Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by wwworry, Apr 29, 2004.
Check 'em out. Contribute...
Claim v. Fact database
I don't think these kinds of things accomplish much. It is like Sly railing about flip flops. Whats the point? Dems think Bush lies; Republicans think Kerry flip flops. I'm ready to concede both points if it means we can proceed to a discussion of the issues.
As long as people keep it accurate I think it is a great way to debunk the crap certain people insist on spewing forth. My favorite is how the economy is *improving* well, duh! When it hits rock bottom it can't go anywhere but up! It needs to improve to the level at least equal to what it was when Bush took over.
I guess 9/11 had nothing to do with it.
I wouldn't call 5.7% as rock bottom and I'm sick and tired of people complaining of not having a job. I pass a guy every day holding up a will work for food sign not more than 2 blocks from a place that will hire anyone who walks in thier door for 10 bucks and hour.
McDonalds hiring for 7 an hour. Dump truck drivers make 10 bucks an hour and they will hire you if you have a valid drivers liscence their desperate doing road construction and they can't get enough drivers. Their paying 7 bucks an hour to stand around with a yield sign and wave at people if you can hold a will work for food sign then get a real job.
Our economy is good.
The economy started to suck *before* 9/11... As soon as the dollar heard another Bush was taking office it ran and hid
In fairness, the economy was failing before Bush took office, there is generally a 10-12 year recession cycle...it is a coincidence that both Bush presidents served in them..
that said, neither Bush dealt with them well, GW...moronically...his irresponsible spending will haunt for years to come...
BTW Good post, Numediaman...
more like cliton left office just in time. get your facts right. the feds have actually thrown around the idea to move the beginning of this recession to during cliton's reign. i suppose this has not happened due to the possible political ramifications in an election year.
I have them right. THey were fine when Clinton was in office. In fact they were fixed from Bush Sr's reign of terror right around 6 months after Clinton got in and within two months of Bush Jr.'s reign of terror it took a nose dive. To see the real economy you need to be looking for a job. I was doing so during both of these terms (new college graduate and just relocated).
thank you, i have, and still am, looking for a job.
amazing an economy can react to a simple change in power after 2 months. maybe it was because if terror, but not bush's. remember the two buildings that had a lot to do with our economy getting destroyed? who was in office when this attack was planned?
call it what you want, but it doesn't make it true.
Osama Bin Laden
Repeating yourself over and over doesn't make it true. When Clinton was in office the attempted attacks were thwarted. After Bush was appointed the attacks happened because he only cared about attacking Iraq and ignored or possibly even allowed them to happen.
That aside, Bush single handledly managed to not only destroy the economy upon stepping foot into the whitehouse he also managed to give us a record deficit; take us into an illegal, immoral, unwarranted war; and take more vacation time than any president to date.
The economy being destroyed had nothing to do with 9/11. It has everything do with a "president" who is completely incompetent and cares about nothing but his wallet and the wallet of his friends.
though i think gore's administration would have had a better chance at stopping 9/11, i'm not convinced it would have.
while i agree that bush's economic policies have been disastrous, i think it's important to recognize that 9/11 did cause a significant financial hit. though its effect would have been minimized if we'd still been running a budget surplus.
As I said above, this is largely coincidence...the current recession began in Nov 2000, before Bush had taken office...the last recession was over by 1990, which was only halfway through Bush Sr's term of office...there were also recessions in 1981 and 1957, the one in 1981 a result of deliberate fiscal policy to combat inflation...I do not know about the late 60's, we were a war economy...(speaking of, economic growth in the US currently is at 4.2% because of current war effort)...so again, recessions happen every 10-12 years, regardless of who sits in the whitehouse...although Bush has made sure that future generations will pay for his defecit spending...do you know when we will probably feel those full effects?...around 2010...again 10 years apart...Bush has done enough actual bad stuff,, that you shouldn't unfairly pin this on him...
Yes, but what is the Bush solution to every economic problem? Tax cuts. When the federal government was running surpluses, the money had to be refunded through tax cuts. When energy rates soared, tax cuts were to help Americans pay for higher-priced gasoline and heating oil. When the economy stayed in the tank, the rationale for even more tax cuts became economic stimulus. Yes, some of this is fate, but what kind of economic manager thinks every problem has the exact same solution?
The people who earned the money should be able to keep as much of it as they can and the government should only take enough of it to keep the government running, handle international trade, and handle defense (which could include highways so our tanks can't get around etc). Any more than that is irresponsible.
Actually, the president is in charge of fiscal policy (budgets, etc.). The FED controls monetary policy. The "economy" as everyone thinks of it, is the monetary side. The president has nothing to do with it.
Economists contend that the recession started in the waining days of Clinton's administration, but that Clinton had nothing to do with it.
People need to understand that the executive branch of the government does not run the federal reserve system. The board of governors and some of the FED bank presidents control the monetary policy of this country.
Also, are economy is fine. Unemployment is low, GDP is rising, CPI is stable, long term inflation is at ~2.5% and falling, deflation is a non-issue, proprietorship is at an all time high, the markets are strong, bullish, and most importantly... not a bubble. Taxes are down, corporate earnings are up, consumer confidence is up, consumer spending is up, new hirings are up, prime rate is low and holding, bond market is decent, municipal bonds are strong, futures are skyrocketing, currencies are stable, dollar is set to gain, and the transistion to a service economy is in full swing.
But, half the politicians out there don't want us to think that the economy is strong. Once again... the president does NOT have magic economy levers in his office... the FED runs the economy!
well said kuyu.
Put on a happy face. Don't worry, be happy. Etc.
Budgetary and fiscal policy are linked. Clinton made a deal with Greenspan to reduce budget deficits and keep interest rates low. This kind of cooperation is more than possible, it's smart.
At the risk of reopening an old debate, unless you happen to be a CEO, GDP is an almost meaningless number, as is the unemployment rate.
Also, inflation is not down, it is up, due mainly to sharply higher energy costs. The dollar is only "set to gain" because it has nowhere else to go but up.
The "transition to a service economy" is an old shibboleth. I believed in it, once upon a time. The "transition" process started during the 1970s and was supposed to fix our employment and wage problems, and by the '90s it even looked like it was happening. But when you look at wage growth, especially now that we find that even service jobs can be off-shored, I think it's easy to see that an economy bereft of industrial employment is an economy that doesn't provide real wage opportunities for a great many Americans, and probably never will.
These problems don't go away simply by pasting a happy face on them.
I am tired of these "no place to go but up" analogies.
The dollar can still lose a lot of value. The economy can still go further south.
Until the dollar is worth absolutely nothing, it can still go lower. Until the US falls into anarchy and everything is destroyed, the economy can get worse.
Bush lied about the deficit.
Let's check the database!
Speaker: Bush, George - President
"If this were a spending contest, I would come in second. I readily admit I'm not going to grow the size of the federal government like [Gore] is."
"The numbers are astonishing. Congress is now spending money like a drunken sailor. And I've never known a sailor, drunk or sober, with the imagination that this Congress has." - John McCain (R-AZ), Fox News, 11/30/03 "Conservative Republican frustration over the failure of the Bush administration and the House Republican leadership to restrain federal spending has boiled over in recent days, producing a rare confrontation between GOP lawmakers and party leaders." - The Hill, 12/3/03
(remember responsible balanced budgets???)
Speaker: Bush, George - President
"I came to this office to confront problems directly and forcefully, not to pass them on to future Presidents or future generations."
When the Treasury Department tallies up final figures later this month, it is expected to show a federal budget deficit between $370 billion and $380 billion for 2003, one of the biggest debts passed onto another generation in American history. - Wall Street Journal, 10/9/03
Speaker: Bush, George - President
"Our budget will run a deficit that will be small and short term
"The federal deficit will hit a record $477 billion this year and get worse if lawmakers cut taxes or increase spending, the Congressional Budget Office projected Monday." - CNN, 1/26/04 "The idea that this is manageable or that we are going to grow our way out of the problem is just flat false." - U.S. Comptroller General David Walker, LA Times, 10/7/03 "The U.S. government's budget deficit came under fire on Wednesday from two global institutions (OECD and the IMF) saying a plan to halve the record gap by 2009 may not be enough to stop long-term damage to the world economy." - Reuters, 4/14/04
Speaker: Bush, George - President
"This nation has got a deficit because we have been through a war."
The Bush Administration's own budget analysis conflicts with his statement. According to Government Executive Magazine, "The Office of Management and Budget-prepared baseline shows that the deficit will decline precipitously without the changes in tax and spending policies the White House is proposing. In fact, the baseline shows that the budget will be in surplus starting in 2006 and that the surplus will increase every year thereafter. But S-3 also indicates that implementing the Bush budget would greatly increase the deficits in 2003-2005 and obliterate the projected surpluses in 2006-2008." - GEM, 2/12/03
Does the truth bother you that much?
look up "economy - Taxes"
speaker " George Bush"
you'll find some good ones in there. A lot of people (like SlyHunter) don't care that the president is always lying.