Us presidential election 2004

[Tex -USMC- 0]

My, my, what hard text we have here. And I thought that the almost instant global communications we have today would prevent global disagreements, which sometimes lead to global wars. I might have to revise that opinion in the future.

Anyway, shout into each other's mouths as much as you want to, but as long as a man isn't free to make his own decisions without some idiot commie, redneck or moderate politician interfering, the world will stay screwed. You are all missing the obvious conclusion that all ideologies are bad. Abolish all ideology, do not believe in anything and you shall be free.

Beliefs and ideologies aren't necessarily a bad thing, it's when people cling to their beliefs in a dogmatic/irrational fashion that they become problematic. As long as you're willing to revise your outlook in light of new information, then you're fine. As Keynes once said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

[Schoeler 0]

And the battle intensifies. On the conservative side you have  realy stereotypical NRA members that insult the world as cowards, that supports strict catholicism, considers succesful women as "Feminazis" and people believing in the greenhouse effect as"Environmentalist Wackos".

In America, Catholics tend to be on the left or liberal end of the spectrum. Its why we have the phrase "Catholic sensibilities" as an expression in this country. It is the Protestant faith, particularly the born again christians and the gospel faith christians who are members of the "moral majority" and on the extreme right. These people seem to despise: Catholics, Jews, Muslims, New Englanders, Californians and especially homosexuals.

Personally I see them as narrow-minded, bigoted, assumptive (they speak on behalf of God a lot, as if they have some sort of direct line to him) jackasses. They are almost to a man, Bush people. I wonder if that has anything to do with our arrogant foreign policy?

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Very astonishing then that Bush is often using the relgious aspect of the american dream to enhance the support of his republican voters. Maybe I was wrong about the percentage of catholics vs calvinists (which describes american lutherism better than protestantism).

I mean homosexuals is realy not the topic I care much about, but what you say would imply that the democrats are against gay-marriage (based on belief) and the republicans would support it. NAH! it is the other way around!

[walker 0]

Hi all

The Real issues such as Jobs are what is driving the US voters to vote against The Vietnam War Dodger George Bush Jnr. and vote for The Vietnam War Hero J. F. Kerrey in droves.

Quote[/b] ]The economy has shed 2.2 million jobs since Bush took office in January 2001.

http://www.usatoday.com/news....t_x.htm

In order to give a false hope to the US Jobless George Bush Jnr. has been borrowing up to the hilt to pay for federal jobs but all those loans will have to be payed for.

Tax and Spend Republicanism has to be stopped

The high Fuel costs the US Driver has to pay at the pump are a direct result of the falling value of the dollar.

Republican Tax by loan is driving down the economy

The dollar was driven down by the affect of the low forcast rating for the US economy by business.

Republican stealth TAXES must be stopped

The low economy rating is due to the known cost in Tax of paying back the loans George Bush Jnr. has been raising.

Some one needs to tell George Bush Jnr.

Its the Economy Stupid

Kind Regards Walker

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]The Real issues such as Jobs are what is driving the US voters to vote against The Vietnam War Dodger George Bush Jnr. and vote for The Vietnam War Hero J. F. Kerrey in droves.

I do not consider him a "Hero" but a "semi-hero" (lol) because what he did after when he came back. Another time.... Like Bush is a veteran of the National Guard....

Quote[/b] ]Tax and Spend Republicanism has to be stopped

Democrats do the same thing if they had majority (ala the big dig).

Quote[/b] ]The Real issues such as Jobs are what is driving the US voters

duh

Quote[/b] ]The high Fuel costs the US Driver has to pay at the pump are a direct result of the falling value of the dollar.

Maybe that OPFEC is going to cut oil supply by more than million barrels a day.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Hi all

The Real issues such as Jobs are what is driving the US voters to vote against The Vietnam War Dodger George Bush Jnr. and vote for The Vietnam War Hero J. F. Kerrey in droves.

Quote[/b] ]The economy has shed 2.2 million jobs since Bush took office in January 2001.

http://www.usatoday.com/news....t_x.htm

In order to give a false hope to the US Jobless George Bush Jnr. has been borrowing up to the hilt to pay for federal jobs but all those loans will have to be payed for.

Tax and Spend Republicanism has to be stopped

The high Fuel costs the US Driver has to pay at the pump are a direct result of the falling value of the dollar.

Republican Tax by loan is driving down the economy

The dollar was driven down by the affect of the low forcast rating for the US economy by business.

Republican stealth TAXES must be stopped

The low economy rating is due to the known cost in Tax of paying back the loans George Bush Jnr. has been raising.

Some one needs to tell George Bush Jnr.

Its the Economy Stupid

Kind Regards Walker

We went over this back on page 5, but it seems like I'll have to repeat myself:

Quote[/b] ]I beg to differ on this one. In fact, of all of his current policies, Dubya's economic policy is the least vulnerable to attack. The massive economic stimulus of the last three years has finally started taking effect, productivity is up, and the capital investment of the late 1990's is beginning to pay big dividends. Last fiscal quarter our GDP expanded by a rate of over 8%, and this quarter we're on track for an equally solid but not quite as alarming 4%. Most estimates of GDP growth for the coming year lie between 4-5%. Although job creation is still nil, unemployment did drop a quarter of a percent last quarter, suggesting that our current unemployment problems are more due to structural and frictional unemployment rather than the more worrying cyclical unemployment.

Not that there aren't weaknesses, of course. Depending on your perspective, the increased outsourcing of American jobs is either a good or bad thing- ironically enough the current round of outsourcing is actually contributing to our current economic uptick. The jobs being outsourced, such as call centers and basic industrial production, can be done cheaper and just as well overseas- American workers are simply no longer competitive in these markets. There are only two alternatives to going with the structural shift that this outsourcing represents. One is pursuing protectionist policies such as tariffs and tax incentives that have been shown, especially in the case of the steel industry during the last quarter of the 20th century, to only delay the inevitable. The other is forcing the American market to be competitive, but this is clearly an unacceptable solution, because to become competitive would require American workers to take huge salary cuts- something Americas don't take well. Of course, there is one more possibility: in the case of the back-office services that have become the most publicized instance of outsourcing in the past few years, this exporting of jobs may be just a temporary phenomenon. Take for instance, basic IT and tech support services. Right now, humans are still needed for these jobs, and the humans offering their services at the cheapest rates don't live in America. However, advances in high-tech IT is creating a situation in the very near future where those jobs will be done even more cheaply by a combination of a couple hundred code writers and a few server farms situated in Washington. In other words, the jobs that we are currently complaining about being lost are probably going to dissapear altogether in the next 20 years anyways. To use a crude analogy, what does the job market for blacksmiths look like these days?

The fact is that our economy is evolving at a nearly unprecedented rate, and structural unemployment is going to happen- it's just inevitable. We can choose to protect our workers in the short term, which will most likely cripple our ability to compete in the long term (just like in the steel industry), or we can choose to embrace the evolution and endure the costs that are going to occur because of it. To be perfectly frank, the solutions to a significant portion of our employment problems lie on the individual level. In our current adjustment, most of the jobs being exported are semi-skilled and unskilled workers. This could be a blessing in disguise, because those unskilled workers can now use some of their new time off to attend a community college and become a skilled worker. Rather than trying to hold on to subpar jobs, in the interest of our future welfare we should be constantly raising the bar and attempting to nurture our workforce's abilities.

As for other problems, such as possible future inflation precipitated by onset growth and a weak dollar, those are issues that need to be addressed by the Federal Reserve, not the President. Overall, for this presidential race, it's not the economy, stupid.

[denoir 0]

And the battle intensifies. On the conservative side you have  realy stereotypical NRA members that insult the world as cowards, that supports strict catholicism, considers succesful women as "Feminazis" and people believing in the greenhouse effect as"Environmentalist Wackos".

In America, Catholics tend to be on the left or liberal end of the spectrum.  Its why we have the phrase "Catholic sensibilities" as an expression in this country.  It is the Protestant faith, particularly the born again christians and the gospel faith christians who are members of the "moral majority" and on the extreme right.  These people seem to despise:  Catholics, Jews, Muslims, New Englanders, Californians and especially homosexuals.

Personally I see them as narrow-minded, bigoted, assumptive (they speak on behalf of God a lot, as if they have some sort of direct line to him) jackasses.  They are almost to a man, Bush people.  I wonder if that has anything to do with our arrogant foreign policy?

America is unique in the western world through its religious-political connection. I suppose it has to do with the distributed social structure and as well as historical reasons. Many of those that moved to America from Europe were part of non-mainstream religious organizations. The two biggest groups being calvinists and puritanists. Since America has a rather distributed form of government, with little centralization and a lot of regional and individual independence, they were able to keep their flavour of not seldom fundamentalist christianity. You have to be a really serious believer to move to another continent just because of your faith. The more pragmatically oriented Europeans handled their limited religious interest through the mainstream churhcs. It was the hard-core religious types that moves, and that is still visible today.

For instance calvinism is in the very core of the "American dream". Normally (Europe as a reference) both the catholic and protestand churches are traditionalist but at the same time social-liberals. While they promote pro-family values, they also promote stronger social security etc. America however has a calvinist-centered clustering. The basic premisis for calvinism is that your current economic state reflects on how much God likes you. Basically if you're poor then God is probably punishing you for something you did. If you are rich, it means that God is being nice to you for a reason. This is one of the fundamentals of American enterpreneurship ideals ("the American dream").

It's a very powerful paradigm and I have no doubt that it has led America to its current status as the world's strongest industrial nation. It has however quite a few nasty side-effects. One of them being the christian fundamentalists that have a large say in politics.

I wonder however how long before they'll be gone. I mean it's not a very realistic view of America today. Their ideologies are based on a social order from the 18th century. Much of it does not apply today. Still it's very strong. Just like in the Soviet union you had to be a good communist and quote Marx on a regular basis to succeed, in America you have to be religious. I mean, even the most liberal democrats will with emphasis assure everybody how religious they are and how they go to church twice a week.

[walker 0]

Dear Tex

I would just like to state the facts.

Fact

The economy has shed 2.2 million jobs since Bush took office in January 2001.  The link is above.

Fact

The US economy is way below what it was under President Clinton and the democrats

I draw your attention to this graph of median average income of US citizen compaired to the rate of inflation. It clearly shows income increases for the period of Bush have consistently been below inflation yet under Clinton they were consistently above it.

http://www.epinet.org/content....4302003

Income should always be compaired to inflation or it is meaningless it is called real earnings.

Fact

The price of petrol has risen consistently under the George Bush Jnr.

Fact

The reason why George Bush Jnr. can not ask for oil Producers to produce oil more cheeply is because producers can not produce it cheaper. His dad probably told him that as did his mate Dodgy Dick Cheyney.

It is not the value of oil that has increased. It is the value of the dollar that has decreased.

There has not been a similar increase in costs over the rest of the world. Listen! Can you Hear? No one else is complaining. Hello! You in there no problems here.

Fact

Business look at the future cost in Tax on a country of its balance of trade and debt. Both of these are at all time record bad levels.

Fact

Business assessed the US economy and downgraded its value, as they know debt has to be repaid hence future tax rises and hence the dollar dropped.

Fact

You import Oil and other raw materials those costs have gone up because the value of the Dollar has gone down.

Fact

Business has reassessed the value of the US economy and revised their projections downward again.

Tax and Spend Republicanism has to be stopped

Republican Tax by loan is driving down the economy

Republican stealth TAXES must be stopped

Some one needs to tell George Bush Jnr.

Its the Economy Stupid

Kind Regards Walker

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]The US economy is way below what it was under President Clinton and the democrats

The economy began to go down at the end of the Clinton years.

Jeez. Everybody knows the economy is/might a/be problem for Bush.

[walker 0]

Quote[/b] ]The US economy is way below what it was under President Clinton and the democrats

The economy began to go down at the end of the Clinton years.

Jeez. Everybody knows the economy is/might a/be problem for Bush.

Hi billybob2002

Yes if Clinton had been able to spend more time on it rather than being hounded about his trying to keep quiet about his marital infidelities his superb management of the US economy could have continued and all would have been richer for it but even so he left the economy in a better state than he found it. The Bush family seem to have thing about Maxing out the governments Credit Cards.

Now we have had years of Credit Card government from Debt Crazy Georg Bush Jnr.

Some one needs to tell George Bush Jnr.

Its the Economy Stupid!

Kind Regards Walker

[denoir 0]

Walker, I think you overestimate the influence of the president. The US economy, just like any other market economy is a creature of its own. The politicians can try to influence it etc, but in the end it's the market and not the government that decides. The growth in US economy during the 90's wasn't the result of Clinton. Neither was the dot-com bubble and its crash under W. They may have had a finger in it, but the deciding factors are out of their reach.

What you can look at instead is the government's own debt and spending. In this case you can clearly see the misses of Bush's attempt of making Reaganomics work.

The income of the state are the taxes. Good years on the market means large incomes from the taxes. Bad years means less money. Bush's economic policy is based on the idea that if you lower the taxes, you promote spending, which in turn promotes production. It worked very well for Reagan in the 80's. So why isn't it working for Bush? Becuase the debt is three times as large percent of GNP than it was under reagan. It's the interest. The government simply can't afford to lower the taxes as on the short and medium term the taxes from the increased spending and production won't even cover the mortage. At the same time government spending is only increasing.

A flawed tax policy and a lack of governmental spending discipline are the hallmarks of the TBA's fiscal policies. The death of the dot-com bubble and the consequent downfall in global economics had however nothing to do with Bush. He got a ticking bomb when he started his presidency. It was not his fault that there was an explosion. His failures come from badly handling the aftermath.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Fact

The economy has shed 2.2 million jobs since Bush took office in January 2001.  The link is above.

The economy is sitting at 5.6% unemployment, which is well within normal limits. The fact is that increases in productivity and the advent of a business market that is truly IT integrated have changed the reality of the job situation in America. During the Clinton Administration, unemployment reached extremely low levels, however it was clear near the end of his second term that the good times were ending and that the peak of the business cycle had been reached. It is simply unrealistic to expect the economy to sustain such a low rate of unemployment during the back end of a business cycle.

Quote[/b] ]Fact

The US economy is way below what it was under President Clinton and the democrats

The idea that politicians are solely responsible for the wellbeing of the economy is extremely tenuous. Following that line of reasoning, Clinton was responsible for the tech bubble bursting, inflation rising, and the economy going into a recession in 2001. The fact is that Bush's current economic plans are good enough; they counteracted the recession the economy was in, and other than worries about inflation down the road, they have set America in fairly good stead for the next 5 years.

Quote[/b] ]I draw your attention to this graph of median average income of US citizen compaired to the rate of inflation. It clearly shows income increases for the period of Bush have consistently been below inflation yet under Clinton they were consistently above it.

http://www.epinet.org/content....4302003

Income should always be compaired to inflation or it is meaningless it is called real earnings.

What do you expect from a global economy? By increasing the level of free trade between America and other economies around the world with significantly smaller economies and lower median earnings, it would be foolish not to think that these numbers wouldn't face a downward adjustment in the interrim period. As for the inflation, I'd once again reiterate that if politicians are the sole executors of economic well-being or ruin, then this is clearly Clinton's responsibility. During his two terms, the American economy became increasingly driven by unmitigated consumerism. That was fine when the economy was growing quickly, but as soon as it slowed down the amount of goods available hit a wall, while the consumeristic culture fostered under Clinton grew apace. That's what inflation is, in essence: too many dollars chasing too few goods and services. I'd also like to point out that as productivity numbers have shot up in the mid-to-latter portion of '03, inflation has gone down.

Quote[/b] ]Fact

The price of petrol has risen consistently under the George Bush Jnr.

Fact: this is not his fault. OPEC controls world oil prices, not the American President.

Quote[/b] ]Fact

The reason why George Bush Jnr. can not ask for oil Producers to produce oil more cheeply is because producers can not produce it cheaper. His dad probably told him that as did his mate Dodgy Dick Cheyney.

Fact: this is not a fact. What is a fact is that OPEC could produce more cheaply if they wanted to (as could any oligopoly worth its salt), but that would cut into their profits. Also, I personally am in a section of the country that benefits from stable (and relatively high) oil prices which stimulate domestic exploration and exploitation, so you don't see me complaining. Here's another fact: increasingly high gas prices are one of the things that environmentalists are counting on to be the catalyst for sincere pursuit of alternate energy sources. If we suddenly have oil that's $25 a barrel, that won't ever happen.

Quote[/b] ]Fact

Business look at the future cost in Tax on a country of its balance of trade and debt. Both of these are at all time record bad levels.

For the record, our national debt is not a real issue at present. Our rampant government deficit is, and yes, the two are somewhat related, but a Democrat in the White House wouldn't be any better. How do you think Kerry is planning on financing both middle class tax cuts and his $99 billion health care plan? I can tell you now it won't be solely through raising taxes. It will be primarily through deficit spending. As for trade, once again this is simply a continuation of the trend set in motion by Clinton and his efforts to globalize America's economy. In the long run it is going to be beneficial for America, even if the short term costs are a bit obnoxious.

Quote[/b] ]Fact

Business assessed the US economy and downgraded its value, as they know debt has to be repaid hence future tax rises and hence the dollar dropped.

Who's business? America's currency did not drop because of our national debt; if that was the problem the dollar would be perpetually in the cellar. The low value of our currency was due primarily to our recent recession which, although mild, was in stark contrast to the cornucopia we experienced in the late 90s. We failed to adjust our behavior, inflation commenced, interests rates went up to adjust, and the dollar went down. That simple. All of that, incidentally, is under the Federal Reserve's purview, not the President's.

Quote[/b] ]Fact

You import Oil and other raw materials those costs have gone up because the value of the Dollar has gone down.

Well duh. Ironically enough, however, the weak dollar may end up providing the foundation for a recovery from our current trade deficit and economic ills. Why? Here's why: when the dollar is weak, American goods and services become cheaper to foreign investors, hence, they will be more attracted to American products than they were when the dollar was high and importing to America was more profitable. In point of fact, a significant portion of our current economic recovery is actually being fueled by foreign currency from foreign investors, keen to gain a foothold in an economy that they know is bound to recover. The point being that your accusations against the sitting President are flawed, contradictory, and missallocated.

Quote[/b] ]Tax and Spend Republicanism has to be stopped

To me it's no different than tax and spend democrats, and that's more or less what Kerry is. The last truly fiscally responsible American government got voted out of office back in 1994, a year after House Dems pushed through a balanced budget.

Quote[/b] ]Republican Tax by loan is driving down the economy

Untrue, for the reasons given above.

Quote[/b] ]Republican stealth TAXES must be stopped

This I can agree with, even though it is occurring more at a state level than anything. For example, Texas Republicans refused to raise taxes to cover our state's budget shortfall, and they didn't. However, their refusal to raise taxes has forced universities across Texas to hike their tuition rates, in essence creating a tax on families with students.

Quote[/b] ]Some one needs to tell George Bush Jnr.

Its the Economy Stupid

I wasn't going to mention it, but this sort of rhetoric is really getting tiresome. You didn't actually hit on any of the points in my post above (a repeat performance from the last time it was ignored), and instead launched into your same talking points. Now refute this: America's economy is not that bad, and it certainly isn't bad enough to become an issue in this year's election except through misinformation and shameless election-year pandering.

[walker 0]

Dear Tex

Economics is simple Tex you try to make it complex but it really is not.

It is not that the bad little men in OPEC increased the cost of a barrel of oil they didn't.

The Dollar value went down.

NOBODY ELSE IS COMPLAINING. Only the US is saying Oil prices are too high.

Oil prices are not too high they are at the price the market set. It is just in the US that people can not afford the price any more because their Dollar will not go as far.

You say the government in charge is not too blame for the current economy of a nation.

I say Hogwash.

It sets budgets collects the Taxes runs up the debt. It is in almost all economies the biggest employer spender and seller of services.

It is controlled by the administration who set the budget, agree trade deals, tell the FED what goals to aim for in terms of inflation. Mostly it about balancing the books. Of course it has control of the biggest leavers on an economy. That is why politics is important if you don't think so why even contribute to this thread?

The plane fact is that George Bush Jnr.'s Administration and Republicans don't balance the books and President Clinton and the Democrats Do.

You can argue that well there was a Republican Congress when Clinton was in power yes and there is one now while the US economy drops like stone.

I could just use Denoirs simplistic Black Box Approach and Say:

Elect Democrats --> Economy Goes up

Elect Republicans --> Economy goes Down

But that as you say is simplistic. It is policy that sets up an economy. So let us examine your much vaunted 8% and 4%growth.

That was Debt Driven growth in case you did not know.

What pays for government Debt?

In Tex's magic economics are not real wonder land, I guess it must be the tooth fairy.

Here in the real world all government debt, I repeat ALL GOVERNMENT DEBT, has to be paid for by taxes.

Debt can pay for pump priming but when you dont have the real power there to sustain it as has been stated by many economists, it is just wasted effort. So all your federal schemes that go create government jobs as George Bush Jnr. has done have no effect and just mean more debt.

You can have a fantasy about it being paid for by growth but what that means is that money that is created by growing business is TAXED. In other words that money comes out of the most productive sector at a time when the business could best use the money in creating new jobs and buying better systems to produce more wealth with. Instead they have to pay past taxes for failed administration.

Net result of such growth is then totaly negated net result zero.

Then there is the whole question of having also to pay interest on the loan. Something that totally passes over the heads of credit card government and its idiot followers; whoosh.

Business knows this. By this I mean Wall Street, I mean Ford, I mean your local bank, I mean international firms, I mean any one who has to deal with money at an international level.

Their reaction is very simple they get out of countries where they expect Tax to go up. They switch to more stable currencies with out the future tax burden. They outsource to countries where the tax burden of employing people and running a business is not so high.

For those businesses who are not international when the costs of raw materials prices rise, as gas at the pump has, the choices are stark. No profits, cut your dividends, cut wages, cut jobs.

For Government services the choices are the same so you cut veterans benefits, you cut services, stop repairing the roads, collect the trash less often, cut Medicare,

When your the Administration you can try to hide this. Start a foreign War to distract people, Shout that the economy is better when it is not, that jobs are just around the corner, take out more debt to cover the cost of the interest payments, cut big defense contracts,  take out more debt because you cant afford to pay for the soldiers in Iraq etc.

Hello! You in there does this sound familiar? Is this a place you know?

Tax and Spend Republicanism has to be stopped

Republican Tax by loan is driving down the economy

Republican stealth TAXES must be stopped

Some one needs to tell George Bush Jnr.

Its the Economy Stupid!

Kind Regards Walker

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Dear Tex

Economics is simple Tex you try to make it complex but it really is not.

Pardon? If it's so simple, why is it so damn hard to put together a cohesive and effective economic policy? I submit that you are oversimplifying too many equations and variables to give accurate analysis as to the state of affairs in America's economy.

Quote[/b] ]It is not that the bad little men in OPEC increased the cost of a barrel of oil they didn't.

Did I ever say they did? No. What I said was that they could produce at a lower price than they do right now, which was in response to your statement:

Quote[/b] ]The reason why George Bush Jnr. can not ask for oil Producers to produce oil more cheeply is because producers can not produce it cheaper. His dad probably told him that as did his mate Dodgy Dick Cheyney.

Please don't take my arguments out of context; it annoys me.

Quote[/b] ]The Dollar value went down.

NOBODY ELSE IS COMPLAINING. Only the US is saying Oil prices are too high.

Oil prices are not too high they are at the price the market set. It is just in the US that people can not afford the price any more because their Dollar will not go as far.

No, only California, the largest consumer of gasoline per capita on earth (and John Kerry when he's visiting California), are complaining about high gas prices. I already provided an explanation to this which you chose to ignore, so I'll just cut and paste. I'm not arguing that the dollar didn't go down, or that that has the effect of raising gas prices. What I said, as you'll see, is that this isn't a big issue, and can in fact benefit America in some ways. Anyhow, here is my rebuttal again, please feel free to actually respond to it:

Quote[/b] ]Fact: this is not a fact. What is a fact is that OPEC could produce more cheaply if they wanted to (as could any oligopoly worth its salt), but that would cut into their profits. Also, I personally am in a section of the country that benefits from stable (and relatively high) oil prices which stimulate domestic exploration and exploitation, so you don't see me complaining. Here's another fact: increasingly high gas prices are one of the things that environmentalists are counting on to be the catalyst for sincere pursuit of alternate energy sources. If we suddenly have oil that's $25 a barrel, that won't ever happen.

Moving on.

Quote[/b] ]You say the government in charge is not too blame for the current economy of a nation.

I say Hogwash.

You say Hogwash, but do you have anything to back it up besides your shaky understanding of economics?

Quote[/b] ]It sets budgets collects the Taxes runs up the debt. It is in almost all economies the biggest employer spender and seller of services.

You're making the fatal assumption that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Any one situation doesn't work all the time in economics, because it is so complex and because there are so many variables. Sometimes tax cuts work, sometimes not; sometimes a balanced budget is good, other times no; and sometimes the government should interfere, and sometimes it shouldn't.

In the American system, private enterprise makes up the vast majority of the country's GDP: the government can influence the economy through legislation, but unlike smaller, less privatized economies, the government cannot influence the economy through direct means.

Quote[/b] ]It sets budgets collects the Taxes runs up the debt. It is in almost all economies the biggest employer spender and seller of services.

NO. No no no no no no no no no. The only thing that is the same about all economies is that all economies are different. In America, while government is fairly large in terms of consuming goods and services, it is dwarfed by the private sector in almost every aspect.

Quote[/b] ]It is controlled by the administration who set the budget, agree trade deals, tell the FED what goals to aim for in terms of inflation. Mostly it about balancing the books. Of course it has control of the biggest leavers on an economy. That is why politics is important if you don't think so why even contribute to this thread?

No, it's not about balancing the books. That's what laissez-faire classical economists thought prior to the Great Depression. They thought that the equilibrium level of any economy was the desirable spot to be in, and that an economy will adjust itself in the long run. This was proven wrong during the '30s, and fostered an entirely new school of economics that realized that often it is desirable and necessary to operate the economy outside of equilibrium, run deficits, and generally not be slaves to the books. As for your last question, I'm not sure how you mean- of course I think politics is important, but not in the context of economics. Dogmatic responses to economic crises is a recipe for disaster, whether your dogma is from the left, right, or Sweden.

Quote[/b] ]The plane fact is that George Bush Jnr.'s Administration and Republicans don't balance the books and President Clinton and the Democrats Do.

Balancing the books is not in and of itself a good thing. If America were forced to balance the budget every year, we would be unable to push any major social programs or reforms, we would be unable to fight wars, and we would be unable to adjust the government's policy in the face of a large recession, like the Great Depression. Sometimes the government must intervene, and sometimes that intervention will result in a deficit.

Quote[/b] ]You can argue that well there was a Republican Congress when Clinton was in power yes and there is one now while the US economy drops like stone.

Yes, and there was a Democratic Congress during the recession of 89-91. There was a Democratic Congress throughout the years of Reagan's legendary deficit spending. There was a Democrat in office during the near hyper-inflation of the late 70s. What's your point? Because mine is that neither party is especially 'good' for the economy, but in moderate doses, neither is especially 'bad' either.

Quote[/b] ]I could just use Denoirs simplistic Black Box Approach and Say:

Elect Democrats --> Economy Goes up

Elect Republicans --> Economy goes Down

But that as you say is simplistic. It is policy that sets up an economy.

Hey, I know! Let's insult my intelligence, too! This is fun, walker, you're really making me enjoy this.

Quote[/b] ]So let us examine your much vaunted 8% growth.

That was Debt Driven growth in case you did not know.

What pays for government Debt?

In Tex's magic economics are not real wonder land, I guess it must be the tooth fairy.

Here in the real world all government debt, I repeat ALL GOVERNMENT DEBT, has to be paid for by taxes.

You can have a fantasy about it being paid for by growth but what that means is that money that is created by growing business is TAXED. In other words that money comes out of the most productive sector to pay for past failure at a time when the business could best use the money in creating new jobs and buying better systems to produce more wealth with. Instead they have to pay past taxes for failed administration.

Then there is the whole question of having also to pay interest on the loan. Something that totally passes over credit card government heads whoosh.

This, more than anything else you've said, demonstrates your faulty understanding of some basic economic principles. First I'll give you a historical precedent: every American government since 1960, excepting the Clinton Administration, ran budget deficits to some degree or another. By your reasoning, all American economic growth since that time is false growth. Now we go to the economic perspective. Okay, first you're equating the government budget with the national debt, and that's not a smart thing to do, because private investment (the single most massive input in America's economy) is completely left out when you do. But back to the budget- it's a closed system, first and foremost. The money comes from the taxpayers, goes through government, and comes back out to the taxpayer in myriad benefits, ranging from social programs all the way to the security derived from knowing that our government is well funded and functioning correctly. That means that almost all of the debts incurred by the government are the same as the American people owing themselves that debt. The government borrows the money from us to give us economic benefits we would not normally be able to receive in a balanced-budget environment. This works the same way with the national debt- 'we' loan it to 'us', and 'we' can alternately pay it off in chunks or refinance our loans, over time. And that brings me to the next point: you view the debt as some monolithic thing, when in fact it is not. It is more a rolling thing, with different loans coming due at different times, different loans being refinanced at different times. And when the economy is growing, it means that more goods and services are being produced each year to serve as equity for those debts. What that means is that a level of deficit spending is sustainable and even desirable in order to maintain economic growth. At any rate, you talk about interest increasing- who do you think that interest is accruing to? The answer is the 'us' I referred you to earlier. Ultimately those loans get paid off to folks who then pay taxes to the government who takes out loans with the private sector, who then gains interest which is paid by economic growth caused by government spending, and la-la-la-la-la. But even if you don't trust that, trust this: if I was wrong, America never would have recovered from the Great Depression (war bonds are a perfect case study of the system I described above), America's economy would have collapsed in the 1960's, '70s, and '80s, respectively.

Quote[/b] ]Business knows this. By this I mean Wall Street, I mean Ford, I mean your local bank, I international firms, I mean any one who has to deal with money at an international level.

Their reaction is very simple they get out of countries where they expect Tax to go up. They switch to more stable currencies with out the future tax burden. They outsource to countries where the tax burden of employing people and running a business is not so high.

You're putting the cart before the horse. By any yardstick available, American tax rates are the lowest anywhere in the industrialized world. What ISN'T cheap in America is labor, and that high cost is what is stimulating the current round of outsourcing. Come to think of it, you aren't even getting the cart before the horse: you're talking about a horse and cart that aren't even hitched together. If tax rates go up, private firms don't outsource, they don't spend period, because their product is, one way or another, coming back to America, and will therefore be subject to taxation.

Quote[/b] ]For those businesses who are not international when the costs of raw materials prices rise, as gas at the pump has, the choices are stark. No profits, cut your dividends, cut wages, cut jobs.

For Government services the choices are the same so you cut veterans benefits, you cut services, stop repairing the roads, collect the trash less often, cut Medicare,

All of this is accurate when taken out of the context of your other arguments. However, in the context of your other statements you are only contradicting your fundamental thesis: that Bush is bad for America's economy. Bush's tax cuts and the low Fed interest rate both are responsible for the current economic growth.

Quote[/b] ]When your the Administration you can try to hide this. Start a foreign War to distract people, Shout that the economy is better when it is not, that jobs are just around the corner, take out more debt to cover the cost of the interest payments, cut big defense contracts,  take out more debt because you cant afford to pay for the soldiers in Iraq etc.

I'm not saying they're faultless, I'm just saying that their economic policy isn't substantially any better or worse than any other economic policy we've had in the last 10 years or any economic policy we'd get with a President John Kerry. In fact, Bush is guilty of pandering to stupid election year politics as well by selling out his Economist Greg Mankiw, who made the eminently reasonable but un-PC statement that outsourcing is good for America in the long run and serves America's goal of increased globalization.

Quote[/b] ]Hello! You in there does this sound familiar? Is this a place you know?

Don't patronize me- your faulty understanding of basic economic principles combined with your grating propaganda leaves me wondering why I'm being as civil as I am.

Quote[/b] ]

Stupid Talking Points

What do you think this is, State TV? You're talking to other human beings; there's no need to serve as our friendly neighborhood zampolit.

[walker 0]

Hi Tex

I could sit and argue economics in this thread with you all day. We could kick the crap out of Money Supply equations being misused under moneterism as being complete rot because they assume the velocity of money is a constant when any german with a wheelbarrow looking for a loaf of bread could have told them that was complete b**locks. We could look at Macro Economics: Marxist Macroeconomics, Neo-Classical Macroeconomics, Austrian Macroeconomics, Keynesian Macroeconomics and Open Economy Macroeconomics and Micro Economics we could talk about Price Elasticity of Demand or about Cross-Price Elasticity of Demand or about Arc Elasticity hells bells we could talk about Supply Elasticity! We could talk all about Business Cycles look at examples of Fordism or the work of Ricardo Semler. We could discuss the thoughts of people from Marx and Smith through Keynes and Friedman with Game theory and Bargaining theory thrown in to spice it up Yeh how about some Cognitive Uncertainty in Games or Extensive-form games and strategic complementarities. I could talk to you about Bakunin and the myth of money.

You know when your sitting your paper in Economics for your Degree possibly a masters but not a PHD I would say.

Do your self a favour and read the question.

This is the US presidential election 2004 thread.

A politics thread.

The answers, methodolgy and pinciples include economics but they are far more complex than that they include, rhetoric, business, law, social policy, pschology, history we could be here for hours and economics would be there as part of it but only part.

Politics is not about the theoretical economics you expouse from your dusty ivory tower. It is about real jobs in real businesses its about the economy of the penny in your pocket. It is about the art of pursuading people to your viewpoint. It is about realising who your target audience is and not being distracted by floss. Nor wasting your time on those who are not pursuadable.

It is dirty and it is not nice it is about winning the argument.

I leave you to guess who is winning.

Just to make it clear though. It is very importantly about.

Tax and Spend Republicanism has to be stopped

Republican Tax by loan is driving down the economy

Republican stealth TAXES must be stopped

Some one needs to tell George Bush Jnr.

Its the Economy Stupid!

Kind Regards Walker

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Quote[/b] ]The answers, methodolgy and pinciples include economics but they are far more complex than that they include, rhetoric, business, law, social policy, pschology, history we could be here for hours and economics would be there as part of it but only part.

Which is fine, if you aren't ending every single one of your posts with:

Quote[/b] ]Some one needs to tell George Bush Jnr.

Its the Economy Stupid!

I guess it's okay for you to argue against George Bush's Presidency based on economics, but the rest of us don't have that privilege. Look, I can't stand the guy, and would vote for a drug-using, draft-dodging, womanizing hippy (wait a tick, that sounds pretty good) before I would vote for Bush. However, I have more than enough grievances against him in social, political, environmental, military, and legal areas to satisfy me that he should not be our next president. I feel no need to hop on the BBF bandwagon (blame Bush first). What I am showing (and which you have failed to refute twice) is that Bush economic policy is good enough for our current situation, and nothing Kerry is pledging to do will be significantly better or worse (except for an overly protectionist platform that he has occasionally flirted with- that would definitely be worse).

[walker 0]

Hi Tex

Are you my target audience?

Kind Regards Walker

[walker 0]

@ April 02 2004,16:31)]Which is fine, if you aren't ending every single one of your posts with:

Quote[/b] ]Some one needs to tell George Bush Jnr.

Its the Economy Stupid!

Hi Tex

It is the fine and much maligned art of sloganeering.

I am using Rhetorical technique to show that what my enemy considers a bad thing is what they actualy do and turning it back on them. Showing them to be liars and bad for the economy.

It can sway as much as one to two percent in an election. Significantly more than was involved in the Republicans losing but then stealing the last election.

I am not just posting here. It gives ammunition to others in your cause if you make such arguments available. It is why blogs have been so important in the democratic rise of Dean and why they will be part of this election probably surmounting news papers and TV.

Kind Regards Walker

[walker 0]

@ April 02 2004,16:31)]I guess it's okay for you to argue against George Bush's Presidency based on economics, but the rest of us don't have that privilege. Look, I can't stand the guy, and would vote for a drug-using, draft-dodging, womanizing hippy (wait a tick, that sounds pretty good) before I would vote for Bush. However, I have more than enough grievances against him in social, political, environmental, military, and legal areas to satisfy me that he should not be our next president. I feel no need to hop on the BBF bandwagon (blame Bush first). What I am showing (and which you have failed to refute twice) is that Bush economic policy is good enough for our current situation, and nothing Kerry is pledging to do will be significantly better or worse (except for an overly protectionist platform that he has occasionally flirted with- that would definitely be worse).

Hi Tex

This is politics by argument you kick him in the kn**ers stomp him on the head take a base ball up side of his head and when he has lost the election try to kick his head through the uprights to make sure he will never consider coming back in to politics.

So you blame bush for everything and support it with evidence. You make it 100% personal.

If you think this will end once George Bush Jnr. is out of office forget it. I for one will be arguing for him and all his cronies to face a tribuneral for the mistakes and failures they have made.

If by the end of all this George Bush Jnr. and his cronies TBA and TBA2 have their personal Fortunes so reduced they are living in a council housing project. I will be satisfied.

I have said it before and continue to do so.

Kind Regards Walker

[billybob2002 0]

Economy Adds 308,000 Jobs in March

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115958,00.html

Quote[/b] ]

Non-farm payrolls climbed 308,000 in March, helped a bit by the return of workers after a labor dispute at California grocery stores ended, the Labor Department (search) said. This was the biggest gain since April 2000 and well above the 103,000 rise expected on Wall Street.

Quote[/b] ]

The civilian unemployment rate, however, ticked up 0.1 percentage point from 5.6 percent in February. That occurred because more job seekers renewed their searches last month, but were unsuccessful.

Quote[/b] ]

Economists said the report suggested the Federal Reserve (search) could raise overnight interest rates from the current 1958 low of 1 percent sooner than had been expected.

Quote[/b] ]

The department said the end to the California grocery store dispute, which had idled 72,000 workers, boosted March payrolls by 10,000 to 20,000. The impact was muted because many of the returning employees were displacing temporary hires.

Quote[/b] ]Construction payrolls shot up by 71,000, a bounceback from a 21,000 decline in February many economists had pinned on bad weather.

Quote[/b] ]While a long-hoped for rise in manufacturing employment did not appear, the department said factory payrolls were unchanged last month, finally breaking a string of 43 consecutive monthly declines.

[walker 0]

Hi all

Bush is so boring

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories....2.shtml

Watch the video of Tyler Crotty       A future Republican President if ever I saw one.

Kind Regards Walker

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Bush is so boring

Not Al Gore boring.  

[shinRaiden 0]

Something to wake you up

Um, some problems there. Letterman decided to have some fun and played snips of the sleeper. Next morning, CNN started feeding from it.

Quote[/b] ]Tuesday morning, CNN attempted to lighten its news mood by running the segment, credited to CBS' "Late Show with David Letterman," on its "CNN Live Today."

But then CNN host Daryn Kagan added: "We're being told by the White House that the kid, as funny as he was, was edited into that video, which would explain why the people around him weren't really reacting."

Later, during CNN's "Live From ...," anchor Kyra Phillips reran the tape but cautioned viewers: "We're told that the kid was there at that event, but not necessarily standing behind the president."

However,

Quote[/b] ]The truth was: The White House never complained, and the footage was real.

On his Tuesday telecast, Letterman aired Kagan's and Phillips' skeptical remarks and ranted: "An out-and-out, 100 percent absolute lie. The kid absolutely was there and he absolutely was doing everything we pictured via the videotape. ...

Unfortunately, CNN who was so on top of things earlier couldn't be bothered to be equally timely in their retraction:

Quote[/b] ]By then, CNN had owned up to its mistake, and placed a call to Letterman's New York headquarters before the 5:30 p.m. taping began. But the tape was already rolling before Letterman got the word.

"According to this," he said during the show, referring to an index card in his grasp, "CNN has just phoned and ... the anchorwoman misspoke. They never got a comment from the White House. It was a CNN mistake."

But it was still later before CNN got around to grudgingly admit they were 'mistaken':

Quote[/b] ]Though CNN spokeswoman Christa Robinson noted that "we frequently air late-night comedy show clips," on Thursday she confirmed the "misunderstanding among our staff" surrounding the yawning-boy video.

Meanwhile, Kagan made an on-air show of contrition.

"Dave, we apologize for the error," she said, offering to come on his show for a Stupid Human Trick.

Either the White House called, or it did not. If it did not, why did CNN state that it did?

[toadeater 0]

Quote[/b] ]Bush is so boring

Not Al Gore boring.  

Yes, I'm never bored by Bu$h, he's a laugh riot. Sort of like watching the village idiot.

Sometimes I still have trouble believing this guy is the president. What the hell!?

I guess this gives hope to all the other cognitively-challenged out there that even they can succeed... if they have a rich daddy.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

lol, can you read the last part of this tag inside the bag "made in US". Man this producer has a good portion of humor and courage!