State of the union speech

[5thSFG.CNUTZ 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 01 2003,07:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (5thSFG.CNUTZ @ Feb. 01 2003,13:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It depends on what you mean by "gets down to business". If you mean trashing the US economy,<span id='postcolor'>

The US economy's growth was showing slowing at the end of the Clinton Admin.  Not to mention Sept 11th and corp. scandels had enormous damaging effects, no President could have prevented this.<span id='postcolor'>

Well, considering that he was involved in those scandals, I think that some of the blame assigned to him.

I understand that there were macro-economic forces at play too. Squandering away $500 billion can't all be blamed on the world economy.<span id='postcolor'>

Well, let see...  The President was involved in Worldcom, Enron and Tyco?  Seems to me that it could be said that under the Clinton Admin and his FTC, appropriate corporate accounting rules were not enforced.  This being said, it allowed many companies to artificially inflate their profits thus increasing stock prices.  Once this was exposed, they fell through the floor.

Before you say that Bush was in bed with Enron, just as many Democrats received funds from Enron as Republicans.  I would say all were guilty, not just the president.

As far as the 500 billion...  I assume you mean the projected surplus?  Well, when the economy takes a dip, the projections change.  The projections are based on current tax intake levels.  With tax intake levels dipping, does it not make sense the surplus dries up?  Who said anything about the world economy, I didn't?

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (5thSFG.CNUTZ @ Feb. 01 2003,14:05)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Before you say that Bush was in bed with Enron, just as many Democrats received funds from Enron as Republicans.  I would say all were guilty, not just the president.

 <span id='postcolor'>

But they are not the president

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As far as the 500 billion... I assume you mean the projected surplus? Well, when the economy takes a dip, the projections change. <span id='postcolor'>

Projected deficit if anything. Clinton left about $300 billion in surplus when he left. Current projections show a deficit of about $200 billion.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Who said anything about the world economy, I didn't?<span id='postcolor'>

I did. The declining economy is not a US phenomena - it's world wide. The world markets all around the world have not yet recovered from the collapse of the dot-com bubble.

[5thSFG.CNUTZ 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote (5thSFG.CNUTZ @ Feb. 01 2003,145)

Before you say that Bush was in bed with Enron, just as many Democrats received funds from Enron as Republicans.  I would say all were guilty, not just the president.

But they are not the president   <span id='postcolor'>

Wasn't Daschel in control of the senate then?  He has no power?  They don't make legislation that can affect corporations?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Projected deficit if anything. Clinton left about $300 billion in surplus when he left. Current projections show a deficit of about $200 billion.<span id='postcolor'>

Some of which is a result of increase Homeland security measures.  I don't think those monies are being squandered.  Nor do most Americans I bet.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I did. The declining economy is not a US phenomena - it's world wide. The world markets all around the world have not yet recovered from the collapse of the dot-com bubble.<span id='postcolor'>

Thanks for helping me prove my point that it is not all the Presidents fault.

[SirLoins 0]

5thSFG.CNUTZ, You will find that no matter what you say to the people on this forum, Bush is dirt to them.

Don't waste too much time trying to explain what they have no capacity for understanding.

They all curl up in their respective corners and hurl nothing but rhetoric about a country and a man they no absolutely nothing about.

Simply pathetic

[Bernadotte 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (SirLoins @ Feb. 01 2003,17:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">5thSFG.CNUTZ,  You will find that no matter what you say to the people on this forum, Bush is dirt to them.

Don't waste too much time trying to explain what they have no capacity for understanding.

They all curl up in their respective corners and hurl nothing but rhetoric about a country and a man they no absolutely nothing about.

Simply pathetic<span id='postcolor'>

Then what is it that keeps you so interested in what we have to say?

[ralphwiggum 6]

unfortunately for Clinton, if he did anything to corporations, the congress would have said no. in his second term, balance of power worked, and congress was more in favor of Republicans.

the problem with Bush's economic plans(from state of union adress) is that it calls for less revenue for gov't and more spending. and that could mean deficit which will cloud future expectations in macroeconomic area.

his idea(or Reagan's) of creating economic stimulant through tax cuts is extremely dangerous. one time, REagan supported his idea with his example of his days as an actor. when the taxes were high(during war), production would make movies just enough to feed ppl and go no further. unfortunately, peace time is not war time.

furthermore, reducing gov't revenue(tax) will give ppl more money, but how much of affect it will have on consumption increase and increase wage is a big question. even if that happens thoughly, it takes time, and during that time, lack of gov't's fiscal policy will linger and offset the effects.