term problem of having a weak currency, huge trade deficits, and an unfathomable national debt. This is just one more indiciation that with the serious and critical economic issues facing America, Bush has committed what can kindly be referred to as a f$ckup.

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

Ilow

I understand about the cyclical nature of the economy, nevertheless from a moderate's standpoint, there appears to be a certain amount of fiscal responsibility lacking when you increase deficits and decrease income streams (and then requisition $80 billion).

__________________
"Religion is the one area of our discourse in which it is considered noble to pretend to be certain about things no human being could possibly be certain about"
--Sam Harris

scout

Confused?? Bush didn't take office until 2001. The recession started before Bush took office. You need to check your facts before you post.

The reason Clinton was able to project an end to the deficit was because the economy was booming. We never actually ended the deficit or got out of the red, it was merely projected.

Don't believe me?? Check the facts!!

raveneye

Sure but that doesn't mean U.S. Presidents can't cause serious damage in the short term and the long term.

Paradise Lost

Actually, the only time we've had a surplus since WWII was during the Clinton years.
The recession also started because of the rising Euro and Yen, and because of the
remarkable economy, the dollar started to fall for complex reasons I don't understand.

The falling dollar is also a big reason for the horrible state of the economy this very
day.

__________________
"Marino could do it."

pan6467

If you raise import tariffs to what other countries have, open a manufacturing sector that pays workers decent wages, and build products that are sold and taxed here, the tax base rises exponentially.

To keep shipping jobs overseas and allow our manufacturing to go overseas we have been losing tax base and therefore either taxes will have to go up or the deficit will continue to grow at such a rate that eventually the government will not be able to do anything but pay the debt off with taxes.

There are those that argue against this, but in reality we have no other choice but to bring manufacturing and decent waged jobs back or face taxes that will reach in the 90% iles.

I just don't understand how the conservatives can argue putting people to work and creating good paying jobs is wrong. Nor can I understand the left that believe that in doing so we have to tax these companies out of competition, so that they can't function.

Let's face it manufacturing is the Holy Grail of an economically sound country of our size, without it and without decent waged jobs we are sliding into a pit that we will not get out of.

We still have time but not much..... we must and have to do this if we plan to survive and pass a great country onto our children..... if we choose not to do this we will leave our children nothing but debt and an infrastructure they have no money to rebuild.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Mojo_PeiPei

The problem with making manufacturing a focal point of jobs and economy is that technology is increasing productivity and efficency. You no longer as many people to do the same job, that's why industry employment will continue to suffer and experience cut back, and it won't matter.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

wnker85

Actually low tarrifs bring in more money to the goverment. This allows international business to compete and still pay the tax. But our Govermnt has signed into many free trade agreements, so we lose our tariff allowing companies to send manufactuing over seas. And not have to pay a tariff when they are brought into the country. So the Goverment loses a bunch of money that is no longer coming in.

With the economy doing worse and the goverment getting all of its money off of INcome tax deficits will rise greatly when there are job loses, if we still had ourr tariffs then the goverment would have a fall back on money.

RangerDick

Stop injecting FACTS into the argument, darnit! Facts are of little significance when it comes to Bush-bashing fun! (you're ruining the fantasy dam you)

martinguerre

Not true.



Would this have lasted under Clintonian leadership? That's a valid question. But the fact is that for 4 years, we did have a budget surplus. We still had a national debt, but the yearly cash flow was positive.

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

raveneye

Yeah, I should have checked the fact that Bill Clinton actually caused the current deficit. My mistake.

scout

HAHA oh geeeez. I think one should blame the recession for the current deficit. The recession started before Bush took office. To dig a little deeper into the problem one could blame the Democrats and Republicans alike for the current deficit as both parties sold you, the average American, for cheap labor overseas. Both parties are responsible for Nafta and the free trade agreements that are currently in place. But hey, free trade is good for business, great for the bottum line and wonderful for the investors. One could also blame themselves for not buying American when they had the chance. Build'em cheap and sell'em high!!

Hardknock

The tune of 80 billion. 80 billion that we don't have.

I'd love to see the faces of the people who actually voted for this moron when it starts hitting them where it hurts the most, their wallets.

drakers

I'll be the first, as a huge liberal, to say I feel the recession was already beginning towards the end of the Clinton era (and a great era it was). But Bush has been completely non-fiscally responsible. I don't want to hear any republicans or supporters of Bush to say "The War in Iraq" (which should not even be going on) or "The War on Terrorism" is the reason for the deficit. Well first of all if he knows we are already in HUGE debt than he shouldn't trying to put those rediculous and stupid tax cuts into law. Even some big republicans think that is the wrong road to take. He is completely attuned to saving as much money for the richest in the U.S. than making sure after-school programs stay to help kids stay of the streets or making sure people at min. wage get short changed (even though inflation says they are being vastly underpaid where the min wage should be more like at $8 to be fair with inflation). Well I'm done talking...for now....until someone replies.

Yakk

If your goods cost 10 times more, the nation has to be 10 times richer to be just as well off, overall. High import tarriffs tend to increase the cost of goods more than they make the country richer.

A good paying job that exists solely because of government support is just welfare. Welfare, except in extreme cases, is best used as a short-term bandage.

When it is far cheaper to build a robot that replaces any worker being paid a 'good wage', we shouldn't be wasting people on it.

And that is the case quite often, and will be more and more in the future.

Secondly, your main trading parter is Canada. Your agreement to 0 tarrifs includes guarantees on your single largest source of imported Energy, as well as protection for American multinationals who do business in Canada, cheap raw materials, and many other benefits. Canada has ports, they can send their raw materials elsewhere.

Manufacturing is building durable goods. People only need so much durable goods.

Do you really mean Deficit? The US Federal deficit disappeared in the mid-90s.

I think you are talking about 'debt', not deficit. Deficit is your year-to-year budget shortfall, debt is the accumulated sum of your deficits.

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

shakran

This is the argument used by Trickledown Republicans who want it both ways:

They want to say that Clinton didn't help the economy because it takes 12 (that's what they usually say) years to have an effect.

They conveniently forget about the fact that Bush left office in 1992, when we were still in the depths of recession and national debt. Reagan/Bush had had their 12 years, yet the economy still sucked.

Then they want to blame Clinton for wrecking the economy for Bush, even though Clinton was only in office for 8 years and therefore according to the republican logic should not have been able to cause the economy to slump that fast.



What they really want to hide is the fact that trickledown works perfectly - if you happen to be rich. You get a lot more money. Sure, the economy goes in the toilet but that only hurts the poor and middle class, so it doesn't really matter.

You're correct in that the economy does cycle up and down, but you fail to give proper credit. When the economy is on a downturn, a president can either lessen it or make it worse. Reducing taxes while increasing spending is not the way to improve the deficit level. The higher the deficit and debt go, the less confidence in the dollar people worldwide have. As the dollar becomes devalued, the economy as a whole suffers.

The poor suffer greatly because even a slight reduction of income makes a huge impact. If you have $10 and I take $1, you barely have enough to buy one meal at mc donalds.

The middle class also suffers for the same reason. If you have $100 and I take $10, you don't have enough to buy groceries for a family of 3 for one week.

The rich don't really suffer. If you have a million dollars and I take $100,000, you still have $900,000. You can still buy pretty much anything you want.

Same percentage of income reduction, but vastly different outcomes.

KMA-628

Fox News aside, since when has the "U.S. Media" had the assumption that tax cuts are good for the economy?

anyways....

1) Well, we already now about the second paragraph being devoid of factual information, so we won't beat that horse any more.

2) Postwar periods are usually good for an economy (at least in the case of the U.S.). Marginal rates had nothing to do with it.

3) Per the graph: The graph poses an extremely flawed argument in that the true comparison must be made in relationship to GDP. If you look at a chart that uses this type of comparison it paints an entirely different picture--but that wouldn't help your argument now would it?

4) Economic growth is measured in the rate of change for per-capita GDP. I see you want to make a point about economic growth, but I don't see any information to back that up. Have you even looked up the statistics for measured economic growth in the U.S.?

5) Bush is proposing that spending be increased by no more than 1%. Maybe he is starting to get a clue in that area. Your presumptions aren't, once again, based on anything factual.

What has happened around here?

I go away for a little while, come back to read a few posts, and see stuff like this.

How can you start a debate when the majority of your original post is proven to be utter B.S.? And this isn't the only one. I just looked at another thread where the original starting argument was completely made up.

yikes, and this is a worthwhile topic for discussion

Hardknock

You go on and keep telling yourself that too. I'm still waiting for my big tax refund.

jimbob

Would cutting sales tax instead of giving refunds to the rich make more sense in an economy coming to the end of a consumer-led boom, as the US was at the end of the Clinton era? Less sales tax means cheaper goods and more sales without cutting revenue to the producers/importers, which translates to higher incomes for those that would otherwise have benefitted greatly from tax cuts, but the people at the lower end of the income scale would also benefit. And it's a virtuous circle - as those at the top see their incomes rise they pay more tax so sales tax can be cut further. Trickle-down does work but it's far less efficient in the short term than inducing higher demand, either by state-funded efforts to create employment, rightly described by Yakk as 'welfare', or by the fiscal means I suggested.

I have to admit though, while it's easy to imagine how increasing demand produces economic growth in an island economy it's less clear once imports/exports are considered. The same goes for tax cuts though - if your economy isn't doing too well then who's to say the tax refunds won't just be invested abroad?

Slightly off topic, but here's an interesting short discussion of the benefits of a more equal society (Sweden - high personal tax, low business tax versus the UK - low tax for high earners, contracting public sector):
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2005...-and-it-works/
Sweden has higher GDP per capita, is more competetive and creative, is more literate and offers better prospects for people born to humble origins. Perhaps Mr Bush should think outside the box if he wants an America where everybody is better off instead of where a few people become incredibly rich.

pan6467

Yakk,

I would much rather have a short term bandage (ie manufacturing brought back) then this continuous gushing of blood we now have. At least, in the short term we could find ways to improve long term. Right now the government and the middle class are just trying to survive economically... and they are failing badly.

The less people are paid the more dependant on government they become.... healthcare, education, etc. and the more taxes the rich will eventually have to pay.

You cannot have upper management making millions and the workers making enough to barely live forever. Eventually there will be a dramatic decrease in the nation's overall wealth.

You need to distribute wealth fairly in order to keep moving forward... otherwise you become overburdened on bothe ends. When that happens the middle breaks and a true depression happens. Look at history, the 20's and 30's economies are comparable to today.

We have let this faux "capitalism" go on to the point where it is destroying this country and the world. True capitalism is a fair (not equal.... FAIR) distribution of wealth that allows workers the income to spend on merchandise without going into severe debt. By allowing that to happen the economy continues a strong move forward and all are happy. However, when you pay workers barely enough to survive and threaten to go elswhere for cheaper labor, you promote massive debt and in turn the economy becomes very unstable and goes through severe highs and lows until it reaches an apex and crashes destroying everything.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Seaver

Woops double-post.

Seaver

Sorry but this is false. After every war there is a short depression. Cant find a source right now but it goes back to about every war there's about 2 year depression after every one. After those 2 years though yes, the economy generally boomed (Vietnam as an exception)

Yakk

That's a strange measure. Normally you measure change in GDP. Productivity growth is change in GDP per worker (or maybe per worker-hour, I forgot).

Don't know what to call "change in GDP per capita".

Sweden has a higher GDP per capita than what?

Are we talking at purchasing power parity, or using currency exchange rates?

(protectionist economies massively lower their GDP-PPP/capita)

But, manufacturing is a poor short-term bandage. It ends up perpetuating itself, acting as a leech on the economy.

Propped-up protected manufacturing is dependant on government.

So, using protected manufacturing in order to free people of their dependancy on government... it doesn't work.

When do you fire your workers? How did the manufacturing job, in an obsolete industry, help that worker prepare for the life after it stops being protected?

Do you allow people to build robots that build things? Really, a few engeneers and computer scientists can reduce the need for manual labour by a huge factor.

If before you required 2000 workers at 20$/hour (50 hours/week, 50 weeks/year), and now you require 100 workers at 30$/hour (50/50 as well)... Both with 75% overhead...

That's 175 million/year before and 14 million/year after. And now your protectionist economy isn't producing jobs, because markets adapt to distorting factors.

We could stop technological progress all together. Simply disallow any manufacturing technology developed after 1800, and we'd have plenty of things for people to do! People carving chairs!

Well, I'd guess you'd actually propose 1980 or something along those lines.

I don't understand where you got the terms "faux capitalism" and "true capitalism".

Capitalism is a system in which the means of production are owned privately. Free Market Capitalism is one where the means of production are traded in a free market.

Are you saying that the US economy is falling into an economic feudalism, or something?

I don't understand what you mean by 'making enough to barely live'. Relative to what? The problem with poverty in the west is mostly a problem of relative, not absolute, poverty (which is important, but using words like 'barely enough to live' is hyperbole). Well, that and mental illness.

Personally, my day-to-day expenses are on the order of 1.5 to 2.0 times the local low-income (aka, poverty) line. Mostly because I eat out pretty much all my meals. =p~

(this includes clothing, transportation, entertainment, rent and utilities). If you cut out my 'eating out' habit, I'd be very comphy and living barely above the line. I do live a spartain life by choice, but this isn't 'barely enough to live'.

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

KMA-628

We are basically saying the same thing.

By measuring the change in per-capita GDP, immigration is removed from the equation.

We could have a significant increase in GDP, but also have an even bigger increase in immigration.

While the higher GDP numbers would look better, they really aren't because the numbers were affected by a much larger pool of people.

i.e. GDP increases (hypothetically) 3% from 2004 to 2005, but per-capita GDP only increases 0.5%. What does that tell us?

Conversely, the higher the per-capita GDP change, the better we know our economy is doing.

From the World Bank:


But to judge a country's level of economic development, these indicators have to be divided by the country's population.

KMA-628

Uh, Pan?

How did you come up with this as a definition of "true capitalism"?

I don't think I have ever seen/read/heard any discussion of capitalism that involved distribution of wealth.

KMA-628

Speaking of "Today's economic news":

"When you add it all up, you can't help but be pleased with how the economy performed last year," said Carl Tannenbaum, chief economist at LaSalle Bank. "The economy in 2004, in some cases, was like the Rodney Dangerfield economy. It didn't get a lot of respect. We spent so much of last year worrying about high oil prices, deficits, employment ... yet through it all we were able to turn out an outstanding year economically."

Technically speaking, we had our best economic year since 1999 (2004: 4.4%, 1999: 4.5%)

The article goes on to say:
Sometimes I don't get it.

People with little or no training or education regarding economics: "the economy is bad!!!"

People who spend their life studying economics and interpeting data: "the economy is looking up!"

So, for the same year, with the same data, who is right?

pan6467

Sorry, if you read anything by Henry Ford (i.e. speeches) and on some of the major businessmen in the 40's and 50's you'll find that was common thinking among them.

I am too busy tonight, but I will have the book, page and exact quotes from a Henry Ford speech he gave that describes "free enterprise business" as I did above.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

chickentribs

KMA - enjoy your posts, even though I think we end up with different conclusions. In regards to the above statements, they could easily both be valid in that our economy is still not at a level to be considered good, but we had a much better year than 2003, despite loose fiscal policy. This would make sense that somebody with less knowledge would be focused on a single economic state today ($$ on hand), while an economist has the luxury of evaluating trends and thinking about quarterly and annual measurements. I also don't know that one is more right or true than the other because they are concerned with very different results, micro and macro if you will.

Most economist who don't have an agenda tied to either political party (I know, you have to go to Europe to find one) tend to be very "wait and see" because of dollar valuation, and G.W.'s Reform Tomorrow reputation. I just know for fact that I have to sell 20% more product internationally this year than I did last year just for my company to break even - and that is a huge burden on all corporate America. We have to get our monetary strength back - quickly.

I don't know what the speech Pan has by Henry Ford is going to say, but I was taught it means we have to lower our debt and tighten policy by letting Greenspan do his job without compromising the integrity of his authority for better poll results in the Bible Belt.

__________________
Oft expectation fails...
and most oft there Where most it promises
- Shakespeare, W.

jorgelito

Ha! Are you my long lost brother (or sister)? I wonder the same exact thing! What the...? I mean we're all looking at the same DATA but the "experts" all come up with different conclusions.

I usually look at my own and immediate surrounding situation to guage things. Inflation, wages etc... My tuition will triple next year and my financial aid has been cut back. I'm no mathmetician but that don't add up. I suppose that's what "no child left behind" means. Cost of living has increased for me and income has stayed the same. Interest rates have risen so my student loans will be more expensive.

So I simply conclude, the economy is great for some, and not-so-great for others. (Pretty much what all those highly paid experts say!). *sigh*

pan6467

Here's the quotes and speech by Ford:

There are two fools in this world. One is the millionaire who thinks that by hoarding money he can somehow accumulate real power, and the other is the penniless reformer who thinks that if only he can take the money from one class and give it to another, all the world's ills will be cured.
Topic: Fools

Link: http://www.worldofquotes.com/author/...d/1/index.html
=============================================================

The argument on my definition of capitalism: http://www.capitalism.net/articles/S...apitalism.html

"In this free-market environment, wages were determined by the law of supply and demand. Employers competed with one another for the services of workers. An employer who underpaid his workers would frequently lose them to those who paid a higher wage. The case of Henry Ford is illustrative. To attract the best possible workforce, Ford paid his workers five dollars a day at the very same time that his competitors were offering two and three dollars a day. It is a truly remarkable feat that as tens of millions of new immigrants poured into this country, wages continued to rise. "

However, today business will seek the lowest wages, instead of working towards better wages and employees. (My addendum)
http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/onp.../thompson.html

http://www.mises.org/etexts/ecopol.asp#_Capitalism
================================================================
"I have found that higher wages do not mean increased costs, and if our material prices go too high, we will start making our own. We are making a part of everything we use and from the nucleus can readily expand to take care of any or all of our requirements if necessary." - Ford News, No Increase in Ford Prices, April 1934



"Higher wages are not an additional cost under proper management. Better-paid workmen are more willing and more efficient. Better material is not necessarily more expensive. On the contrary, it is always more economical." - Ford News, No Increase in Ford Prices, April 1934

http://www.tickintsofcentralohio.org...d%20Quotes.htm
================================================================

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

pan6467

Henry ford's vision on what "capitalism and business should be": Chapters 7-8-9

Book Title: Henry Ford's Lean Vision
Publisher: 2002 Productivity Press
Website to order book from: http://www.ganesha.org/ford/intro.html

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

KMA-628

O.K. Pan, I see now where you got your info.

Anyway, the first thing I noticed was that it was voluntary, not forced.

I am all for higher wages, but I am completely against creating a price floor for labor that is 40% higher than the current level.

But, then again, I shouldn't really be worried. While I can see an increase in the minimum wage, I doubt it will be anywhere near what some advocates

pan6467

KMA 40% would be a catastrophic raise. And like I said a raise in minimum wage would not truly be an answer.

Charity or not we need to bring decent paying manufacturing jobs back or do what we have failed to do and that is spend heavily on re-educating the workforce and developing jobs that are needed and pay well.

Whatever we do we need to find a way to spread out the tax burden, allows for personal spending without massive debts and allow wages that make people feel they are valuable to the company. With that will come harder, more loyal workers.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"