NationStates Jolt Archive

OK, If you don't already know what I am talking about, it is this: Who was a better president, George W. Bush, or George H. W. Bush?

Jr/W

I don't think history will be kind to either, however Bush Sr. will probably fair better then his son.

I don't think history will be kind to either, however Bush Sr. will probably fair better then his son.

They said the same thing about Thomas Jefferson. And Teddy Roosevelt. And Abe Lincoln. And Ronald Reagan. You would be surprised, that once you can look in hindsight on a presidents legacy, and the eventual outcome of their policies, that popular opinion can change, and a president can be viewed as great, even though he was unpopular during his term(s).

I don't think history will be kind to either, however Bush Sr. will probably fair better then his son.

a president can be viewed as great, even though he was unpopular during his term(s).

I agree, but as we are part of living history of said president, I think it's fair to say there is nothing "great" about him. All the world can't be wrong. Well, sure they can, but not this time. It's so obvious.

I don't think history will be kind to either, however Bush Sr. will probably fair better then his son.

a president can be viewed as great, even though he was unpopular during his term(s).

I agree, but as we are part of living history of said president, I think it's fair to say there is nothing "great" about him. All the world can't be wrong. Well, sure they can, but not this time. It's so obvious.
As obvious as slavery was morally right. :roll:

George H. W. Bush was the better of the two if for no other reason than that he was a pragmatist and an internationalist. If something he tried didn't work, he didn't keep on doing it.

Take tax cuts for instance. In '88, he made the famous "Read my lips" comment. By 1990, it was obvious we were in fiscal trouble, so he passed a tax increase, and slowly but surely, the economy started to turn around. It wound up costing him his job because a lot of his base felt betrayed and bailed on him for Perot, but it was still the right thing to do at the time.

Same for the first Persian Gulf War. Say what you will about the arguments that we said it would be okay for Hussein to invade before he did--when Poppy went to war, it was with a truly formidable international force and we weren't footing all the bill.

Neither of those things can be said about Dubya. He's not pragmatic and he's certainly not an internationalist. And he's not half the president his daddy was, and his daddy wasn't much of one.

I don't think history will be kind to either, however Bush Sr. will probably fair better then his son.

a president can be viewed as great, even though he was unpopular during his term(s).

I agree, but as we are part of living history of said president, I think it's fair to say there is nothing "great" about him. All the world can't be wrong. Well, sure they can, but not this time. It's so obvious.
As obvious as slavery was morally right. :roll:

I realize you like a good argument..lol , however, GWB has done nothing at least as of yet to be given the title "great" he has made a lot of mistakes though, that we now know as fact.

No.

I don't think history will be kind to either, however Bush Sr. will probably fair better then his son.

a president can be viewed as great, even though he was unpopular during his term(s).

I agree, but as we are part of living history of said president, I think it's fair to say there is nothing "great" about him. All the world can't be wrong. Well, sure they can, but not this time. It's so obvious.
As obvious as slavery was morally right. :roll:

I realize you like a good argument..lol , however, GWB has done nothing at least as of yet to be given the title "great" he has made a lot of mistakes though, that we now know as fact.

We'll I'd agree with that.

Its far to early to give him a great title, considering he's not even done his first term yet.

I don't think history will be kind to either, however Bush Sr. will probably fair better then his son.

a president can be viewed as great, even though he was unpopular during his term(s).

I agree, but as we are part of living history of said president, I think it's fair to say there is nothing "great" about him. All the world can't be wrong. Well, sure they can, but not this time. It's so obvious.
As obvious as slavery was morally right. :roll:

I realize you like a good argument..lol , however, GWB has done nothing at least as of yet to be given the title "great" he has made a lot of mistakes though, that we now know as fact.

We'll I'd agree with that.

Its far to early to give him a great title, considering he's not even done his first term yet.

With any luck, it will be his only term ;)

I don't think history will be kind to either, however Bush Sr. will probably fair better then his son.

a president can be viewed as great, even though he was unpopular during his term(s).

I agree, but as we are part of living history of said president, I think it's fair to say there is nothing "great" about him. All the world can't be wrong. Well, sure they can, but not this time. It's so obvious.
As obvious as slavery was morally right. :roll:

I realize you like a good argument..lol , however, GWB has done nothing at least as of yet to be given the title "great" he has made a lot of mistakes though, that we now know as fact.
Steph, I agree with neither of you so far. Although I do agree with the possibility that Bush Jr may be hailed as the man who defeated terrorism.

Lincoln was viewed as a military joke in his time period. The world was fairly sure he was out of his mind.

Unless you just whipped out a crystal ball, both of you, we can only speculate.

I speculate that Georgey Junior will not be seen as great then. THis is because I do not see him as "great" now :p

Although I do agree with the possibility that Bush Jr may be hailed as the man who defeated terrorism

We've seen no evidence that he will come any where close to defeating any thing. In fact, it came out yesterday or today that in fact in 2003 terrorism increased, not the other way around.. another lie they got caught at.

I don't think history will be kind to either, however Bush Sr. will probably fair better then his son.

a president can be viewed as great, even though he was unpopular during his term(s).

I agree, but as we are part of living history of said president, I think it's fair to say there is nothing "great" about him. All the world can't be wrong. Well, sure they can, but not this time. It's so obvious.
As obvious as slavery was morally right. :roll:

I realize you like a good argument..lol , however, GWB has done nothing at least as of yet to be given the title "great" he has made a lot of mistakes though, that we now know as fact.

We'll I'd agree with that.

Its far to early to give him a great title, considering he's not even done his first term yet.

With any luck, it will be his only term ;)

Ah, but with the luck of whom? :wink:

if the US has good luck, it'll be his only term :p

if the US has good luck, it'll be his only term :p

No, If the US has bad luck, it will be his only term. :)

Although I do agree with the possibility that Bush Jr may be hailed as the man who defeated terrorism

We've seen no evidence that he will come any where close to defeating any thing. In fact, it came out yesterday or today that in fact in 2003 terrorism increased, not the other way around.. another lie they got caught at.
let's see...it's been...how long since 9-11-01?
One year...
two years...
half a year...

how long does it take for major changes to take effect?
this would probably take at least 10 years.


But just think of a world without the fear of getting blown up by eating in a restuarant in the Middle East.

Dubya is certainly better. Unlike his father, Dubya is actually a conservative. He seems a little too liberal for me, all the same, but not as liberal as Herbert.
Besides, Dubya is willing to take more risks than his father. His father, for example, often stopped the military once it did what it needed to. This is not only true for the Gulf War, where he didn't march to Baghdad (and that was a mistake), but in Panama as well. He merely deposed Noreiga. What he should've done is demanded that Panama drew a new constitution up, to make sure pushers like Noreiga didn't get into office. Dubya would've done something to that effect if he were president.
There are other things Dubya would've done differently, but I won't get into them, unless someone asks.

Although I do agree with the possibility that Bush Jr may be hailed as the man who defeated terrorism

We've seen no evidence that he will come any where close to defeating any thing. In fact, it came out yesterday or today that in fact in 2003 terrorism increased, not the other way around.. another lie they got caught at.
let's see...it's been...how long since 9-11-01?
One year...
two years...
half a year...

how long does it take for major changes to take effect?
this would probably take at least 10 years.


But just think of a world without the fear of getting blown up by eating in a restuarant in the Middle East.

With all due respect, I don't think I'm going to take political analysis from a 13 year old.. no offence dear. Although I do admire your tenacity.. ;)

bad luck for "us?" ("us being some shady evil corporate underground plot! YARGH!) 'Cause I KNOW it'll be good for the United States :p

Although I do agree with the possibility that Bush Jr may be hailed as the man who defeated terrorism

We've seen no evidence that he will come any where close to defeating any thing. In fact, it came out yesterday or today that in fact in 2003 terrorism increased, not the other way around.. another lie they got caught at.
let's see...it's been...how long since 9-11-01?
One year...
two years...
half a year...

how long does it take for major changes to take effect?
this would probably take at least 10 years.


But just think of a world without the fear of getting blown up by eating in a restuarant in the Middle East.

With all due respect, I don't think I'm going to take political analysis from a 13 year old.. no offence dear. Although I do admire your tenacity.. ;)
*grabs a dictionary*

there is no tenacity. Only tenacious and tenacy. I think you mean tenacious...1: not easily pulled apart


you have your opinions...I have mine

And with all due respect, it's hard to be respectful to someone who judges someone on the basis of age, no?


Put yourself in my shoes. Remember when you were a 13 yr old? Try discussing politics to a bunch of teens and adults. :shock:
but enough with being off-topic...

Although I do agree with the possibility that Bush Jr may be hailed as the man who defeated terrorism

We've seen no evidence that he will come any where close to defeating any thing. In fact, it came out yesterday or today that in fact in 2003 terrorism increased, not the other way around.. another lie they got caught at.
let's see...it's been...how long since 9-11-01?
One year...
two years...
half a year...

how long does it take for major changes to take effect?
this would probably take at least 10 years.


But just think of a world without the fear of getting blown up by eating in a restuarant in the Middle East.

With all due respect, I don't think I'm going to take political analysis from a 13 year old.. no offence dear. Although I do admire your tenacity.. ;)

How about a 14 year old. Guess who.
Or, would you DEAT a 14 year old, just to see him cry? Guess who. Check the IP.

Blah, once again I say this is like asking me which tastes better: vomit or vomit-flavored ice cream.

If these are the only options, then we are well and truly boned.

Dubya is certainly better. Unlike his father, Dubya is actually a conservative. He seems a little too liberal for me, all the same, but not as liberal as Herbert.
Besides, Dubya is willing to take more risks than his father. His father, for example, often stopped the military once it did what it needed to. This is not only true for the Gulf War, where he didn't march to Baghdad (and that was a mistake), but in Panama as well. He merely deposed Noreiga. What he should've done is demanded that Panama drew a new constitution up, to make sure pushers like Noreiga didn't get into office. Dubya would've done something to that effect if he were president.
There are other things Dubya would've done differently, but I won't get into them, unless someone asks.
http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

See, there is one big difference between father and son, dad tends to obey the law and respect the rights of others, sonny boy doesn't.

Dubya is certainly better. Unlike his father, Dubya is actually a conservative. He seems a little too liberal for me, all the same, but not as liberal as Herbert.
Besides, Dubya is willing to take more risks than his father. His father, for example, often stopped the military once it did what it needed to. This is not only true for the Gulf War, where he didn't march to Baghdad (and that was a mistake), but in Panama as well. He merely deposed Noreiga. What he should've done is demanded that Panama drew a new constitution up, to make sure pushers like Noreiga didn't get into office. Dubya would've done something to that effect if he were president.
There are other things Dubya would've done differently, but I won't get into them, unless someone asks.
http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

See, there is one big difference between father and son, dad tends to obey the law and respect the rights of others, sonny boy doesn't.

Dubya is certainly better. Unlike his father, Dubya is actually a conservative. He seems a little too liberal for me, all the same, but not as liberal as Herbert.
Besides, Dubya is willing to take more risks than his father. His father, for example, often stopped the military once it did what it needed to. This is not only true for the Gulf War, where he didn't march to Baghdad (and that was a mistake), but in Panama as well. He merely deposed Noreiga. What he should've done is demanded that Panama drew a new constitution up, to make sure pushers like Noreiga didn't get into office. Dubya would've done something to that effect if he were president.
There are other things Dubya would've done differently, but I won't get into them, unless someone asks.
http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

See, there is one big difference between father and son, dad tends to obey the law and respect the rights of others, sonny boy doesn't.

Dubya is certainly better. Unlike his father, Dubya is actually a conservative. He seems a little too liberal for me, all the same, but not as liberal as Herbert.
Besides, Dubya is willing to take more risks than his father. His father, for example, often stopped the military once it did what it needed to. This is not only true for the Gulf War, where he didn't march to Baghdad (and that was a mistake), but in Panama as well. He merely deposed Noreiga. What he should've done is demanded that Panama drew a new constitution up, to make sure pushers like Noreiga didn't get into office. Dubya would've done something to that effect if he were president.
There are other things Dubya would've done differently, but I won't get into them, unless someone asks.
http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

See, there is one big difference between father and son, dad tends to obey the law and respect the rights of others, sonny boy doesn't.
I prefer calling it risk taking. In fact, from what I've heard, more than half of the voting males in the US vote Republican because they are risk takers.

Although I do agree with the possibility that Bush Jr may be hailed as the man who defeated terrorism

We've seen no evidence that he will come any where close to defeating any thing. In fact, it came out yesterday or today that in fact in 2003 terrorism increased, not the other way around.. another lie they got caught at.
let's see...it's been...how long since 9-11-01?
One year...
two years...
half a year...

how long does it take for major changes to take effect?
this would probably take at least 10 years.


But just think of a world without the fear of getting blown up by eating in a restuarant in the Middle East.

With all due respect, I don't think I'm going to take political analysis from a 13 year old.. no offence dear. Although I do admire your tenacity.. ;)
*grabs a dictionary*

there is no tenacity. Only tenacious and tenacy. I think you mean tenacious...1: not easily pulled apart


you have your opinions...I have mine

And with all due respect, it's hard to be respectful to someone who judges someone on the basis of age, no?


Put yourself in my shoes. Remember when you were a 13 yr old? Try discussing politics to a bunch of teens and adults. :shock:
but enough with being off-topic...

Main Entry: te·nac·i·ty
Pronunciation: t&-'na-s&-tE
Function: noun
: the quality or state of being tenacious


Yes, I had my opinions at your age, horribly naive though.. perhaps you are the exception to the rule. I some how doubt it. But ya never know. I respect and admire your effort to be involved in politics at such a young age. Thus, your tenacity. That was a compliment btw.

Thanks Steph...

heh, never thought I'd say that! *runs* :wink:

Anyone on here knows I am not a Bush supporter, but the only reason I voted him better than his father is because of the extreme circumstances in which he has dealt with during his Presidency. He's had a lot more on his plate than his father, and he has survived to this point; good for him.

I can't answer the poll. W still lives. I still hope.

Dubya is certainly better. Unlike his father, Dubya is actually a conservative. He seems a little too liberal for me, all the same, but not as liberal as Herbert.
Besides, Dubya is willing to take more risks than his father. His father, for example, often stopped the military once it did what it needed to. This is not only true for the Gulf War, where he didn't march to Baghdad (and that was a mistake), but in Panama as well. He merely deposed Noreiga. What he should've done is demanded that Panama drew a new constitution up, to make sure pushers like Noreiga didn't get into office. Dubya would've done something to that effect if he were president.
There are other things Dubya would've done differently, but I won't get into them, unless someone asks.

Bush Jr. will be remembered for INCREASING the US National Debt........

$$$$$1.5 TRILLION$$$$$

In only 3.5 Years!!!!

Which works out to $5,172 for EVERY man, woman, and child in the US!!!!

Although I do agree with the possibility that Bush Jr may be hailed as the man who defeated terrorism

We've seen no evidence that he will come any where close to defeating any thing. In fact, it came out yesterday or today that in fact in 2003 terrorism increased, not the other way around.. another lie they got caught at.
let's see...it's been...how long since 9-11-01?
One year...
two years...
half a year...

how long does it take for major changes to take effect?
this would probably take at least 10 years.


But just think of a world without the fear of getting blown up by eating in a restuarant in the Middle East.

What a wonderful dream. Unfortunately if you want the dream to be realized, then you would probably want to actually go after the terrorists who blow up the restaurants wouldn't you? Wouldn't it have made sense to have dismantled al-Qaeda instead of acting like a child with ADHD who can't focus on a subject for more than a few minutes? The invasion of Iraq directly countered the prescribed plan of combatting terrorism around the world. At the very best, it has only increased the ranks of the terrorists. At the very worst, it has taken America's eyes off of bin Laden, allowing him to work in relative obscurity to plan the next attack.

Not smart either way.

can i choose neither?

can i choose neither?
It is an undemocratic poll. I also wanted neither. However, if that had been an option, my guess that it would have been the highest number in the poll? Pure speculation on my part of course. :evil:

Dubya is certainly better. Unlike his father, Dubya is actually a conservative. He seems a little too liberal for me, all the same, but not as liberal as Herbert.
Besides, Dubya is willing to take more risks than his father. His father, for example, often stopped the military once it did what it needed to. This is not only true for the Gulf War, where he didn't march to Baghdad (and that was a mistake), but in Panama as well. He merely deposed Noreiga. What he should've done is demanded that Panama drew a new constitution up, to make sure pushers like Noreiga didn't get into office. Dubya would've done something to that effect if he were president.
There are other things Dubya would've done differently, but I won't get into them, unless someone asks.

Bush Jr. will be remembered for INCREASING the US National Debt........

$$$$$1.5 TRILLION$$$$$

In only 3.5 Years!!!!

Which works out to $5,172 for EVERY man, woman, and child in the US!!!!
You have a fascination with debt, don't you? Then you'd love to visit the debt clock in New York.

US National Debt clock online
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

It's going up as I post ...

US National Debt clock online
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

It's going up as I post ...
Good. So debt hasn't exceeded 100% of the GDP yet. Only then are we to be concerned.

HW. Much as I am British and admire Bill Clinton, I would probably have cast my vote for Bush in the 1992 Presidential Election which I feel he was unlucky to lose.

US National Debt clock online
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

It's going up as I post ...
Good. So debt hasn't exceeded 100% of the GDP yet. Only then are we to be concerned.
So you will only worry about debt when it equals the Gross Domestic Product of the US? WOW and I thought Republicans were supposed to be fiscally responsible?

You don't care about putting the Debt burden on the backs of all the Americans that follow behind you, such as your children and grandchildren?

From an earlier post by you, you seem to have a difficult time telling the difference between deficit and the US Debt. Perhaps that is why you are unconcerned about the possibility of an economic depression when interest rates begin to rise, and consumer confidence collapses?

US National Debt clock online
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

It's going up as I post ...
Good. So debt hasn't exceeded 100% of the GDP yet. Only then are we to be concerned.
So you will only worry about debt when it equals the Gross Domestic Product of the US? WOW and I thought Republicans were supposed to be fiscally responsible?

You don't care about putting the Debt burden on the backs of all the Americans that follow behind you, such as your children and grandchildren?

From an earlier post by you, you seem to have a difficult time telling the difference between deficit and the US Debt. Perhaps that is why you unconcerned about the possibility of an economic depression when interest rates begin to rise, and consumer confidence collapses?
You again. I'm beginning to see you as a bit of a nussaince. You've never brought any new information to the table, and unlike Incertonia, you refuse to rebute me. All you do is try to find the right questions that hit my buttons. I'm glad you don't represent the majority of liberals.
However, I have a question for you: since 1945, the US has been in very deep debt. Since 1982, we've mostly had a very deep deficit. Why hasn't the US economy gone into a tailspin yet?

US National Debt clock online
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

It's going up as I post ...
Good. So debt hasn't exceeded 100% of the GDP yet. Only then are we to be concerned.
So you will only worry about debt when it equals the Gross Domestic Product of the US? WOW and I thought Republicans were supposed to be fiscally responsible?

You don't care about putting the Debt burden on the backs of all the Americans that follow behind you, such as your children and grandchildren?

From an earlier post by you, you seem to have a difficult time telling the difference between deficit and the US Debt. Perhaps that is why you unconcerned about the possibility of an economic depression when interest rates begin to rise, and consumer confidence collapses?
You again. I'm beginning to see you as a bit of a nussaince. You've never brought any new information to the table, and unlike Incertonia, you refuse to rebute me. All you do is try to find the right questions that hit my buttons. I'm glad you don't represent the majority of liberals.
However, I have a question for you: since 1945, the US has been in very deep debt. Since 1982, we've mostly had a very deep deficit. Why hasn't the US economy gone into a tailspin yet?
I am always bringing NEW information to the table, and I provide links wherever possible. Yes I will rehash the same information if it remains relevant to do so.

In rebuttal, I rarely refuse to answer your posts, although you seem to refuse to answer the questions that I have posed, especially the ones attached to this post.

I also feel compelled to point out that most of your rebuttal centers around your opinions rather than you providing any relevant facts.

Speaking of facts, I couldn't believe my eyes when you suggested in a post yesterday that the US actually had a surplus of $3 Trillion. That is very wishful thinking. In reality, the US had a deficit of over $500 Billion:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/crisis/2003/deficittable.htm

The National Debt increased from:

09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16

to

09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62

Which is an increase of $554,995,097,146.46

Currently the National debt is:

06/09/2004 $7,214,624,032,891.61

Which is an increase of $431,392,970,147.99 in the past 8 and 1/2 months.

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm

Additionally:

American consumers' indebtedness is currently growing twice as fast as their incomes and since 2001 has accounted for a staggering 92% of GDP growth.

Growing US debts

AS RECENTLY as 1980, the US was the world's biggest creditor. Now though it is the world's biggest debtor country, having to borrow more than a billion dollars a day in order to finance its engorged economic appetite. The current account deficit - the amount it must borrow annually from outside the USA - has been rising fast and is running at a historic high of over 5% of GDP.

However, you suggest that everything is ok, so it must be true?

BTW, I really don't mean to be a "nuisance". I really am just trying to be helpful. 8)

US National Debt clock online
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

It's going up as I post ...
Good. So debt hasn't exceeded 100% of the GDP yet. Only then are we to be concerned.
So you will only worry about debt when it equals the Gross Domestic Product of the US? WOW and I thought Republicans were supposed to be fiscally responsible?

You don't care about putting the Debt burden on the backs of all the Americans that follow behind you, such as your children and grandchildren?

From an earlier post by you, you seem to have a difficult time telling the difference between deficit and the US Debt. Perhaps that is why you unconcerned about the possibility of an economic depression when interest rates begin to rise, and consumer confidence collapses?
You again. I'm beginning to see you as a bit of a nussaince. You've never brought any new information to the table, and unlike Incertonia, you refuse to rebute me. All you do is try to find the right questions that hit my buttons. I'm glad you don't represent the majority of liberals.
However, I have a question for you: since 1945, the US has been in very deep debt. Since 1982, we've mostly had a very deep deficit. Why hasn't the US economy gone into a tailspin yet?

Actually, CanuckHeaven is always quite well informed. In fact I've learned many things I didn't know from his posts. If CanuckHeaven is what represents a liberal, Then I am proud to call myself a liberal.

US National Debt clock online
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

It's going up as I post ...
Good. So debt hasn't exceeded 100% of the GDP yet. Only then are we to be concerned.
So you will only worry about debt when it equals the Gross Domestic Product of the US? WOW and I thought Republicans were supposed to be fiscally responsible?

You don't care about putting the Debt burden on the backs of all the Americans that follow behind you, such as your children and grandchildren?

From an earlier post by you, you seem to have a difficult time telling the difference between deficit and the US Debt. Perhaps that is why you unconcerned about the possibility of an economic depression when interest rates begin to rise, and consumer confidence collapses?
You again. I'm beginning to see you as a bit of a nussaince. You've never brought any new information to the table, and unlike Incertonia, you refuse to rebute me. All you do is try to find the right questions that hit my buttons. I'm glad you don't represent the majority of liberals.
However, I have a question for you: since 1945, the US has been in very deep debt. Since 1982, we've mostly had a very deep deficit. Why hasn't the US economy gone into a tailspin yet?
I am always bringing NEW information to the table, and I provide links wherever possible. Yes I will rehash the same information if it remains relevant to do so.

In rebuttal, I rarely refuse to answer your posts, although you seem to refuse to answer the questions that I have posed, especially the ones attached to this post.

I also feel compelled to point out that most of your rebuttal centers around your opinions rather than you providing any relevant facts.

Speaking of facts, I couldn't believe my eyes when you suggested in a post yesterday that the US actually had a surplus of $3 Trillion. That is very wishful thinking. In reality, the US had a deficit of over $500 Billion:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/crisis/2003/deficittable.htm

The National Debt increased from:

09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16

to

09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62

Which is an increase of $554,995,097,146.46

Currently the National debt is:

06/09/2004 $7,214,624,032,891.61

Which is an increase of $431,392,970,147.99 in the past 8 and 1/2 months.

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm

Additionally:

American consumers' indebtedness is currently growing twice as fast as their incomes and since 2001 has accounted for a staggering 92% of GDP growth.

Growing US debts

AS RECENTLY as 1980, the US was the world's biggest creditor. Now though it is the world's biggest debtor country, having to borrow more than a billion dollars a day in order to finance its engorged economic appetite. The current account deficit - the amount it must borrow annually from outside the USA - has been rising fast and is running at a historic high of over 5% of GDP.

However, you suggest that everything is ok, so it must be true?

BTW, I really don't mean to be a "nuisance". I really am just trying to be helpful. 8)
I did say that we had a surplus near $3 trillion, but that was a few years back. Today, their is a deficit near $500 billion. And yes, I do believe that the deficit is not a problem. 5% out of 100%, and mind you, this isn't wasted away. This goes to government expenditures, and for the most part, they at least have good intentions.
However, you finally did bring up a new point: consumer debt. There is nothing that anyone can do about this. It is a result of bad monetary management on the part of individuals, and this makes me disturbed. Economics classes are mandatory in many states, however, so I'm hoping there is a change. However, will it come soon enough? If not, eventually, the economy will suffer, and much of the nation will plunge below poverty. It doesn't matter if governments or businesses spend too much, but it does if an individual spends too much.
The worst, however, is that these newly poor people will spread their insurmountably high debts to the government, and we'll be like a European socialist state: many, many people live as leaches sucking blood from the government.
Then again, the rising middle class in India and China have been in red ink for a long time. They're not likely to disapear soon.

You know what I was thinking when I said the surplus was $3 trillion? I was thinking of a projection I saw a few years back from Clinton. And the US has been in a deficit for that long? I can tell that the numbers aren't adjusted for inflation, because if they were, the deficits in the eighties would be much higher. But as we've had some very severe inflation during the late seventies, the numbers from 1972 are at least $35 billion in today's terms. And yet, a depression hasn't happened.

You know what I was thinking when I said the surplus was $3 trillion? I was thinking of a projection I saw a few years back from Clinton. And the US has been in a deficit for that long? I can tell that the numbers aren't adjusted for inflation, because if they were, the deficits in the eighties would be much higher. But as we've had some very severe inflation during the late seventies, the numbers from 1972 are at least $35 billion in today's terms. And yet, a depression hasn't happened.

In all due respects Purly, a $3 Trillion surplus is unfathomable, as you will notice by the following article (2001):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1682317.stm

This financial year the US government had a surplus of $127bn, the second largest ever - prompting Congress to push for increased spending as well as tax cuts.

In August, the Congressional Budget Office forecast a surplus of $172bn and $201bn in the following two years.

But the sharp economic downturn, reduced tax revenues, and the need for more spending meant that the surplus could not be sustained.

This 2nd highest surplus was at the end of Clinton’s term and the first ¾ of Bush’s term. $127bn is a far cry from $3 Trillion, for that matter, so were projections (at that time) of future surpluses of $172bn and $201bn.

You know what I was thinking when I said the surplus was $3 trillion? I was thinking of a projection I saw a few years back from Clinton. And the US has been in a deficit for that long? I can tell that the numbers aren't adjusted for inflation, because if they were, the deficits in the eighties would be much higher. But as we've had some very severe inflation during the late seventies, the numbers from 1972 are at least $35 billion in today's terms. And yet, a depression hasn't happened.

In all due respects Purly, a $3 Trillion surplus is unfathomable, as you will notice by the following article (2001):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1682317.stm

This financial year the US government had a surplus of $127bn, the second largest ever - prompting Congress to push for increased spending as well as tax cuts.

In August, the Congressional Budget Office forecast a surplus of $172bn and $201bn in the following two years.

But the sharp economic downturn, reduced tax revenues, and the need for more spending meant that the surplus could not be sustained.

This 2nd highest surplus was at the end of Clinton’s term and the first ¾ of Bush’s term. $127bn is a far cry from $3 Trillion, for that matter, so were projections (at that time) of future surpluses of $172bn and $201bn.

What happened during that time? The Dot-com-bomb and as far as Bush's 3/4 of his term goes... we've got to spend money for war! *gasp* Our stock-market was frozen on 9/11! *gasp* Damnit, there I go again bringin up touchy subjects that will be bashed for tons of posts to come... (assuming you could weigh a single post :wink: )

All I'm saying is that Bush dealt with what he was given and he did as good a job as any. Also I would trust him more than Kerry with gov't resources backed by my tax dollars.... (thanks for the tax cut, gave me a good bit of breathing room!)

You're in dream land, Halloccia.

When we went to war, whether in Afghanistan or in Iraq, we knew as a nation we were going to have extra expenditures. But we'd given this huge tax break. So what to do? At that point in time, right after 9-11, if Bush had wanted to be fiscally responsible, he could have said to the nation, "Look, I just gave you a tax break, but we've got some real important stuff to do--tighten up security and go after Bin Laden, so I'm going to need some of that money back" and the public would have thrown it at his feet.

What did he do? Passed another tax cut and then when it came time for the Iraq boondoggle, he refused to stick spending bills in the regular budget, so it would seem as if the deficit he was projecting would be lower than it really was going to be.

P.S. He did it again this year.

So in the end, if you still want to trust Bush over Kerry with your finances, fine--just don't come bitching when it turns out that he's done to this country what he did to damn near every company he ever owned. (Hint--he bankrupted them.)

What happened during that time? The Dot-com-bomb and as far as Bush's 3/4 of his term goes... we've got to spend money for war! *gasp* Our stock-market was frozen on 9/11! *gasp* Damnit, there I go again bringin up touchy subjects that will be bashed for tons of posts to come... (assuming you could weigh a single post :wink: )

All I'm saying is that Bush dealt with what he was given and he did as good a job as any. Also I would trust him more than Kerry with gov't resources backed by my tax dollars.... (thanks for the tax cut, gave me a good bit of breathing room!)
Ohhh that was only during the first year of Bushanomics.

Bush is now writing record deficits to pay for those tax cuts. Current deficit is over $500 Billion.

Since Bush took office, the US Debt has gone up 1.540 Trillion or enough to give $5,311.88 to every man woman and child in the US.

While you may have a little more breathing room, US poverty rates have increased by 3 million, over a million net jobs have been lost, and 3.8 million more Americans (total 43.6 million) don't have health insurance.

To boot, US has highest childhood poverty rate of industrialized countries.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/mar2001/pov-m14.shtml

Enjoy.

I think George Herbert Walker Bush is going to be seen as the greater president. He was in office at the end of the cold war. A historic turning point: a positive turning point.
9/11 was also a turning point. But a turning point which is going to lead to a long-lasting fight and war against terrorism and those who harbour them. This campaign is going to last long (I expect decades to come). President Bush may have a positive place in the history books that he began this campaign and showed great leadership. But he won´t be able to finish it.
The father was lucky enough to become president at the end of the cold war and therefore was also able to harvest the work of his predecassors.

What happened during that time? The Dot-com-bomb and as far as Bush's 3/4 of his term goes... we've got to spend money for war! *gasp* Our stock-market was frozen on 9/11! *gasp* Damnit, there I go again bringin up touchy subjects that will be bashed for tons of posts to come... (assuming you could weigh a single post :wink: )

All I'm saying is that Bush dealt with what he was given and he did as good a job as any. Also I would trust him more than Kerry with gov't resources backed by my tax dollars.... (thanks for the tax cut, gave me a good bit of breathing room!)
Ohhh that was only during the first year of Bushanomics.

Bush is now writing record deficits to pay for those tax cuts. Current deficit is over $500 Billion.

Since Bush took office, the US Debt has gone up 1.540 Trillion or enough to give $5,311.88 to every man woman and child in the US.

While you may have a little more breathing room, US poverty rates have increased by 3 million, over a million net jobs have been lost, and 3.8 million more Americans (total 43.6 million) don't have health insurance.

To boot, US has highest childhood poverty rate of industrialized countries.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/mar2001/pov-m14.shtml

Enjoy.
Here you go again. You love mentioning about child poverty, debt being paid by our great-grandkids, blah, blah, blah. It works at first, but after a while, it gets pretty old. Find something new to discuss, rather than trying to reinforce the same old points.

You're in dream land, Halloccia.

When we went to war, whether in Afghanistan or in Iraq, we knew as a nation we were going to have extra expenditures. But we'd given this huge tax break. So what to do? At that point in time, right after 9-11, if Bush had wanted to be fiscally responsible, he could have said to the nation, "Look, I just gave you a tax break, but we've got some real important stuff to do--tighten up security and go after Bin Laden, so I'm going to need some of that money back" and the public would have thrown it at his feet.

What did he do? Passed another tax cut and then when it came time for the Iraq boondoggle, he refused to stick spending bills in the regular budget, so it would seem as if the deficit he was projecting would be lower than it really was going to be.

P.S. He did it again this year.

So in the end, if you still want to trust Bush over Kerry with your finances, fine--just don't come bitching when it turns out that he's done to this country what he did to damn near every company he ever owned. (Hint--he bankrupted them.)
The tax cuts were necessary, as we've seen. Due in part because of them, the economy made a stunning recovery, and in the long run, it'll probably put even more money into the Treasury than even with a tax hike. For example, repealing the dividend tax. It may have seemed like a trivial matter at the time, designed wholly to benefit the rich. However, that wasn't the case. Companies that never offered dividends slapped high ones onto their shares, and volume went up. It put far more than $500 billion into the economy, and in a few years, it'll probably give at least that amount back.
Bush has plans for further tax cuts, all of which will make the economy stronger. However, perhaps because of the deficit, they won't interefere with actual tax revenue. For example, Bush wants to repeal the tax on broadband internet service. While it'll take only a few billion away from the government, the benefit to business and individuals would be astronomical. Perhaps Bush hasn't been a great businessman in the past. But then again, he didn't have the economic might of the US to back him up. Plus, he has some great advisors, especially since he got John Snow aboard, who engineered (no pun intended) the massive revival of CSX.

Unfortunately the option of "Neither" and the option "Greatest Asshole of the Entire Known Universe" is missing. I'd vote for both. H and W for Neither and W for the 2nd option. Thanks to GWB the US has lost a lot of its credibility all over the world.

Unfortunately the option of "Neither" and the option "Greatest Asshole of the Entire Known Universe" is missing. I'd vote for both. H and W for Neither and W for the 2nd option. Thanks to GWB the US has lost a lot of its credibility all over the world.
And as for Bush Sr? Even if you don't like him, you've gotta admit he did a lot to advance US power throughout the world.

]The tax cuts were necessary, as we've seen. Due in part because of them, the economy made a stunning recovery, and in the long run, it'll probably put even more money into the Treasury than even with a tax hike. For example, repealing the dividend tax. It may have seemed like a trivial matter at the time, designed wholly to benefit the rich. However, that wasn't the case. Companies that never offered dividends slapped high ones onto their shares, and volume went up. It put far more than $500 billion into the economy, and in a few years, it'll probably give at least that amount back.
Bush has plans for further tax cuts, all of which will make the economy stronger. However, perhaps because of the deficit, they won't interefere with actual tax revenue. For example, Bush wants to repeal the tax on broadband internet service. While it'll take only a few billion away from the government, the benefit to business and individuals would be astronomical. Perhaps Bush hasn't been a great businessman in the past. But then again, he didn't have the economic might of the US to back him up. Plus, he has some great advisors, especially since he got John Snow aboard, who engineered (no pun intended) the massive revival of CSX.A stunning recovery? Not to be too snarky here, but under what definition can you call the current state of the economy a stunning recovery? As I type this, the Dow is at 10,342, right about where it was when Bush started office. The unemployment rate is still around 5.6%, a full 1.2% higher than it was before Bush took office (and even higher if you count the long-term unemployed). The federal deficit is larger than ever (although you foolishly refuse to acknowledge the importance of that). The trade deficit is larger than ever. Personal indebtedness is at its highest levels ever. And now, the housing market is starting to get erratic.

The only thing that's stunning about this recovery is that people call it a recovery at all. I doubt that's what you meant.

And as for Bush Sr? Even if you don't like him, you've gotta admit he did a lot to advance US power throughout the world.

Well I cant remember what exactly Sr. was good for. I remember that he started all this Gulf War crap and for that alone I dislike him. Compared to his son he was the lesser evil, but neither of them was "good".

]The tax cuts were necessary, as we've seen. Due in part because of them, the economy made a stunning recovery, and in the long run, it'll probably put even more money into the Treasury than even with a tax hike. For example, repealing the dividend tax. It may have seemed like a trivial matter at the time, designed wholly to benefit the rich. However, that wasn't the case. Companies that never offered dividends slapped high ones onto their shares, and volume went up. It put far more than $500 billion into the economy, and in a few years, it'll probably give at least that amount back.
Bush has plans for further tax cuts, all of which will make the economy stronger. However, perhaps because of the deficit, they won't interefere with actual tax revenue. For example, Bush wants to repeal the tax on broadband internet service. While it'll take only a few billion away from the government, the benefit to business and individuals would be astronomical. Perhaps Bush hasn't been a great businessman in the past. But then again, he didn't have the economic might of the US to back him up. Plus, he has some great advisors, especially since he got John Snow aboard, who engineered (no pun intended) the massive revival of CSX.A stunning recovery? Not to be too snarky here, but under what definition can you call the current state of the economy a stunning recovery? As I type this, the Dow is at 10,342, right about where it was when Bush started office. The unemployment rate is still around 5.6%, a full 1.2% higher than it was before Bush took office (and even higher if you count the long-term unemployed). The federal deficit is larger than ever (although you foolishly refuse to acknowledge the importance of that). The trade deficit is larger than ever. Personal indebtedness is at its highest levels ever. And now, the housing market is starting to get erratic.

The only thing that's stunning about this recovery is that people call it a recovery at all. I doubt that's what you meant.
Perhaps it isn't the recovery that you want it to be. But then again, I see that you want the return of the tech bubble, don't you?
Anyhow, the economy grew 9.1% about a year ago, and by the next quarter, it was at a fairly strong 4.2% growth rate. Corporate profits are up. Personal income is higher. Construction is stronger than ever, and the only reason for a slow down in that area is because of a rainy spring nationwide and China demanding raw materials. Unemployment is worrisome, but it's recovering. As for the stock market? Don't wish for the Dow to be over 10,000 points, because that's far too reminiscent of the tech bubble. I tempted to say, in fact, that living near San Fransico, you aren't feeling a recovery because the glory days of Silicon Valley are over.
Perhaps I have given a little too much credit to Bush for this recovery. But to me, it is obvious that taxes hinder an economy far more than they help. After all, the economy started going down hill before the tax cuts. It was really no one's fault. And it couldn't even be, in large part, Bush's fault, because it began under Clinton (though I believe it wasn't his fault, either). Many parts of the nation have recovered. In fact, I almost wish it didn't recover nearly as fast as it did, as I fear that we may go the same way as China is going.

]The tax cuts were necessary, as we've seen. Due in part because of them, the economy made a stunning recovery, and in the long run, it'll probably put even more money into the Treasury than even with a tax hike. For example, repealing the dividend tax. It may have seemed like a trivial matter at the time, designed wholly to benefit the rich. However, that wasn't the case. Companies that never offered dividends slapped high ones onto their shares, and volume went up. It put far more than $500 billion into the economy, and in a few years, it'll probably give at least that amount back.
Bush has plans for further tax cuts, all of which will make the economy stronger. However, perhaps because of the deficit, they won't interefere with actual tax revenue. For example, Bush wants to repeal the tax on broadband internet service. While it'll take only a few billion away from the government, the benefit to business and individuals would be astronomical. Perhaps Bush hasn't been a great businessman in the past. But then again, he didn't have the economic might of the US to back him up. Plus, he has some great advisors, especially since he got John Snow aboard, who engineered (no pun intended) the massive revival of CSX.A stunning recovery? Not to be too snarky here, but under what definition can you call the current state of the economy a stunning recovery? As I type this, the Dow is at 10,342, right about where it was when Bush started office. The unemployment rate is still around 5.6%, a full 1.2% higher than it was before Bush took office (and even higher if you count the long-term unemployed). The federal deficit is larger than ever (although you foolishly refuse to acknowledge the importance of that). The trade deficit is larger than ever. Personal indebtedness is at its highest levels ever. And now, the housing market is starting to get erratic.

The only thing that's stunning about this recovery is that people call it a recovery at all. I doubt that's what you meant.
Perhaps it isn't the recovery that you want it to be. But then again, I see that you want the return of the tech bubble, don't you?
Anyhow, the economy grew 9.1% about a year ago, and by the next quarter, it was at a fairly strong 4.2% growth rate. Corporate profits are up. Personal income is higher. Construction is stronger than ever, and the only reason for a slow down in that area is because of a rainy spring nationwide and China demanding raw materials. Unemployment is worrisome, but it's recovering. As for the stock market? Don't wish for the Dow to be over 10,000 points, because that's far too reminiscent of the tech bubble. I tempted to say, in fact, that living near San Fransico, you aren't feeling a recovery because the glory days of Silicon Valley are over.
Perhaps I have given a little too much credit to Bush for this recovery. But to me, it is obvious that taxes hinder an economy far more than they help. After all, the economy started going down hill before the tax cuts. It was really no one's fault. And it couldn't even be, in large part, Bush's fault, because it began under Clinton (though I believe it wasn't his fault, either). Many parts of the nation have recovered. In fact, I almost wish it didn't recover nearly as fast as it did, as I fear that we may go the same way as China is going.

]The tax cuts were necessary, as we've seen. Due in part because of them, the economy made a stunning recovery, and in the long run, it'll probably put even more money into the Treasury than even with a tax hike. For example, repealing the dividend tax. It may have seemed like a trivial matter at the time, designed wholly to benefit the rich. However, that wasn't the case. Companies that never offered dividends slapped high ones onto their shares, and volume went up. It put far more than $500 billion into the economy, and in a few years, it'll probably give at least that amount back.
Bush has plans for further tax cuts, all of which will make the economy stronger. However, perhaps because of the deficit, they won't interefere with actual tax revenue. For example, Bush wants to repeal the tax on broadband internet service. While it'll take only a few billion away from the government, the benefit to business and individuals would be astronomical. Perhaps Bush hasn't been a great businessman in the past. But then again, he didn't have the economic might of the US to back him up. Plus, he has some great advisors, especially since he got John Snow aboard, who engineered (no pun intended) the massive revival of CSX.A stunning recovery? Not to be too snarky here, but under what definition can you call the current state of the economy a stunning recovery? As I type this, the Dow is at 10,342, right about where it was when Bush started office. The unemployment rate is still around 5.6%, a full 1.2% higher than it was before Bush took office (and even higher if you count the long-term unemployed). The federal deficit is larger than ever (although you foolishly refuse to acknowledge the importance of that). The trade deficit is larger than ever. Personal indebtedness is at its highest levels ever. And now, the housing market is starting to get erratic.

The only thing that's stunning about this recovery is that people call it a recovery at all. I doubt that's what you meant.
Perhaps it isn't the recovery that you want it to be. But then again, I see that you want the return of the tech bubble, don't you?
Anyhow, the economy grew 9.1% about a year ago, and by the next quarter, it was at a fairly strong 4.2% growth rate. Corporate profits are up. Personal income is higher. Construction is stronger than ever, and the only reason for a slow down in that area is because of a rainy spring nationwide and China demanding raw materials. Unemployment is worrisome, but it's recovering. As for the stock market? Don't wish for the Dow to be over 10,000 points, because that's far too reminiscent of the tech bubble. I tempted to say, in fact, that living near San Fransico, you aren't feeling a recovery because the glory days of Silicon Valley are over.
Perhaps I have given a little too much credit to Bush for this recovery. But to me, it is obvious that taxes hinder an economy far more than they help. After all, the economy started going down hill before the tax cuts. It was really no one's fault. And it couldn't even be, in large part, Bush's fault, because it began under Clinton (though I believe it wasn't his fault, either). Many parts of the nation have recovered. In fact, I almost wish it didn't recover nearly as fast as it did, as I fear that we may go the same way as China is going.

]The tax cuts were necessary, as we've seen. Due in part because of them, the economy made a stunning recovery, and in the long run, it'll probably put even more money into the Treasury than even with a tax hike. For example, repealing the dividend tax. It may have seemed like a trivial matter at the time, designed wholly to benefit the rich. However, that wasn't the case. Companies that never offered dividends slapped high ones onto their shares, and volume went up. It put far more than $500 billion into the economy, and in a few years, it'll probably give at least that amount back.
Bush has plans for further tax cuts, all of which will make the economy stronger. However, perhaps because of the deficit, they won't interefere with actual tax revenue. For example, Bush wants to repeal the tax on broadband internet service. While it'll take only a few billion away from the government, the benefit to business and individuals would be astronomical. Perhaps Bush hasn't been a great businessman in the past. But then again, he didn't have the economic might of the US to back him up. Plus, he has some great advisors, especially since he got John Snow aboard, who engineered (no pun intended) the massive revival of CSX.A stunning recovery? Not to be too snarky here, but under what definition can you call the current state of the economy a stunning recovery? As I type this, the Dow is at 10,342, right about where it was when Bush started office. The unemployment rate is still around 5.6%, a full 1.2% higher than it was before Bush took office (and even higher if you count the long-term unemployed). The federal deficit is larger than ever (although you foolishly refuse to acknowledge the importance of that). The trade deficit is larger than ever. Personal indebtedness is at its highest levels ever. And now, the housing market is starting to get erratic.

The only thing that's stunning about this recovery is that people call it a recovery at all. I doubt that's what you meant.
Perhaps it isn't the recovery that you want it to be. But then again, I see that you want the return of the tech bubble, don't you?
Anyhow, the economy grew 9.1% about a year ago, and by the next quarter, it was at a fairly strong 4.2% growth rate. Corporate profits are up. Personal income is higher. Construction is stronger than ever, and the only reason for a slow down in that area is because of a rainy spring nationwide and China demanding raw materials. Unemployment is worrisome, but it's recovering. As for the stock market? Don't wish for the Dow to be over 10,000 points, because that's far too reminiscent of the tech bubble. I tempted to say, in fact, that living near San Fransico, you aren't feeling a recovery because the glory days of Silicon Valley are over.
Perhaps I have given a little too much credit to Bush for this recovery. But to me, it is obvious that taxes hinder an economy far more than they help. After all, the economy started going down hill before the tax cuts. It was really no one's fault. And it couldn't even be, in large part, Bush's fault, because it began under Clinton (though I believe it wasn't his fault, either). Many parts of the nation have recovered. In fact, I almost wish it didn't recover nearly as fast as it did, as I fear that we may go the same way as China is going.

]The tax cuts were necessary, as we've seen. Due in part because of them, the economy made a stunning recovery, and in the long run, it'll probably put even more money into the Treasury than even with a tax hike. For example, repealing the dividend tax. It may have seemed like a trivial matter at the time, designed wholly to benefit the rich. However, that wasn't the case. Companies that never offered dividends slapped high ones onto their shares, and volume went up. It put far more than $500 billion into the economy, and in a few years, it'll probably give at least that amount back.
Bush has plans for further tax cuts, all of which will make the economy stronger. However, perhaps because of the deficit, they won't interefere with actual tax revenue. For example, Bush wants to repeal the tax on broadband internet service. While it'll take only a few billion away from the government, the benefit to business and individuals would be astronomical. Perhaps Bush hasn't been a great businessman in the past. But then again, he didn't have the economic might of the US to back him up. Plus, he has some great advisors, especially since he got John Snow aboard, who engineered (no pun intended) the massive revival of CSX.A stunning recovery? Not to be too snarky here, but under what definition can you call the current state of the economy a stunning recovery? As I type this, the Dow is at 10,342, right about where it was when Bush started office. The unemployment rate is still around 5.6%, a full 1.2% higher than it was before Bush took office (and even higher if you count the long-term unemployed). The federal deficit is larger than ever (although you foolishly refuse to acknowledge the importance of that). The trade deficit is larger than ever. Personal indebtedness is at its highest levels ever. And now, the housing market is starting to get erratic.

The only thing that's stunning about this recovery is that people call it a recovery at all. I doubt that's what you meant.
Perhaps it isn't the recovery that you want it to be. But then again, I see that you want the return of the tech bubble, don't you?
Anyhow, the economy grew 9.1% about a year ago, and by the next quarter, it was at a fairly strong 4.2% growth rate. Corporate profits are up. Personal income is higher. Construction is stronger than ever, and the only reason for a slow down in that area is because of a rainy spring nationwide and China demanding raw materials. Unemployment is worrisome, but it's recovering. As for the stock market? Don't wish for the Dow to be over 10,000 points, because that's far too reminiscent of the tech bubble. I tempted to say, in fact, that living near San Fransico, you aren't feeling a recovery because the glory days of Silicon Valley are over.
Perhaps I have given a little too much credit to Bush for this recovery. But to me, it is obvious that taxes hinder an economy far more than they help. After all, the economy started going down hill before the tax cuts. It was really no one's fault. And it couldn't even be, in large part, Bush's fault, because it began under Clinton (though I believe it wasn't his fault, either). Many parts of the nation have recovered. In fact, I almost wish it didn't recover nearly as fast as it did, as I fear that we may go the same way as China is going.

]The tax cuts were necessary, as we've seen. Due in part because of them, the economy made a stunning recovery, and in the long run, it'll probably put even more money into the Treasury than even with a tax hike. For example, repealing the dividend tax. It may have seemed like a trivial matter at the time, designed wholly to benefit the rich. However, that wasn't the case. Companies that never offered dividends slapped high ones onto their shares, and volume went up. It put far more than $500 billion into the economy, and in a few years, it'll probably give at least that amount back.
Bush has plans for further tax cuts, all of which will make the economy stronger. However, perhaps because of the deficit, they won't interefere with actual tax revenue. For example, Bush wants to repeal the tax on broadband internet service. While it'll take only a few billion away from the government, the benefit to business and individuals would be astronomical. Perhaps Bush hasn't been a great businessman in the past. But then again, he didn't have the economic might of the US to back him up. Plus, he has some great advisors, especially since he got John Snow aboard, who engineered (no pun intended) the massive revival of CSX.A stunning recovery? Not to be too snarky here, but under what definition can you call the current state of the economy a stunning recovery? As I type this, the Dow is at 10,342, right about where it was when Bush started office. The unemployment rate is still around 5.6%, a full 1.2% higher than it was before Bush took office (and even higher if you count the long-term unemployed). The federal deficit is larger than ever (although you foolishly refuse to acknowledge the importance of that). The trade deficit is larger than ever. Personal indebtedness is at its highest levels ever. And now, the housing market is starting to get erratic.

The only thing that's stunning about this recovery is that people call it a recovery at all. I doubt that's what you meant.
Perhaps it isn't the recovery that you want it to be. But then again, I see that you want the return of the tech bubble, don't you?
Anyhow, the economy grew 9.1% about a year ago, and by the next quarter, it was at a fairly strong 4.2% growth rate. Corporate profits are up. Personal income is higher. Construction is stronger than ever, and the only reason for a slow down in that area is because of a rainy spring nationwide and China demanding raw materials. Unemployment is worrisome, but it's recovering. As for the stock market? Don't wish for the Dow to be over 10,000 points, because that's far too reminiscent of the tech bubble. I tempted to say, in fact, that living near San Fransico, you aren't feeling a recovery because the glory days of Silicon Valley are over.
Perhaps I have given a little too much credit to Bush for this recovery. But to me, it is obvious that taxes hinder an economy far more than they help. After all, the economy started going down hill before the tax cuts. It was really no one's fault. And it couldn't even be, in large part, Bush's fault, because it began under Clinton (though I believe it wasn't his fault, either). Many parts of the nation have recovered. In fact, I almost wish it didn't recover nearly as fast as it did, as I fear that we may go the same way as China is going.

And as for Bush Sr? Even if you don't like him, you've gotta admit he did a lot to advance US power throughout the world.

Well I cant remember what exactly Sr. was good for. I remember that he started all this Gulf War crap and for that alone I dislike him. Compared to his son he was the lesser evil, but neither of them was "good".
Well, Bush had a banking crisis that he managed to solve. Unfortunatly, in doing so, a recession was caused, as banks were tighter with any money they recieved from the government. He was also, admittedly unlike his son, one of the first "green" presidents. And after the fall of the Soviet Union, Bush rushed in to fill the vast power vacuum, and make America the hegemon that Europeans despise. Like him or not, he was an excellent statesmen, and he had a few tough issues thrown at him.

The economy had one good quarter last year and one amazing one that was fueled largely by defense spending. That's not a recovery. And while you are correct that corporate profits are up, you are incorrect when you assert that personal income is up--personal income is falling in real terms, much as it did pre-Clinton.

And lest you forget your history, the first thing Clinton did when he got into office was raise taxes on the highest income earners, and worked toward a balanced budget. With the government no longer being the biggest borrower around, banks had to buy into venture capital funds to try to continue to increase earnings and that helped spur the economy during the tech boom.

The reason there was a tech bubble was simply because fund managers and banks lost their minds and stopped requiring simple things like, oh, business plans before jumping on board with IPOs. The behavior was actually very reminiscent of the 1920s behavior before the stock market crash. It had nothing to do with the levels of taxation under Clinton, and the levels of taxation under Bush have done nothing--I repeat, nothing--to spur any sort of recovery.

And lest you forget your history, the first thing Clinton did when he got into office was raise taxes on the highest income earners, and worked toward a balanced budget.
Clinton was deficit spending tons in his first two years with a friendly Congress. It wasn't until later with the Republicans in congress when the budget really started to get cut and balanced.

The economy had one good quarter last year and one amazing one that was fueled largely by defense spending. That's not a recovery.
Then what about all of 2004? Jobs are coming back at almost one million per three months.

What happened during that time? The Dot-com-bomb and as far as Bush's 3/4 of his term goes... we've got to spend money for war! *gasp* Our stock-market was frozen on 9/11! *gasp* Damnit, there I go again bringin up touchy subjects that will be bashed for tons of posts to come... (assuming you could weigh a single post :wink: )

All I'm saying is that Bush dealt with what he was given and he did as good a job as any. Also I would trust him more than Kerry with gov't resources backed by my tax dollars.... (thanks for the tax cut, gave me a good bit of breathing room!)
Ohhh that was only during the first year of Bushanomics.

Bush is now writing record deficits to pay for those tax cuts. Current deficit is over $500 Billion.

Since Bush took office, the US Debt has gone up 1.540 Trillion or enough to give $5,311.88 to every man woman and child in the US.

While you may have a little more breathing room, US poverty rates have increased by 3 million, over a million net jobs have been lost, and 3.8 million more Americans (total 43.6 million) don't have health insurance.

To boot, US has highest childhood poverty rate of industrialized countries.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/mar2001/pov-m14.shtml

Enjoy.
Here you go again. You love mentioning about child poverty, debt being paid by our great-grandkids, blah, blah, blah. It works at first, but after a while, it gets pretty old. Find something new to discuss, rather than trying to reinforce the same old points.
Actually there is some new stuff there but you aren't seeing it? What I also notice is that you expect others to do all the work?

I rarely see you post anything based on fact, just your personal opinion and to boot, you don't even know the difference between debt and deficit or how much they are even. I would have thought that you would be somewhat greatful for all the information that I have posted.

So if you want something new, try this on:

Bush Administration's tax cuts not fulfilling job creation promises

The Bush Administration called the tax cut package, which was passed in May 2003 and took effect in July 2003, its "Jobs and Growth Plan." The president's economics staff, the Council of Economic Advisers (see background documents), projected that the plan would result in the creation of 5.5 million jobs by the end of 2004—306,000 new jobs each month, starting in July 2003. The CEA projected that, starting in July 2003, the economy would generate 228,000 jobs a month without a tax cut and 306,000 jobs a month with the tax cut.

Thus, it projected that 3,366,000 would be created in the last 11 months. In fact, since the tax cuts took effect, jobs have grown by 1,365,000—two million fewer jobs than the administration projected would be created by enactment of its tax cuts.

http://www.jobwatch.org/ima/20040604_1differenceactproj650.gif

To put it in better perspective:

http://www.jobwatch.org/ima/20040604_2changeintotalemp650.gif

Bush is still running a NET jobs loss term, despite your rhetoric.

These charts and others can be found at:

http://www.jobwatch.org/

Perhaps I have given a little too much credit to Bush for this recovery.
I agree with you on something. :lol:

But to me, it is obvious that taxes hinder an economy far more than they help.
How is that? Taxes do create jobs don't they?

Taxes are used to build or make roads, schools, bridges, dams, fighter jets, tanks, nuclear weapons, bullets, shells, space shuttles, submarines, aircraft carriers, bombs (dumb and smart), missles, land mines, rifles, machine guns, destroyers, military bases, humvees, military uniforms, grenades, helicopters, battleships, computer networks, intelligency agencies (CIA/FBI), etc., ad nauseum.


After all, the economy started going down hill before the tax cuts.
Nothing that a couple wars can't fix?

It was really no one's fault.
Maybe Bush's just a little bit?

And it couldn't even be, in large part, Bush's fault, because it began under Clinton (though I believe it wasn't his fault, either).
You really aren't sure are you?

Many parts of the nation have recovered.
They have? Unemployment remains unchanged since Dec. 2003 (approx. 5.6%)

In fact, I almost wish it didn't recover nearly as fast as it did,
Don't worry, it hasn't.

as I fear that we may go the same way as China is going.
I understand that China's economy is smokkin......

Perhaps the following article is something you should fear more?

Spending our way to disaster

The consumer debt bubble in the United States could make the stock bubble seem like nothing.

http://money.cnn.com/2003/10/02/markets/consumerbubble/consbub1.gif

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - The American consumer has become deeply addicted to spending, running up ever higher levels of debt in order to live in a fashion that is beyond his means. ......

http://money.cnn.com/2003/10/02/markets/consumerbubble/

What happened during that time? The Dot-com-bomb and as far as Bush's 3/4 of his term goes... we've got to spend money for war! *gasp* Our stock-market was frozen on 9/11! *gasp* Damnit, there I go again bringin up touchy subjects that will be bashed for tons of posts to come... (assuming you could weigh a single post :wink: )

All I'm saying is that Bush dealt with what he was given and he did as good a job as any. Also I would trust him more than Kerry with gov't resources backed by my tax dollars.... (thanks for the tax cut, gave me a good bit of breathing room!)
Ohhh that was only during the first year of Bushanomics.

Bush is now writing record deficits to pay for those tax cuts. Current deficit is over $500 Billion.

Since Bush took office, the US Debt has gone up 1.540 Trillion or enough to give $5,311.88 to every man woman and child in the US.

While you may have a little more breathing room, US poverty rates have increased by 3 million, over a million net jobs have been lost, and 3.8 million more Americans (total 43.6 million) don't have health insurance.

To boot, US has highest childhood poverty rate of industrialized countries.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/mar2001/pov-m14.shtml

Enjoy.
Here you go again. You love mentioning about child poverty, debt being paid by our great-grandkids, blah, blah, blah. It works at first, but after a while, it gets pretty old. Find something new to discuss, rather than trying to reinforce the same old points.
Actually there is some new stuff there but you aren't seeing it? What I also notice is that you expect others to do all the work?

I rarely see you post anything based on fact, just your personal opinion and to boot, you don't even know the difference between debt and deficit or how much they are even. I would have thought that you would be somewhat greatful for all the information that I have posted.

So if you want something new, try this on:

Bush Administration's tax cuts not fulfilling job creation promises

The Bush Administration called the tax cut package, which was passed in May 2003 and took effect in July 2003, its "Jobs and Growth Plan." The president's economics staff, the Council of Economic Advisers (see background documents), projected that the plan would result in the creation of 5.5 million jobs by the end of 2004—306,000 new jobs each month, starting in July 2003. The CEA projected that, starting in July 2003, the economy would generate 228,000 jobs a month without a tax cut and 306,000 jobs a month with the tax cut.

Thus, it projected that 3,366,000 would be created in the last 11 months. In fact, since the tax cuts took effect, jobs have grown by 1,365,000—two million fewer jobs than the administration projected would be created by enactment of its tax cuts.

http://www.jobwatch.org/ima/20040604_1differenceactproj650.gif

To put it in better perspective:

http://www.jobwatch.org/ima/20040604_2changeintotalemp650.gif

Bush is still running a NET jobs loss term, despite your rhetoric.

These charts and others can be found at:

http://www.jobwatch.org/
The reason why is because this recession is different. Unlike the others, it came off the heals of a technical revolution. One of the many things it did was to take the human out of the workplace. It's really a shame that humans are no longer needed for certain jobs, but in a sense, this is just like the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, and with a little patience, new jobs will come. Granted, they won't be hundreds of millions of new jobs around the globe, but they will be enough to lower unemployment rates to optimal levels in industrialized nations, and drastically lower them abroad. Jobs are coming, but created or destroyed jobs I wouldn't credit on Bush. The only reason why Bush deserves mention is because his tax cuts have freed more capital, and all in all, it succeeded in creating a few jobs.
To answer your other question btw, do taxes create jobs? They used to. In fact, local and state taxes do a wonderful job at creating these jobs that you want. But federal taxes simply can't. Most federal jobs end up going to various bureaocracies, and as we've seen in the US, they end up too much inefficient. Plus, what's the point of recieving income from the government when the employee has to regurgitate it in one form or another?
As for personal debt, this is the most disturbing piece of information you've ever brought up. However, what are we to do about this? This is at a personal level, and it often starts with bad finances. Higher utilities, fat-cat businessmen, and any other outside force can't be scapegoated, but for most cases, I lay blame squarly on the individual. Besides, if the individual got into this mess, they can get out. It just takes some better handling of finances, that's all. But I do feel sorry if they're a cleptomaniac.

The economy had one good quarter last year and one amazing one that was fueled largely by defense spending. That's not a recovery. And while you are correct that corporate profits are up, you are incorrect when you assert that personal income is up--personal income is falling in real terms, much as it did pre-Clinton.
According to TIME magazine's June 15th, 2004 edition, no new tank has been bought since 1993. Of course, it doesn't represent defense spending in general, but it has really slowed down dramatically. The only big projects in the defense industry is building new planes, and it's certainly not as many as even in the eighties.

And lest you forget your history, the first thing Clinton did when he got into office was raise taxes on the highest income earners, and worked toward a balanced budget. With the government no longer being the biggest borrower around, banks had to buy into venture capital funds to try to continue to increase earnings and that helped spur the economy during the tech boom.
The tech boom was spurred by the explosion of the IT industry. Around when Clinton got elected, the internet became prominent, cellphones were omnipresent, and mainframes were being replaced by PCs of equal capabilities. However, in both instances, Clinton's tax increase and Bush's tax cut led to a growing economy. Clinton's targeted personal wealth, but not corporate wealth, which combined to help banks. But that wasn't the only factor, of course. Bush's tax cuts did, among other things, cut the dividend taxation, which dramatically increased volume in the stock market.
The reason there was a tech bubble was simply because fund managers and banks lost their minds and stopped requiring simple things like, oh, business plans before jumping on board with IPOs. The behavior was actually very reminiscent of the 1920s behavior before the stock market crash. It had nothing to do with the levels of taxation under Clinton, and the levels of taxation under Bush have done nothing--I repeat, nothing--to spur any sort of recovery.
The first part is true, though many other factors were involved. However, Bush's tax cuts were a major factor in helping. I've harped too long on the dividend cuts, so why not I move onto something else, like the death tax cuts. This allows for more personal wealth to be spent and invested while a person is alive, rather than having it locked in a trust fund. Those who have over $650,000 in assets generally use most of their money to invest, supplying more corporate capital. Those with money can now do that without worrying if it'll go to their children.
In fact, Bush's biggest mistake on the tax cuts is a tax increase. Beforehand, if a US citizen worked abroad, the government wouldn't touch the first $80,000. That cap was lowered significantly, and as foreign contrators are more important, this may give them more reason to stay home. Living abroad isn't cheap, either. If you are working in either Europe or Asia, living costs can be through the roof. If you're working in a cheaper area, like the Middle East, you need to pay for extra security. This tax increase, I fear, may discourage foreign workers, and ultimatimatly may hurt US business abroad.

Neither.